Audyssey MultEQ Discussion Thread

[warpdrive]

Lordoftherings wrote:

By any means, do use the REW again, and each and every time.

* Two different manufacturers, two different implementations.

That was my whole point. The results I got were different and I can only conclude that Denon's impl results in different end results.

* Just curious, is it the Denon AVR-3808CI?

2310

I found that experimentating with various mic positions from several Audyssey MultEQ XT runs get you closer to satisfying results. Oh, and always by using the full eight maximum mic measurement positions.

I only have three seating positions (one couch with three seats), should I need to run extra positions?

"How do we know that we did a good run, from one day to the next"?
Great question. Again, make use of the REW. Try to have your set of ears in top shape each and every day, and make good use of them by listening attentively, but not extensively.

I guess I just posed the question to raise the point that if runs do vary so much, then does't that render the whole point of auto-calibration relatively useless? What good is it if I have to double check with REW every time? If I have to keep rerunning it repeatedly to get better and better results, it seems like I'd be better off just buying a BFD or something and doing it myself?

As long as I follow the guidelines (reading the Audyssey hints about correctly running the test, placing the mic's), shouldn't the first run be good enough?

[Lordoftherings]

warpdrive wrote:

I only have three seating positions (one couch with three seats), should I need to run extra positions?

I guess I just posed the question to raise the point that if runs do vary so much, then does't that render the whole point of auto-calibration relatively useless? What good is it if I have to double check with REW every time? If I have to keep rerunning it repeatedly to get better and better results, it seems like I'd be better off just buying a BFD or something and doing it myself?

As long as I follow the guidelines (reading the Audyssey hints about correctly running the test, placing the mic's), shouldn't the first run be good enough?

1. Not only Audyssey recommends using the full maximum mic positions available (in your case; eight '8' from your denon 2310CI, with MultEQ XT), but many people confirm that, including myself.
* Now, in my room, I only have one (1) listening position. What to do? What to do?
Improvise, read Audyssey guidelines, be wise, be smart, be creative, go beyond the boundaries of human laws, be a true disciple of God. ...Just take eight measurements from eight microphone positions, that's all.
Who cares, if I'm all alone in my only one listening position in my own room. I just want to feel that I'm not alone anymore. Anything's wrong with that?
I just take 3 measurements from the couch; center, right & left; then three more; a bit (one foot) ahead of the three ones in line with my ears; then two more, just behind (one foot) my couch.

Like so:

____________________________________Front__________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
______________________________4______5______6______________________________
_________________________3___________1___________2_________________________
_________________________________8_______7_________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________Back___________________________________

* There are zillion more possibilities, this is just one if them.
** But do take ALL THE EIGHT positions, for BEST results. So, YES, do take more than three.

After you done so, you might change your opinion on the validity of Audyssey Room EQ.
And don't be a fool, it's only a piece of electronics, you need some acoustic room treatments to fully benefit from a sound improvement in your room, hein? No? Makes sense? I sure hope so, cause if a machine can do what a human cannot, that'll be the day!
* Way of speach, of course.

We don't get it usually right from the first time. I'm still at it after about over 100 times!
But I just luv it, I luv the full process of it; to complicate my life is fun and exciting and feeling real alive.
I hate simplicity, it's so boring and unrewarding.

* What good would it be, if God had put us in this planet without any challenges whatsoever???
Can you just imagine, a world of Peace, without Wars?

* Audyssey Setup Guideline is like the ten commandments, from the Bible, as inscribed by God from the sky, with flashes of lightning as a pen, into the rock tablets holded by Moses (I saw it of my own eyes from the movie). It is also written in the Bible, which I used to read, when I was much younger.
Do you follow them all, every single day of your life?
Well, it's the same thing with Audyssey; takes time, dedication, patience, perseverance, and love, to finally reach the ultimate goal, isn't it?

Bob

[cavchameleon]

Great advice Bob.

Here is a very thorough setup guided (given the OK by Chris from Audyssey):

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post14456895

There is a link at bottom of the post to download a 'word' version, good to print out. This is compliments of Mark (giomania) of the thread and all those who added their 2cents to the process.

Thanks,
Ray

[maxmercy]

The increased bass response of Audyssey's MultEQ (I also have a Denon) can be as a result of the 'level matching' feature Audyssey uses. I was having trouble with Audyssey boosting my lows (below 20Hz) to the point that at higher volumes, my sub would distort. Audyssey is NOT supposed to add any correction to the sub below it's -3dB point, but here is what is happening:

Here is my subwoofer out's curve (with REW) without Audyssey engaged:



Here is the Audyssey curve for the sub out:



Here are the two together, showing the relative levels of each:


Now, if I move the Audyssey trace down by 10dB, here's what we get:



As you can see, Audyssey DOES NOT apply any correction below my sub's -3dB point (around 20Hz), but to match the levels between Audyssey on and Audyssey off (so no large shifts in volume will occur when Audyssey is turned on or off), Audyssey increases the gain throughout the whole subwoofer band by 10dB. That 10dB boost in the nether regions is what caused my sub to complain, and I needed to add a 15Hz 24dB/octave highpass filter in front of the sub's amp to counteract it....but now it sounds wonderful. Unfortunately, with only one sub, really only one listening spot can be dead flat...

The same boost occurs in the lower registers of the main/center/surround speakers, so if you do not have capable 'satellites', Audyssey can make them complain if crossed too low. 10dB is 10x the power.

JSS

[Lordoftherings]

cavchameleon wrote:

Great advice Bob.

Here is a very thorough setup guided (given the OK by Chris from Audyssey):

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post14456895

There is a link at bottom of the post to download a 'word' version, good to print out. This is compliments of Mark (giomania) of the thread and all those who added their 2cents to the process.

Thanks,
Ray

Thanks Ray. I did work a bit with Mark for some of my own recommendations on that Guide.
It is a very valuable source of great info on proper setup.
Cool man.

Bob

[Lordoftherings]

maxmercy wrote:

The increased bass response of Audyssey's MultEQ (I also have a Denon) can be as a result of the 'level matching' feature Audyssey uses. I was having trouble with Audyssey boosting my lows (below 20Hz) to the point that at higher volumes, my sub would distort. Audyssey is NOT supposed to add any correction to the sub below it's -3dB point, but here is what is happening:

Here is my subwoofer out's curve (with REW) without Audyssey engaged:



Here is the Audyssey curve for the sub out:



Here are the two together, showing the relative levels of each:



Now, if I move the Audyssey trace down by 10dB, here's what we get:



As you can see, Audyssey DOES NOT apply any correction below my sub's -3dB point (around 20Hz), but to match the levels between Audyssey on and Audyssey off (so no large shifts in volume will occur when Audyssey is turned on or off), Audyssey increases the gain throughout the whole subwoofer band by 10dB. That 10dB boost in the nether regions is what caused my sub to complain, and I needed to add a 15Hz 24dB/octave highpass filter in front of the sub's amp to counteract it....but now it sounds wonderful. Unfortunately, with only one sub, really only one listening spot can be dead flat...

The same boost occurs in the lower registers of the main/center/surround speakers, so if you do not have capable 'satellites', Audyssey can make them complain if crossed too low. 10dB is 10x the power.

JSS

Hi JSS,

Sorry man, but none of your graphs appear in your post!

* By the way, 10db is not 10 times the power, it is only a subjective figure. It's roughly about 3 times the power, ...I think.

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Lordoftherings wrote:

Hi JSS,

Sorry man, but none of your graphs appear in your post!

How 'bout now? I think I was able to fix it.

Regards,
Wayne

[goonstopher]

Would using a BFD on top of MultiEQ XT be overkill?

I plan on getting way more sub power than I need then using EQ to bring down any peak areas closer to any modes by possibly using Audyssey first then BFD or vice versa

[cavchameleon]

Lordoftherings wrote:

Thanks Ray. I did work a bit with Mark for some of my own recommendations on that Guide.
It is a very valuable source of great info on proper setup.
Cool man.

Bob

Bob,

I do remember your contributions to it (thought I saw that pic before). Thanks! It's such a LOOOOOOG thread and the guide is a nice condensation of the highlights. Great job!

Ray

[cavchameleon]

goonstopher wrote:

Would using a BFD on top of MultiEQ XT be overkill?

I plan on getting way more sub power than I need then using EQ to bring down any peak areas closer to any modes by possibly using Audyssey first then BFD or vice versa

It shouldn't be necessary (and actually may hurt the outcome) piggybacking one on the other. If you do decide to go that route, use BFD first as Audyssey corrects in the time domain and using BFD after would mess up the time domain corrections IMO.

Ray

[warpdrive]

Lordoftherings wrote:

Hi JSS,

Sorry man, but none of your graphs appear in your post!

* By the way, 10db is not 10 times the power, it is only a subjective figure. It's roughly about 3 times the power, ...I think.

No, 10dB is exactly 10 times power but twice as loud subjectively
Posted via Mobile Device

[cavchameleon]

warpdrive wrote:

No, 10dB is exactly 10 times power but twice as loud subjectively
Posted via Mobile Device

That's correct. It think it can be confusing to a lot. Probably lordoftherings was referring to the fact that it takes 10 time the power to increase the level by 3db (which sounds subjectively twice as much). Logarithmic scales can be confusing...

Ray

[Lordoftherings]

Wayne A. Pflughaupt wrote:

How 'bout now? I think I was able to fix it.

Regards,
Wayne

Nope, still nothing Wayne.

Bob

[Lordoftherings]

cavchameleon wrote:

That's correct. It think it can be confusing to a lot. Probably lordoftherings was referring to the fact that it takes 10 time the power to increase the level by 3db (which sounds subjectively twice as much). Logarithmic scales can be confusing...

Ray

Hi Ray,

Yeah, adding 3db is doubling the power. Example: If 100 watts is +20db, 200 watts is +23db.

* But true, all this is just very subjective when you're listening.
-> And if you really want to make 100 watts 10 times louder than what the volume level you're listening at;
...well, ...might is well dig a hole in the ground, and bury yourself in it.

Bob

[brucek]

Nope, still nothing Wayne.

OK, I downloaded them onto our site. This is always the best way to show pics.

Should be OK now.

brucek

[Lordoftherings]

brucek wrote:

OK, I downloaded them onto our site. This is always the best way to show pics.

Should be OK now.

brucek

Ya, Thanks Brucek, got it now.

Bob

[cavchameleon]

Lordoftherings wrote:

Hi Ray,

Yeah, adding 3db is doubling the power. Example: If 100 watts is +20db, 200 watts is +23db.

* But true, all this is just very subjective when you're listening.
-> And if you really want to make 100 watts 10 times louder than what the volume level you're listening at;
...well, ...might is well dig a hole in the ground, and bury yourself in it.

Bob

Yep! You're correct (multi-tasking and confused myself...)

Anyway, back on topic...

[Lordoftherings]

cavchameleon wrote:

Yep! You're correct (multi-tasking and confused myself...)

Anyway, back on topic...

No sweat, we're right back on it; Audyssey MultEQ XT, I luv it.

[cavchameleon]

Lordoftherings wrote:

No sweat, we're right back on it; Audyssey MultEQ XT, I luv it.

Me too!!!

Best auto setup out there (I would like to hear the Anthem, but it's way, way out of my price range). Everything just sounds so much clearer and more detailed with Audyssey IMO.

Ray

[Andysu]

eugovector wrote:

What would everyone's opinion be, BFD first and then let Audyssey do it's thing, or Audyssey first and then let BFD get what Audyssey doesn't?

Why not a little bit of both to satisfy and get the task accomplished.

What I can’t and will not understand is why some AVR are cheap as chips that support the full Monty Audyseey and yet the standalone model cost many times more than the cheap AVR I don’t understand why they just don’t lower the price within the few hundred. That is realistic market price, not several thousands.

I’d sooner have module that can be used with existing old AVR/AVP otherwise I might as well stick with Behringer’s realistic marketing attitude, at least I can afford it.

On the positive side the frequency graphs are most impressive.

Wayne A. Pflughaupt wrote:

The Radio Shack meter isn’t really “off;” it tracks the C-weighting scale, like it's supposed to. The problem is that we are often using it for something it wasn’t really designed for – determining frequency response rather than sound pressure levels.

C-Weighting Curve

Regards,
Wayne

Much in the same way we use the Behringer FBQ/DSP for EQ the sub bass or other.
Wayne, Is that graph of the Realistic analogue meter accurate.

[Lordoftherings]

Andysu wrote:

Wayne, Is that graph of the Realistic analogue meter accurate.

Here's two links that might help.

1. @ http://www.audioxpress.com/magsdirx/...a/koya2811.pdf

2. @ http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/~tnaqvi/..._462/61689.pdf

Bob

[corock]

goonstopher wrote:

Would using a BFD on top of MultiEQ XT be overkill?

I plan on getting way more sub power than I need then using EQ to bring down any peak areas closer to any modes by possibly using Audyssey first then BFD or vice versa

I'm in the same situation. I got a Denon 4308ci when they first came out and the Audyssey MultiEQ XT kills the bass in the lower levels, even when listening at reference level. I've taken several different mesurements to try and bring it back. I have a SVS PB13-U on the way and BFD 1124p. Goonstopher I was wondering if you've had a chance to try both scenarios...Audyssey then BFD vs BFD then Audyssey. If so which worked better in your opinion?

[Jon Liu]

I think that utilizing Audyssey's auto calibration and then using the BFD to fine-tune is a better idea.

Audyssey does a pretty good job at getting general peaks tamed, which makes it easier on the user and then after some of the work is already done for you, then manually fine tuning becomes a bit easier with the BFD.

[brucek]

Audyssey then BFD vs BFD then Audyssey. If so which worked better in your opinion?

There's been lots of discussion about this, and it seems that Audyssey doesn't do as good a job when it has very large corrections to make. Many find that if they take care of the large peaks with the BFD and then let Audyssey smooth out what's left, appears to work best.

brucek

[Jon Liu]

hmmm exactly the opposite of what I experienced, but then that's not the first time that's happened either!

I don't disagree and maybe it's just a matter of "try both ways and see if one way was better" for the user.