Audyssey MultEQ Discussion Thread

[Sonnie]

This thread will be the discussion thread for Audyssey MultEQ and the graphs posted in the Audyssey Graphs thread.

Let's keep the graphs presented in that thread and the comments in this thread.

Thanks!

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Pretty impressive...

Regards,
Wayne

[SierraMikeBravo]

Sonnie,

Imagine what Pro could do for you now!

[Blaser]

WOW! I am easily impressed with things that I don't own... I see some again and again in the future.

Just out of curiosity, why do you use 1/3 octave smoothing for subs? (yes, that's you Sonnie ), isn't it possible to hide some FR non-uniformity specially at LF?

Jerm,
your LFR is what?.... perfect? drawn by hand? You too Sonnie!!

[Sonnie]

It really does a much better job in the low end range.

I think 1/3 octave smoothing is probably good enough for viewing the response. Most likely any anomalies at higher resolutions will be unnoticeable by most people. I cannot chisel that in stone, but it has always sounded reasonable to me.

[SierraMikeBravo]

The reason 1/3 octave is used initially is because that is the resolution of human hearing. Once you get a good idea of what the problems are in the 1/3 octave range, you can focus in on those areas that are problematic with a higher resolution to try and correct them.

Hasn't been much info on here regarding Audyssey Pro. If you think XT is impressive, you haven't seen anything yet. Pro blows XT out of the water! If anyone is looking for a receiver or pre/pro in the future, get one that is Audyssey Pro capable. The step above that is even more impressive...the Audyssey Sound EQ.

[Blaser]

That's still a very good FR Sonnie. I think it is a matter of "schools". A school will not apply smoothing for perfect accuracy, another will not bother assuming the effects of 1/3rd octave smoothing can be neglected without spoiling the listening experience.
IMO, both of them are acceptable, but I just belong to the first one.

[Sonnie]

I have not seen too many receivers with the Pro version thus far. I think Denon has one, but not sure of any others.

I may eventually get the Sound EQ if it drops in price. Even at dealer cost it is a bit much for me.

[atledreier]

Could any of you plot a waterfall with and without, and maybe even an impulse plot to see what audyssey does in the time domain.

[eugovector]

Jerm357, what sub(s) are you using?

Good for future posters to add as well.

Also, the Integra 8.8 has installer ready Audyssey Pro, though price is north of $2k.

[Jerm357]

My sub is a DIY SoundSplinter RL-P 15 in 8.5cf enclosure tuned to 15.5hz.

[Bailman]

Hello people,

I really appreciate the time taken to make and then post these graphs. I'd like to get a dialog going and I wish to say right now that I am not intending to be a pain. My understanding is Audyssey claims to flatten the response in the time domain to reduce ringing caused by other EQ's yet I have not yet seen a graph anywhere from a consumer, reviewer or the manufacturer that shows ringing to be reduced anywhere.

I looked at the much appreciated graphs from Sonnie and Jerm357 and noticed that the results were not as good as the OP think. Sonnie showed he did obtained good FR results in the main/sub integration and undoubtedly it would be heard as an improvement, but he also strangely suffered in the 2.5K and 6K-10K area after the implementation. Jerm357 posted graphs show a poor response in the 100-300Hz which could also be easily perceived as a improvement cutting those not so articulate frequencies. To me though it took a not so troubled area and trashed it. He also suffers in a failed 6K and up but I'm thinking he accidentally had the THX re-EQ feature on.

Perhaps this is because of the receivers processing power is still very limited but Jerm357 has the XT version as do I which claims to have just that. Perhaps Audyssey as the manufacturers claim, really needs to be performed on a PC then have the calculations transfered to get optimal results. Yet again, I have not seen any graphs which show this to do what the manufacturer claims it can do. Anyway, since these overhangs cannot be removed by a parametric either,why give up a personalized FR in the low octaves when it isn't doing such a good job at the higher octaves?

After seeing these posted graphs I immediately Googled for more and this is something that came up.
http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm


I understand Kal has the Onkyo Prepro with the MultEQ XT capable of the Pro incorporation which he was going to obtain and review. What I do not know is what version was being used by his friend Ethan.

Ethan wrote:

"Recently several products have appeared claiming to do even more than EQ by using sophisticated DSP (Digital Signal Processing). They claim not only to flatten the frequency response, but also to reduce modal ringing and early reflections, and to do so successfully over the full range of audio frequencies for multiple seats in a room"


"Unfortunately, the popular audio press gushes uncritically over products like these, printing press releases as fact and never actually testing the validity of manufacturer claims. The appeal of a small electronic device that claims to replace large and visually imposing acoustic panels is undeniable. But wishful thinking does not make it so!"

"Even the vendors themselves offer no real proof that their products work as claimed. I emailed Audyssey on October 29, 2006, regarding the technical descriptions and graphs shown in THIS series of pages on their web site. I asked if they had any data to support their claims of reducing ringing, and I also asked for clarification about how the tests on their site had been performed. For example, how large the room is and how far the measuring microphone was from the walls. At the time of this writing, 3-1/2 months later, I have yet to receive a reply from Audyssey. "


"Audyssey claims to flatten the response and reduce ringing over an area large enough to encompass multiple seats, so I measured at three adjacent locations on Kal's couch. It turns out this was not necessary because the MultEQ was unable to reduce ringing even at the same place it was calibrated for. As you can see in Figure 1 at left, the main improvement is a 6 dB reduction of the lowest response peak around 35 Hz.

The graphs in Figures 1 and 2 show not only the raw low frequency response, but also the individual decay times for each peak frequency. This type of graph is called a waterfall plot, and the "mountains" come forward over time to display the decay times at each frequency. You can read a more complete explanation of waterfall plots and the ETF software I used..."


Now since there is no proof that Audyessy improves the decay times/ringing in the low end as they claim, why throw away the Behringers personalization capabilities for our subs? I had/have taken mine out of the equation BTW and I myself have noticed improvements but also immediately acknowledged sacrifices in the low end articulation and slam which the BFD could re incorporate. I am not so sold on the Audyssey implementation in our systems

[Sonnie]

Bailman wrote:

I looked at the much appreciated graphs from Sonnie and Jerm357 and noticed that the results were not as good as the OP think. Sonnie showed he did obtained good FR results in the main/sub integration and undoubtedly it would be heard as an improvement, but he also strangely suffered in the 2.5K and 6K-10K area after the implementation.

Anyway, since these overhangs cannot be removed by a parametric either,why give up a personalized FR in the low octaves when it isn't doing such a good job at the higher octaves?

Now since there is no proof that Audyessy improves the decay times/ringing in the low end as they claim, why throw away the Behringers personalization capabilities for our subs? I had/have taken mine out of the equation BTW and I myself have noticed improvements but also immediately acknowledged sacrifices in the low end articulation and slam which the BFD could re incorporate. I am not so sold on the Audyssey implementation in our systems

Actually, the results were indeed as good as the OP thinks... as per my comments. I did not suffer in the 2.5KHz range, although it did not improve on it. It did hurt me a bit in that 6KHz range. As far as what it did above 12-13KHz... I can't hear that anyway.

I will be much quicker to hear the considerable improvement in the lower end than I will ever notice the damage done at 6KHz... particularly with movies, and probably so even with music. Overall I think the good outweighs the bad.

I would rather not even place the BFD in my system believing less in the chain would always potentially be better, plus the BFD cannot do what Audyssey has done for me in the lower end... as far as leveling my response because it cannot manage 10-20Hz like Audyssey does.

Obviously YMMV.

I will concede that this particular Audyssey did not do as well as an earlier, supposedly less powerful version did, in the middle to upper range. See this thread for those graphs.

I have not experimented much with my current Audyssey XT. It may be that I could somehow get it to work better, but I just haven't looked into it that close. At some point in time I will play around with it more and see what happens. I will also post some waterfall graphs, etc. I can't promise when though. Someone will probably beat me to it.

[Jerm357]

I have updated my graphs to show the current status of my system and Audyssey. Some how I posted some early graphs I took when I was working out a phase problem and using the wrong cable for REW when I first bought this receiver. In the new graphs I posted you can see that Audyssey has not "trashed" my 100-300hz response. It seems to remain quit flat and the peek and roll off around 5000hz I believe is caused by the inadequacies of the RadioShack SPL meter to measure high frequencies.(I realy need to get a better mic) Anyways, there is no doubt in my mind in my mind that Audyssey has incressed the sound quality in my system. The separations between all the channels I hear now is so awesome, I could not image being without it.

[Bailman]

Hello People,

Again TNX for the graphs. What I was trying to say in a very roundabout way was/is this:

I am not so happy with my Audyssey results after many attempts in various forms per manufacturers posted suggestions.

I have yet to discover any truth to Audyssey's claims of reducing ringing, overhang while improving decay times in our
listening rooms... the stated specific reason why using our PEQ's are so inferior.

Audyssey appears to need either a more powerful chip in our processors or a separate computer to properly do its
calculations to remove any problems in our listening room FR's.

Why remove the Behringer only because Audyssey is much easier to use?

NOTE: I am not anti-Audyssey. It is pointing us in the right direction.


Now to qualify myself without any graphs to back up what my ears tell me. I have driven a car with flat FR (+/- 3db) for 10 plus years with many hours in it and the Audyssey has done somethings that aren't correct to these knowing ears. It has taken away something lacking in HT to begin with, mid-bass punch. Audyssey also has removed much if not most of the sub articulation and lastly there's something not right in the midband and lower treble frequency's going on. My ears tell me its a improper midband cut and lower treble gain.


With the things above in mind, why not reincorporate the Behringer for a more personal taste thats still within a +/-3db range to...
a) bring back some of the lost sub articulation...
b) possibly offset the anomalies that have occurred in the midband and lower treble area caused by the final calculations/implementations?

This is following part of Audyssey's theory from what I have gathered in another forum which claims It also takes one area reading and applies a filter at another area to compensate for the original reading.

Lastly Sonnie a question for you. I think I remember you had a house curve and you mentioned you were 20db hot in the sub area. You appear to be one of if not the original REW Behringer people. How were you that hot with the use of REW and Behringer?

[Sonnie]

Bailman wrote:

Lastly Sonnie a question for you. I think I remember you had a house curve and you mentioned you were 20db hot in the sub area. You appear to be one of if not the original REW Behringer people. How were you that hot with the use of REW and Behringer?

I really do not remember how I got this hot. Most likely it was because I had just got in the new receiver and the pair of PC-Ultra subs. I know I was fiddling with my sub levels. These graphs were also without the BFD in the loop. I may have initially set it up with the BFD and then after taking the BFD out, just not leveled my subs and mains before running some response measurements with and without Audyssey. I am really guessing though.

I would appreciate any thoughts you all might have on my graphs.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...html#post97798

Why am I getting such a peak at 5k? Then such fall-off towards 20k? Is that at all normal, or should I be striving towards flat-ness?

Why did Audyssey mix my sub channel about 10db too hot? Isn't it trying for a flat response?

-Bob

[Blaser]

RS SPL meter is inaccurate at 5K and above, so you can't really know.

Aww shucks, I'm only now finding that out. The extensive use of the RS meter in the instructions for REW made me feel pretty safe about using it. I never saw any warning that my measurements weren't valid.

I should have read more!

[Blaser]

RS meter is fine for subwoofer measurements for sure though.

[Bailman]

Torsion wrote:

I would appreciate any thoughts you all might have on my graphs.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...html#post97798

Why am I getting such a peak at 5k? Then such fall-off towards 20k? Is that at all normal, or should I be striving towards flat-ness?

Why did Audyssey mix my sub channel about 10db too hot? Isn't it trying for a flat response?

-Bob

How does it sound to you?

Honestly I am not at all impressed with Audyssey XT. I have lost all this->>>

[Bailman]

blaser wrote:

RS SPL meter is inaccurate at 5K and above, so you can't really know.

I thought the opposite was more true and with correction values you get a fairly accurate picture. My ears tell me that A XT has done something similar in my environment as it has with Torsions in the lower treble. I guess it be OK for me if it hadn't taken all the low end (80HZ- 40HZ) away. I may just need to rearrange my room again...less for cosmetics and all for performance.

[Blaser]

Bailman wrote:

I thought the opposite was more true and with correction values you get a fairly accurate picture.

Fairly accurate picture below 500 Hz. But I wouldn't do any measurements for fullrange speakers with an RS Meter. The Behringer ECM 8000 mic would be my choice.

[Jerm357]

Torsion wrote:

I would appreciate any thoughts you all might have on my graphs.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...html#post97798

Why am I getting such a peak at 5k? Then such fall-off towards 20k? Is that at all normal, or should I be striving towards flat-ness?

Why did Audyssey mix my sub channel about 10db too hot? Isn't it trying for a flat response?

-Bob

My graphs show the same thing at 5k from using the RS meter for full range so I would'int blame the system, blame the RS mic. About the sub, after you run Audyssey where does it set the sub trim. If its set at -15db then your gain on your subwoofer itself needs to be turned down then run Audyssey again.

I did a few A/B tests between the Audyssey tune and my "Manual" settings of the Onkyo's internal banded EQ.

They both sounded different... but it was hard for me to decide exactly which sounded better. In the end I chose to leave Audyssey turned on.