Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

Audyssey XT vs XT32

Tags
audyssey xt32
87K views 234 replies 21 participants last post by  Ragnwald 
#1 ·
Hi, I'd like to chime in on the XT vs XT32 comparisons (only brief, still have a lot of listening to do) and maybe get some answers on another issue with my setup. First the equipment. I had (still have) an NAD T-785 AVR with the AS-EQ1 setup (so XT with equivalent XT32 setup for the subs). This setup sounded pretty awesome, especially in the bass range. I purchased the Denon A100 (XT32 based) mostly for both the Audyssey upgrade (love Audyssey products, this will be my 5th one) and the other options (network capability, etc.). As for the AVR's Amp stage, I feel that I down graded (the NAD has two toroid trannys and the unit weighs 16lbs more than the Denon). I can really tell when playing at reference levels, but not at low to moderate levels (at reference, I used to be able to hit 109db on the peaks, with the Denon, only 105db). This is most likely to speakers that are not that efficient.

Now for the comparison (subjective at the moment, need to do some measurements to see what's happening), the XT32 seems to be much 'brighter', it seems to be boosting the treble much higher than the XT. Wondering if it was a mic problem, I used a mic from another Denon receiver I have (same model, so I assume it's calibrated the same way). I got the same results. The blending of the mid/treble range is incredible, but I'm just not used to the increase in level compared to the rest of the spectrum. Is this normal behavior or am I getting strange results? I did run the 8 series of mic positions several times and got the same results (and then compared them to the NAD XT version just to confirm). The XT32 over all gives a sense of greater envelopment than the XT version. I tried many movies that I've seen several times on the previous system and felt the same way. I have not tried the DSX capabilities yet (wides/heights) as my room is too small to accommodate them).

As for the subs, I have another issue here. I'm using two subs, so did run the A100 with the 2 sub setup. When done, I seemed to have lost some bass (the sound is good, just 4 db lower than with the NAD/AS-EQ1 setup at the reference level). So, I wanted to check if the issue was with the way the A100 leveled the subs (taking into account coupling from 2 subs). I went ahead and put the AS-EQ1 in the chain, calibrated the AS-EQ1, then re-calibrated the A100 with the new setup. Yep, got the 4db back. This seems strange as the levels should be the same without the AS-EQ1 in the link. I re-calibrated the system again a couple times with and without the AS-EQ1 and got the same results every time (in fact, when I went back to calibrating the A100 without the AS-EQ1, it mentioned that the subs were too hot and had to drop each one by a couple db before moving onto calibration, when I went back to the AS-EQ1, I had to bump up each sub by the same amount to hit the 75db requirement). I 'really' wanted not to have to use the AS-EQ1 in the system (one of the reasons for getting the A100), but at the moment, it sounds better with it in the chain (even if I bump up the A100 sub levels to match when the AS-EQ1 is not in the system). I wonder if this is because of the additional EQ being done in the sub range by the A100 on top of the AS-EQ1 (I do have a dip in the 30Hz range that is not fully taken care of with the AS-EQ1, due to room dimensions). Also, I do use the 32 positions when calibrating the AS-EQ1. The A100 is limited to the 8 positions, so may be part of the 'sounding different' portions, but not the levels - this one is puzzling me.

Another question, will purchasing the Pro kit change this difference? If so, I can remove the AS-EQ1 from the system.

Ray
 
See less See more
#129 ·
Yeah, no doubt. Fortunately I'm really enjoying playing around with this stuff. :)

I always advocate the best possible manual setup possible before using Audyssey. This means that if you can use something like REW and having options on your amp for variable phase, and PEQ's, I recommend using them to improve your pre Audyssey response before running the auto eq. In my experience, this always improves the results you will get from Audyssey.

In a multi sub setup, its always important to gain match the subs manually at the seating position to ensure they are properly balanced with each other, and the phase setting can also become more important.
I was a bit surprised because I assumed Audyssey's time shifting could make the same magnitude of adjustment as the phase knob and do a better job of it. I assumed I'd see no difference at all in running the configuration with different phase knob settings. These experiments show that's not really the case, though. Too bad there aren't some Audyssey engineers hanging around here to explain the science. :)

Getting a bit off topic, how do you go about manually adjusting your subs? I've just been doing trial and error. I leave one sub alone and take multiple measurements at different phase settings on the other one. Ideally I'd get a measurement for every permutation of both subs' knobs, but that would take more patience than I have.

It seems like there should be a way to optimize each sub individually, but there wouldn't be a way to predict how they'd interact with each other. Is there a way to look at the whole frequency range in the RTA so I could move the knobs and watch the results on the screen? I've done that with individual frequencies to try and mitigate nulls, but that doesn't help for the rest of the band.
 
#128 ·
I always advocate the best possible manual setup possible before using Audyssey. This means that if you can use something like REW and having options on your amp for variable phase, and PEQ's, I recommend using them to improve your pre Audyssey response before running the auto eq. In my experience, this always improves the results you will get from Audyssey.

In a multi sub setup, its always important to gain match the subs manually at the seating position to ensure they are properly balanced with each other, and the phase setting can also become more important.
 
#132 ·
Here's another update on this AVR, now with the DSX portion. I finally tried out adding wides, which are the same speakers as used for my rears (all from the same line of speakers so the timber matches). I tried scenes from many movies and switched back and forth, playing each scene over with wides in and out (it's just a button push - there is a dedicated button for this on the remote). All I have to say is WOW!!! You have got to try this! It really does add a lot to the front sound stage (at least in my setup). You feel totally enveloped in the sound -a much better addition than rears! Now for music with surround (SACD's and DVD Audio discs with surround recorded) it really depended on the music. Sometimes is sounded better and sometimes is distracted (loss in pinpoint imaging - like a slight echo). I did not notice this with movies, the experience was always enhanced with the wides. I'm sold on it. My room is small and it works great. I'm sure with a larger room it may even be more pronounced. I have not tried the heights and probably won't as I don't think I can accommodate them.

If you have large planar speakers (like ML or Maggies) I'm not sure how this technology would work. Rooms such as Sonnies with large ML may not benefit since those speakers already have incredible dispersion (but it would be interesting to see/hear if there is a difference - although probably cost prohibited for most, in my case it was pretty affordable).

So, if you can, just try it!!! You'll be pleasantly surprised IMO.
 
#143 ·
You have now got me thinking I need to try out the wides my-self. I have heard that it really is a nice addition and your comments have put me over the top in the need to try it.

I will report back once I can set-it up, probably won't be until this weekend though.

Thanks for the info.
 
#133 ·
Thanks for the update on the DSX Ray... that sounds like it may be a hit for a lot of home theaters. I was watching Robin Hood last night and thinking about the wides, but as mentioned by both of us already, the ML's are already throwing out such a large (wide) sound stage now that it would probably be negligible in my room. I could even see it potentially making things worse. It won't matter though, it would be too expensive for to trial something like this. Maybe one day when I got some free money lying around I can afford to give it a shot.
 
#141 ·
I've been enjoying it so far - pretty incredible (I think it would be for most direct radiating speakers). As for your ML, I would be very curious how it would work with them, but as you mention, it may be detrimental to the sound - creating some weird echo effects since your speakers already have incredible sound stage ability. Did you already get your AVR? Curious what you think about it with XT32.
 
#135 ·
Thanks, Moonfly. That helps. So I need to look for position first before messing with anything else. Is there a chance I might get the best response by putting the two subs right next to each other? Or stacking them maybe?

Here's another XT32 question: when I run the setup, I get a phase warning for the front L/R and the rear surround L/R. Is Audyssey telling me it thinks the speakers are out of phase with each other? Or in phase with each other but out of phase with the rest of the speakers? The wiring is correct so I assume it's a room effect, and I wonder what (if anything) I should do about it.
 
#142 ·
John,

Looks like there are already answers on this, just want to add to them. Cris from Audssey noted that, if you do get a phase warning, double check that all connections are correct (as mentioned already) and if they are, just move on to the measurements. There have been a very few cases though where they found some speakers wired wrong internally (done during manufacturing where the leads were just put on the wrong terminal at the speaker), but that was rare. If you feel up to it, you can check this, but for the most part you can ignore the warning if your connections are correct.
 
#136 ·
If you have a few available positions for your subs, you should do a quick measure of each sub in the spots available. Dont use the PEQ's etc, just measure the raw response with Audyssey off ans see which is naturally the best. This way you give your self the best start you can. No point starting with a worse position and fixing it with eq only to end up with an inferior end result anyway. Once you got the best spot, then work from there.

Again, if you have 2 subs it gets much harder. You then need to find the best 2 spots and work from there. As you say, you may be as well simply stacking them, but if you have an glaring issues, then the chances are spreading your subs out will help a lot. You need to position your 2 subs, measure them individually and overlay the responses. Your looking for where one response might have a dip, the other has a peak in the same place, so where one sub has a null the other will fill it in, which will result in an overall smoother response before manual adjustments or eq, again helping to get to the very best end result. If you stack and get a fairly smooth response, or at least one with no glaring dips, then be happy to stack them etc.

So to sum up, find the best spot(s), then use all available manual options to improve the response, then complete with auto eq to mop up and remaining issues. This will result in the best response from your subwoofers in your system.

A phase warning is usually telling you there is a problem with the wiring. This could be incorrect poles on the speaker connections, so triple check them, its quite easy to accidentally mix them. Ensure all positives on the amp go to all the positives on the speakers, front and rear. It can also be caused by a poor connection. Make sure all cables well terminated, and if you have any jumper bars on your speaker terminals, ensure they are seated properly. If you bi-amp or bi-wire, ensure they are all correct as well. Those are the majority of the culprits, so hopefully that will fix the phase error report problem.
 
#138 ·
You need to position your 2 subs, measure them individually and overlay the responses.
No reason to do this... just measure them both together and save time. If the spot works, it works, no reason to waste time measuring two subs and overlaying and trying to figure out if they if they are opposite enough when one measurement will tell if they work together. :T
 
#137 ·
And with phase and audyssey, remember that you should next re-adjust the subwoofer distance as this, in my understanding, is how audyssey compensated for phase/electronic delay. Now, if you get a distance that is actually shorter than the real distance, this is likely an indicator that you are getting sound transmission through your floor to the mike, rather than through the air. You'll want to isolate the mic stand/tripod that your using from the floor or other surface.
 
#139 ·
I simply like to see how the 2 subs responses work together. Sure you can get away without that step, but I prefer not to so I can see which sub is doing what. If you had one sub with a very bad response and one with pretty good, its entirely possible only one sub would be doing most of the work and this would be the dominant force in the overall response chart, but you wouldnt know it because you cant see the individual plots.

For example, in a theoretical scenario, if you had one sub that was fairly flat throughout its range, with some minimal peaks, but the other had a couple really bad nulls, then you may as well stack your subs for the max spl output and system headroom. If you dont measure the individual responses, which takes a matter of a minute, you simply wouldnt know. It might depend how you are, but I can be pretty obsessive about things like this, which can and do play on my mind. Doing the individual responses and overlay puts my mind completely at rest if nothing else. FWIW, I have seen combinations that would compare with the above scenario.
 
#140 · (Edited)
I simply like to see how the 2 subs responses work together. Sure you can get away without that step, but I prefer not to so I can see which sub is doing what.
If you want to do this for your own pleasure, you can... but it really ain't that beneficial and is a waste of time.


If you had one sub with a very bad response and one with pretty good, its entirely possible only one sub would be doing most of the work and this would be the dominant force in the overall response chart, but you wouldnt know it because you cant see the individual plots.
This is highly unlikely and will not be an issue when you level match the subs and equalize them together.


For example, in a theoretical scenario, if you had one sub that was fairly flat throughout its range, with some minimal peaks, but the other had a couple really bad nulls, then you may as well stack your subs for the max spl output and system headroom. If you dont measure the individual responses, which takes a matter of a minute, you simply wouldnt know.
I am not sure how you even begin to qualify this statement. The sub itself should be flat within its designed limits, if it ain't, get a new sub.

If you are referring to having a sub in one part of the room with a few minimal peaks and another sub in another part of the room with bad nulls, you will not know the combined response until you measure the combined response of those two subs in their respective locations. The ONLY way to know if stacked subs will sound better than spreading them out, is to measured the stacked subs together and compare that response to the combined responses you obtain from the combined measurements when they are spread out, not by measuring them individually.
 
#144 ·
Mike,

You have got to try it! Just make sure the speakers used for the Wides match the Fronts as close as possible in timber (from the same line of speakers you are using). It's recommended that they be the same exact speakers, but that would be hard for most to do. In my case, my Fronts are NHT Fours (towers). I tried the Threes (equivalent to the top portion of the Fours for the most part) and the Zeros (smaller brother of the Threes) and the difference was pretty much nil (since they are XO'd to the subs) so I kept the Zeros for the Wides and put the Threes back on surround duty (which I like better there for surround music from SACD's and DVD Audio discs).

Go to Audyssey's web site on the topic:
http://www.audyssey.com/technology/dsx.html

I played around with the locations a bit and you do need to get it close to get the best effect. The wides should be at about 60deg from the center (Fronts at 45deg). I found that if you are within + of the mark, it sounded the same (at least in my room).

If you already have the speakers and some wire, then it won't hurt to try it out. I think you'll be surprised with the results. I did some re-arranging of the room to experiment and then had to do some permanent re-arranging as I was hooked right away after playing scenes from several movies, comparing DSX activated and not activated. Don't forget to re-run Audyssey after fully setting it up and re-correcting the XO points (the AVR always gets them too low - or non at all with my speakers except for the smallest ones).

Have fun with it and report back, curious to hear what you think.
 
#145 ·
Sorry, nitpicking-warning:

Timbre:
–noun
1.
Acoustics, Phonetics. the characteristic quality of a sound, independent of pitch and loudness, from which its source or manner of production can be inferred. Timbre depends on the relative strengths of the components of different frequencies, which are determined by resonance.
2.
Music. the characteristic quality of sound produced by a particular instrument or voice; tone color.
 
#146 ·
Marshall,

Thanks for the clarification. Just wanted to note that the speakers should be as close in sound to each other so that they blend well. It's pretty critical for the wides (as I'm sure for the heights if also going that route) since they will output pretty close to the same signal that their matching fronts will (WL same as FL).
 
#149 ·
Update. I had to work on placement for the wides due to WAF - the wides were 'in the walk way entering the room' which became unacceptable. So, instead of the recommended placements of R/L 30 Deg from center and Wides 60 Deg from center, I had to work with acceptable WAF placement. The results are still pretty good, not quite as large a front sound stage, but still incredible results IMO. The angles I ended up with were: R/L 28 Deg from center and Wides at 48 Deg from center. In order to get the them all the same and to know my angle values, I'm using a laser light level on a tripod which has a rotating platform marked with the angles (had this for some years - has always worked great for speaker placement and other thinks like getting pictures mounted exactly right, construction, etc.). The main thing is to have the front baffles perpendicular to the main LP and have all the speakers pretty close to the same distance (although the software will account for this anyway). Then, of course, re-run Audyssey. Then...Enjoy.
 
#150 ·
That laser light level on a tripod sounds pretty slick, do you have the name of it so I could look and see if I can pick one up?

Thanks for the tips on the DSX wide speakers Ray. I do have some speakers to try out but there floor standers so if I like it then I will need to look for some bookshelves to match my mains. The floor standers for wides will probably be a no no but I want to experiment and see if it worth looking into.
 
#151 ·
A quick update on my XT vs XT32 via the Denon 4311.

I finally added a second sub that I have been working on for awhile (build thread to come in the sealed DIY section when I get more free time) I wasn't too happy with the dual sub calibration of XT32 and re-ran it a few times. I finally just set-it up as a single sub with both subs as close in distance as I could possibly get from the LP so the phase would be the same. I tried it this way and got the same results so I added in my SMS-1 again and made some corrections and the sound was better. I still have more experimenting to do and will put my Onkyo 886P back in to see what normal XT does for the subs when I get the time.

I have changed out my sub set-up so it could be something else contributing to this but in the past I XT did such a great job on my subs that no further tweaking was necessary. I guess I was just surprised that XT32 didn't at least match what XT did for me but for now I would have to think I made an error somewhere. Once i swap out the Denon for the Onkyo I can rule out one possibility.
 
#152 ·
I finally added a second sub that I have been working on for awhile...
A couple things to keep in mind. Using non-matching subs in a dual setup can be difficult. Also, you should work with a single sub first to find the best position in your room. REW comes in very handy for this. Then, add the second sub and move it around until you get the response dialed in as best you can. Then, as a last step, run and EQ such as Audyssey.

I don't know if this will help you or not, but hopefully it will.
 
#156 ·
Great, Let us know what you think of it.:T
 
#160 ·
^^^ Forgot to add in my above post, if you get one of these do not forget to also purchase eye protection made for lasers - most of them use a freq band that will blind you quickly, and make sure no one will be entering the room you are using this tool unless also wearing eye protection. There are some newer versions that are not as dangerous, but always be on the side of caution. Just and FYI...
 
#161 ·
Just to be clear, the recommendation I made for matching subs is assuming a rectangular symmetrical room, based on my own experience, the idea that the coupling of two identically performing subs will be easier to predict across various volume levels, frequency ranges, etc.

These criteria may be irrelevant given a person's particular setup/room/equipment, and the topic of whether or not to match subs may warrant investigation in a separate thread. This, and much other advice in home theater (whether or not to absorb 1st reflections, whether different amps/cables make an audible difference, etc) is continually being studied, discussed, and up for debate and should not be taken as gospel without first applying some critical reasoning of your own. There's only one person who knows for sure the workings of the world, and I'm not him/her/them.

It is my opinion, based on my understanding of what I have read and personally experienced, and that may not be universal (or even correct for that matter). I will be happy to attempt to refute any evidence to the contrary, but will not discount it outright and may wholly fail in my pursuit to prove the contrary.

In the face of advice to the contrary, any advice I give should be considered my opinion only, not the official position of The Home Theater Shack. Disagreement leads to discovery, new knowledge is grown on past misconceptions, and if I have misconcept-ed, let me say I'm happy to do my part. :)
 
#166 ·
Mike,

Here is the leveling system I purchased. You can probably do a search for it. I got it at Costco at the time for a very cheap price. It works very well and is very affordable compared to many (if you are in construction or the like though, it may be better to purchase a higher quality one).

http://www.csntools.com/asp/show_detail.asp?sku=AXN1013

Alton Multi-Beam and Rotary Laser Level Set - AT013230

 
#170 ·
I experimented with the XT32 and Sub EQ HT nearly 4 hours Tuesday evening and probably the better of 8 hours yesterday. Ultimately, I had to break out the BFD to remove a pretty nasty bump around 40-50Hz. Funny I never remember that being there before this last few weeks of testing, but I highly doubt there are ghosts in the room altering the signal. I am pretty sure my natural response was pretty decent back when first built the room. I have been trying to dig up some older response graphs, but seem to have misplaced them (I thought I posted them here somewhere). I thought for a bit it may have been the UMC-1 doing something funny to the signal, but after swapping over to the 4311, it was still there.

Audyssey improved the overall response pretty well, but it did not do much with the bass. I did find that using the Sub EQ HT was better than running both subs together. I am guessing it was phase related, since the only difference between Sub EQ HT and one sub is the fact that Sub EQ HT will measure distance and level between dual subs before combining them to measure response.

I tried measuring 1 position vs 4 vs 8. When measuring 4 and 8, I measured the primary position twice to try to favor it a bit more. For the primary listening position and the two positions to either side, the response was nearly identical and the 4 measurements option ended up being the best measurement choice to obtain the best final response for the main listening position. All three front seats ended up with basically the same response, while the rear seats are a bit bass heavy, but no matter how I measured, they were bass heavy after correction was applied, so I stuck with optimizing the primary position since I spend more time in the room than anyone else. :bigsmile:

I also did a lot of test measuring...

Front subs only (amps for rear subs off).
Rear subs only (amps for fronts subs off).
Varying the amp levels between front subs and rear subs before and after Audyssey (favoring front vs favoring rear).
Running Sub EQ HT, then combining front and rear.

Nothing seemed to work as well as just letting Sub EQ HT do its own thing the proper way. It got it as right as it could get it.

I'll post up some more graphs when I get a chance to label them properly, but I did want to show you guys my final results with XT32, Dynamic EQ, Sub EQ HT and 5 filters in the BFD.



If the print is not too small... the response is from 5Hz to 200Hz with 1/3 smoothing applied.

I used my IBF-Akustic mic with its provided cal file for all measurements.

One thing I would like to try is forcing the LCR and surrounds to crossover at 80Hz electronically prior to running Audyssey, so that it would not try to equalize those speakers full range (it sets my fronts and surrounds to Large). I do not know (maybe I should ask Audyssey), but it seems logical that Audyssey would use more resources on the sub equalization if it did not have to deal with equalizing below 80Hz on the other speakers.

I need to look for a 5 channel electronic crossover.
 
#175 ·
... One thing I would like to try is forcing the LCR and surrounds to crossover at 80Hz electronically prior to running Audyssey, so that it would not try to equalize those speakers full range (it sets my fronts and surrounds to Large). I do not know (maybe I should ask Audyssey), but it seems logical that Audyssey would use more resources on the sub equalization if it did not have to deal with equalizing below 80Hz on the other speakers. ...
Congratulations on picking up a MultEQ XT 32 capable unit.

With the greatly increased number of filter coefficients for the mains with XT 32, I don't think you need to worry too much about it wasting resources on a range you don't need. But this should be one of the advantages of Audyssey Pro, that it knows your choice of crossover before it calculates the filter and therefore calculates the coefficients only over the range you actually use. (Another advantage is that it has unlimited compute power in the PC to fine tune the result, before downloading the calculated filters to the AVR.)

This might have been more important with MultEQ XT. When I looked at the effect of Audyssey on the preout curves, I saw that its changes at the low end of the mains were very broad. My speculation is that it did not spend many resources there, that it spread them in some sense evenly over the full range, but maybe it just took lots of coefficients to change the frequency response at the low end, and restricting the range before calculating the filters would have helped.

Bill
 
#171 ·
Sonnie, welcome to XT32, pretty nice. WOW your subs go LOWWWWWW! That is amazing.

As far as Audyssey correcting your speakers to full, that is fine (all of mine except for the smallest pair is set to large by the AVR, the smallest one is set to 40Hz). In any case, it was brought up to Chris from Audyssey before and the allotted resources for the subs is separate from the mains IIRC, so you do not need to force a crossover on the mains, just set the crossovers to your desired setting (60/80/90Hz). Also remember that, even though you may set the crossover at 80Hz, it's not a brick wall and there is still some energy at 70/60/ and maybe even 50Hz, so it's good to have the correction below that point.

For my speakers, since they are set to large, I set the crossover points ~30Hz above the manufactures' specifications for the speakers (i.e. Fronts are supposed to be -3db at 27Hz, I set it to 60Hz, Surrounds are supposed to be -3db at 45Hz and I set it to 80Hz: I round it up, then go 30Hz just to make sure I get the ~30Hz range for most crossovers). I do not know the exact crossover slopes for the AVR, but I'm using the assumption of 12db/Octave (hopefully it's higher - it would be nice to have steep 48db/oct slopes to increse the dynamic capabilities of the speakers).

Do you like the sound?
 
#172 ·
Oh yeah... the sound has been awesome thus far. I need to watch more movies and listen to a few of my favorite concerts, but I believe it is going to be fine. I am contemplating picking up a couple of the CraigSub SS 18.2's for the fronts... or perhaps I will just add them to the room :gulp: Of course that would basically be for better dynamics, but maybe also "naturally" smoothing out the response more without filtering. I really am not fond of all the filters... mainly because of how it can effect other positions in the room... and on boosting, how it taxes the driver more.

The only thing that concerns me about the equalization being done full range is perhaps Audyssey seeing enough of a signal at a particular frequency in the mains and therefore not adjusting for it in the subs... if that makes sense. I realize the sub has independent adjustments, but surely Audyssey considers the response of the rest of the system in helping determine what to do with the sub response. It is somewhat difficult for me to come up with the wording to explain and maybe give an example of what I mean. But... if Audyssey measures and equalizes the subwoofer totally independent of the entire rest of the system... and it does the same for the LCR and surrounds, then my concerns would shift a bit. I would then be concerned for situations with those who are running full range speakers. The interactions between the low frequencies of the mains and subs would not be considered, which would not be a particularly good thing.

EDIT: To add to that final statement of concern... would be situations such as yours, where you have the sub covering some of the same range of frequencies as your mains, when you use a 60Hz crossover. I could do the same for my Prodigy's... which are rated to 28Hz +/- 3db... but then how does Audyssey account for the interaction between the same portion of the sub response from 60Hz up vs that same portion of the mains from 60Hz to the point where the subs roll off.
 
#181 ·
The only thing that concerns me about the equalization being done full range is perhaps Audyssey seeing enough of a signal at a particular frequency in the mains and therefore not adjusting for it in the subs... if that makes sense. I realize the sub has independent adjustments, but surely Audyssey considers the response of the rest of the system in helping determine what to do with the sub response.
It does not.

It is somewhat difficult for me to come up with the wording to explain and maybe give an example of what I mean. But... if Audyssey measures and equalizes the subwoofer totally independent of the entire rest of the system... and it does the same for the LCR and surrounds, then my concerns would shift a bit.
It does.

I would then be concerned for situations with those who are running full range speakers. The interactions between the low frequencies of the mains and subs would not be considered, which would not be a particularly good thing.
How? If a speaker is set full-range, none of that channel's bass goes to the sub.

EDIT: To add to that final statement of concern... would be situations such as yours, where you have the sub covering some of the same range of frequencies as your mains, when you use a 60Hz crossover. I could do the same for my Prodigy's... which are rated to 28Hz +/- 3db... but then how does Audyssey account for the interaction between the same portion of the sub response from 60Hz up vs that same portion of the mains from 60Hz to the point where the subs roll off.
Why do you presume there is any interaction if they are producing different signals?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top