The astounding new AS-EQ1 SubEQ goes on sale!

**Frank D** · **06-15-09, 11:45 PM**

I realize the AS-EQ1 works in the time domain as well as the frequency domain when making corrections.

Wondering how the AS-EQ1 compares to something like the Lexicon MC12 with built in EQ that is also supposed to work in the "time" domain. Anyone have any comments here?

From my experiences the MC12 EQ does not work that well in the "frequency" domain so I bought an SMS-1 to improve the freqency domain.

**Sonnie** · **06-15-09, 11:54 PM**

Quote:

Roadkill wrote:

... I've been told that I have to actually log in and post a comment or my account will be deleted, here it is.

Just to clarify... we have never required this. We only delete accounts if you have not logged in to the forum in over a year. We figure if you ain't been here in a year, you ain't comin' back. It keeps our number of members a little more realistic.

Back to our regularly scheduled thread... just did not want anyone to get the wrong idea.

**rosco968** · **06-16-09, 09:53 AM**

Several hundred bands of eq should get things covered. I guess thats how the curve shown was so flat.

I had no idea about the time domain. Seems like bass would not be that easy to effect with TD unless it is severe. Just thinking out loud.

Thanks for reply.

**cavchameleon** · **06-16-09, 10:16 AM**

Quote:

rosco968 wrote:

Several hundred bands of eq should get things covered. I guess thats how the curve shown was so flat.

I had no idea about the time domain. Seems like bass would not be that easy to effect with TD unless it is severe. Just thinking out loud.

Thanks for reply.

Hi Rosco,

Actually, it's the bass region that has the most issues (TD and EQ) compared to the rest of the spectrum. This is why many other correction methods do not deal with the lower regions as it is difficult to deal with. There is a lot of psychoacoustic research that went into Audyssey's version of correction (check out their site, pretty informative). They have gone a long way and are continuing their research to improve their product even more. I have set up many systems using reference receivers from all makes and non of them have compared to the Audyssey based ones (IMO). I have not heard the new Anthem or Lexicon models though.

Ray

**StereoPackRat** · **06-16-09, 03:27 PM**

I'm really fascinated by this piece - the (relative) simplicity of going straight for the flattest in-room response, addressed in a comprehensive way, tickles me. I've played with the SMS-1 plenty, and it's wonderful, but it seems like a Swiss Army knife compared to a Ka-Bar (the AS-EQ1)! I am just about to change my main speakers, and then re-evaluate my subwoofer options in my room, so dough for the AS-EQ1 is decidedly unavailable for now. $800 isn't really expensive for what it is, but it sure seems expensive when you can't afford it!

**warpdrive** · **06-16-09, 10:36 PM**

I was actually considering buying this unit, until I found out that it sells for $899 CAD as the preorder price from our Canadian distributor which seems a bit overpriced. That's probably a good thing because now I can save my money in anticipation of SVS's new subs in the pipeline

I am pretty happy with the Audyssey in my Onkyo AVR, so it seemed like a good bet. Maybe I'll win one instead

Time to get posting!

**blekenbleu** · **06-17-09, 07:00 AM**

I am trying to understand the AS-EQ1 Pass-through Mic technique.
It seems to me that the AS-EQ1 needs to know the frequency response
of the AVR calibration microphone at low frequencies. This could be
accomplished by comparing signals from its "known" cal mic with that
of the AVR's, but my reading of the operator manual (around page 15)
did not find that..?

**cavchameleon** · **06-17-09, 08:32 AM**

Quote:

blekenbleu wrote:

I am trying to understand the AS-EQ1 Pass-through Mic technique.
It seems to me that the AS-EQ1 needs to know the frequency response
of the AVR calibration microphone at low frequencies. This could be
accomplished by comparing signals from its "known" cal mic with that
of the AVR's, but my reading of the operator manual (around page 15)
did not find that..?

Blekenbleu,

The pass-through mic is simply to let the AVR think that:
1. there is a subwoofer attached to the AVR during the AVR's calibration process
2. to tell the AVR that the Sub response is perfect

After the calibration of the AVR, then you go through the process of level matching the mains to the sub and then the sub's calibration with the AS-EQ1 using the supplied mic from the AS-EQ1.

Ray

**rosco968** · **06-17-09, 09:06 AM**

Ray,

Do you have one of these things? You seem to have all the answers.

If you do have a unit, did you have anything prior to the EQ1?

Just wondered about a comparison. Thanks for your insight so far.

Ryan

**cavchameleon** · **06-17-09, 09:27 AM**

Quote:

rosco968 wrote:

Ray,

Do you have one of these things? You seem to have all the answers.

If you do have a unit, did you have anything prior to the EQ1?

Just wondered about a comparison. Thanks for your insight so far.

Ryan

Hi Ryan,

No, I do not own one yet. I'm just very familiar with Audyssey (love their technology) and have read/understand the manual very well. I can't give any comparisons until I have a unit in my hands. I've used multiple types of eq (including the SMS-1 and Behringer FBD) plus many others in the professional realm (have done lots of audio/video work in the past including some studio work). I have to say that this unit looks like the best and easiest technology out there as most equipment takes many, many hours to set up and still may not come close to the results of the AS-EQ1 (especially when you consider the correction in the time domain - which really smears the image when there are issues in no so perfect room - i.e. 99% of all our rooms). There is a lot of discussion on this on two separate threads in the AVSforum site (one on just Audyssey and the other dedicated to the AS-EQ1) if you care to read those (the Audyssey one is Extremely long and Chris - the CTO of Audyssey, is on there most of the time answering questions).

Ray

**blekenbleu** · **06-17-09, 08:12 PM**

Quote:

cavchameleon wrote:

The pass-through mic is simply to let the AVR think that:
1. there is a subwoofer attached to the AVR during the AVR's calibration process
2. to tell the AVR that the Sub response is perfect

.. but how does the AS-EQ1 know what perfect response looks like through any AVR's mic?
I would not expect all AVR microphones to have ruler-flat response across the range of interest.

Quote:

After the calibration of the AVR, then you go through the process of level matching the mains to the sub and then the sub's calibration with the AS-EQ1 using the supplied mic from the AS-EQ1.

.. but AVRs may have attempted to compensate for expected curvature in ideal response with real mics.

**cavchameleon** · **06-17-09, 08:39 PM**

Quote:

blekenbleu wrote:

.. but how does the AS-EQ1 know what perfect response looks like through any AVR's mic?
I would not expect all AVR microphones to have ruler-flat response across the range of interest.

.. but AVRs may have attempted to compensate for expected curvature in ideal response with real mics.

It is my understanding (Ed, chime in when you can) that the AS-EQ1 pings back the signal to the AVR (that the AVR sent) so that the AVR thinks no correction is needed (the AVR's mic is not actually used for the subwoofer measurement, only for the mains and the signal for the subwoofer ping is a mirror image sent back to the AVR from the AS-EQ1 as a perfect signal).

Here is some other info on Audyssey from Chris (part of a reply) to understand how the filters work:

"...
But the most important notion to understand is that there NO parametric EQ settings used. The entire focus of the 6 year research in my lab at the university was based on the early findings that showed the biggest problem in room EQ today: parametric methods. So, that was thrown out in 1997 when we started this research. The MultEQ approach is to (1) measure the room in the time domain (2) use a new way to combine measurements that overcomes the limitations of averaging and (3) create an EQ solution that uses a special form of FIR filters as opposed to the standard IIR filters used in parametric EQ.

So, there are no bands in MultEQ. At least not traditional ones. There are filter taps and there are hundreds of them in the main channels and thousands of them in the subwoofer channel (8x more in the sub). That's why I push so hard to use the sub whenever possible. You are getting a tool that uses several thousand control points to shape the response to what it needs to be. I hope this helps give you a little more insight on our approach. If you are interested in more details, we have published dozens of technical peer-reviewed papers that I can send you and a text book that I can point you to."

**Timoxx4** · **06-17-09, 10:48 PM**

Quote:

blekenbleu wrote:

.. but how does the AS-EQ1 know what perfect response looks like through any AVR's mic?
I would not expect all AVR microphones to have ruler-flat response across the range of interest.

.. but AVRs may have attempted to compensate for expected curvature in ideal response with real mics.

As mentioned above the AVR's mic is not used in this instance. The EQ1 is connected to the AVR with a pass through cable to where the AVR's mic would normally be pluged in. So the EQ1 is now in place of the AVR's mic and is sending the AVR a ruller flat signal that the AVR will see as needing no correction.

I guess you are thinking the AVR has a built in mic .cal file of something. In that case the AVR will ping the EQ1 through the pass through cable and the EQ1 will bounce back the exact same ping so the AVR will see it needs no correction.

**blekenbleu** · **06-18-09, 06:19 AM**

Quote:

Timoxx4 wrote:

I guess you are thinking the AVR has a built in mic .cal file of something.

If not, then any corrections applied would have systematic errors according to the inverse of that mic's
transfer functions.

Quote:

In that case the AVR will ping the EQ1 through the pass through cable and the EQ1 will bounce back the exact same ping so the AVR will see it needs no correction.

.. which will be incorrect, because the AVR will compensate that ping for the missing mic.

**cavchameleon** · **06-18-09, 08:27 AM**

Quote:

blekenbleu wrote:

If not, then any corrections applied would have systematic errors according to the inverse of that mic's
transfer functions.

.. which will be incorrect, because the AVR will compensate that ping for the missing mic.

Actually, as far as the AVR is concerned, there is a mic attached (it does not know it's missing). The AS-EQ1 make the AVR think there is a mic and as mentioned above, sends a perfectly flat frequency response to the AVR so that no correction files are created.

Ray

**rosco968** · **06-18-09, 09:26 AM**

Is the problem with parametric EQ time smear?

Can anybody explain the difference between a filter tap and Parametric EQ in simple terms?

Sorry, but I am trying to understand this technology a little better without reading the book. -Ryan

**BigPines** · **06-18-09, 12:38 PM**

Quote:

blekenbleu wrote:

If not, then any corrections applied would have systematic errors according to the inverse of that mic's
transfer functions.

.. which will be incorrect, because the AVR will compensate that ping for the missing mic.

Hmmm... I tend to agree with this theory. I'm sure this was contemplated during the research/testing of the unit (and hopefully overcome). The Audyssey guys are very smart. However, I'd sure like to hear what SVS has to say about this.

Mike

**Timoxx4** · **06-18-09, 09:24 PM**

Quote:

blekenbleu wrote:

If not, then any corrections applied would have systematic errors according to the inverse of that mic's
transfer functions.

.. which will be incorrect, because the AVR will compensate that ping for the missing mic.

Ah yes, you got a good point there. Now i see what you mean. Well i dont know how the EQ1 dose it then ?

**blekenbleu** · **06-19-09, 08:22 AM**

Quote:

BigPines wrote:

I'm sure this was contemplated during the research/testing of the unit (and hopefully overcome). The Audyssey guys are very smart.

Audyssey folks are well-positioned to know how an AS-EQ1 would
interact with AVRs employing their licensed auto-equalizing licensed technology,
and they may have reverse-engineered popular competitors.
A single digital convolution clocked fast enough to be effective at higher frequencies needs
many taps to minimize windowing artifacts at lower frequencies;
perhaps consumer MultEQ effectively does just coarse level-matching of bass.

**cavchameleon** · **06-19-09, 08:54 AM**

Quote:

rosco968 wrote:

Is the problem with parametric EQ time smear?

Can anybody explain the difference between a filter tap and Parametric EQ in simple terms?

Sorry, but I am trying to understand this technology a little better without reading the book. -Ryan

Ryan,

The best place to ask is on the Audyssey thread at AVSforum. Chris from Audyssey is on the forum all the time and can best give you the info you are looking for. I'm no expert in the field and do not want to give the wrong or not-so-correct info here. I wish he were on this site also. Ed also knows a lot about this and can chime in.

Thanks,
Ray

**Sonnie** · **06-19-09, 11:22 AM**

I have contacted Audyssey and asked if get their rep to participate here as well... maybe even create them a dedicated forum. Of course we do not want to derail this thread into a sole Audyssey discussion, but as it relates to the SVS AS-EQ1, we are fine.

**cavchameleon** · **06-19-09, 11:40 AM**

Quote:

Sonnie wrote:

I have contacted Audyssey and asked if get their rep to participate here as well... maybe even create them a dedicated forum. Of course we do not want to derail this thread into a sole Audyssey discussion, but as it relates to the SVS AS-EQ1, we are fine.

Hi Sonnie,

Not sure if you have visited both the AS-EQ1 (with over 1000 posts) and Audyssey (with over 15,000 posts) thread at AVSforum.com. Both are extremely informative. Ed participates in the AS-EQ1 forum there quite often and Chris participates on the Audyssey forum on a daily basis (unless on travel). Chris is extremely helpful in helping others understand Audyssey's technology (and to help others also understand what part of an AVR is Audyssey's choice and what is not - sometimes can be confusing such as: the manufacturer decides on the crossover points, not Audyssey-which simply 'reports' to the AVR what the -3db point is of a speaker; this is a common misunderstanding). I'll be great to have them on board here for some clarity and discussion.

Ray

**Kal Rubinson** · **06-19-09, 12:16 PM**

Quote:

cavchameleon wrote:

Hi Sonnie,

Not sure if you have visited both the AS-EQ1 (with over 1000 posts) and Audyssey (with over 15,000 posts) thread at AVSforum.com. Both are extremely informative. Ed participates in the AS-EQ1 forum there quite often and Chris participates on the Audyssey forum on a daily basis (unless on travel). Chris is extremely helpful in helping others understand Audyssey's technology (and to help others also understand what part of an AVR is Audyssey's choice and what is not - sometimes can be confusing such as: the manufacturer decides on the crossover points, not Audyssey-which simply 'reports' to the AVR what the -3db point is of a speaker; this is a common misunderstanding). I'll be great to have them on board here for some clarity and discussion.
Ray

It might be nice and convenient but I think counterproductive when their contributions are already available elsewhere. It will, undoubtedly, result in much duplication and, possibly, apparent inconsistencies. If there's a dedicated forum already established, why another?

Kal

**BigPines** · **06-19-09, 12:29 PM**

I guess I could go over to AVS and search around to try to find an answer to this Audyssey AVR calibration with an AS-EQ1 question and then report back here. There has to be a mic cal file built into the AVR because we all know the measurement mics are not perfectly flat and as such, it would seem that purely echoing back the test tone would not result in perfectly flat measured FR by the AVR.

Surely this question has already been asked but I was surprised nobody brought it up in this thread until now. I'll see what I can find.

Mike

**cavchameleon** · **06-19-09, 12:38 PM**

Quote:

Kal Rubinson wrote:

It might be nice and convenient but I think counterproductive when their contributions are already available elsewhere. It will, undoubtedly, result in much duplication and, possibly, apparent inconsistencies. If there's a dedicated forum already established, why another?

Kal

Agree completely. Was not sure if it was Kosher to add an actual link in this tread to forward searchers to the other threads. Sonnie, what about that?

Advertisement