The astounding new AS-EQ1 SubEQ goes on sale!

[BigPines]

I was just thinking that this may be why some people are reporting neutered bass! Could it be that by not taking into account the AVR cal file, instead of seeing a perfectly flat sub, the AVR is getting a measurement that has an artificial rise in the bottom end? If I am thinking correctly, this could happen. The AS-EQ1 echos back the test tone and then the cal file is applied on top of that in the AVR making the received measurement too hot in the lower frequencies. So, naturally the AVR tries to cut this out via Audyssey EQ.

Now this is just a wild theory and we should not jump to any conclusions until it has been proven out but it stands to reason that this could indeed be happening if Audyssey did not take into account the cal file in the AVR.

I will get an answer to this somehow. I have to figure this out before I buy one of these.

Mike

[Vader]

OK, real basic question about using a subEQ. Based on my previous experience with SVS products and service (both second to none, IMO), I would go nowhere else when I upgrade to one (I am currently using a BFD 1124). I intend to upgrade my AVR soon, to one which has auto room correction and EQ (Probably a Denon with Audyssey). My question is, does that EQ also cover the bass regions (I could not find the covered frequency range), or do I still need to EQ the subs separately? Thanx!

[BigPines]

Vader wrote:

OK, real basic question about using a subEQ. Based on my previous experience with SVS products and service (both second to none, IMO), I would go nowhere else when I upgrade to one (I am currently using a BFD 1124). I intend to upgrade my AVR soon, to one which has auto room correction and EQ (Probably a Denon with Audyssey). My question is, does that EQ also cover the bass regions (I could not find the covered frequency range), or do I still need to EQ the subs separately? Thanx!

The answer is Yes and Yes! The Audyssey MultEQ AVRs are wonderful units. They EQ all the speakers including the sub. So why would you want a separate sub EQ like the AS-EQ1? Well, for starters, the AS-EQ1 can handle dual subs (even dual discrete subs). This is a major advantage if you are running more than one sub which many of us are. Another reason is there are only so many "bands" (processing power) available in the AVR and the sub only gets allocated a portion of what is available. The AS-EQ1 has MUCH more resolution and processing power to dedicate to only the sub channel enabling it to do a MUCH better job on the sub. The thinking is get a dedicated sub EQ and let your AVR use all of it's processing power to EQ the other speakers.

This is simplified but I hope it helps.

Mike

[Vader]

Thanks, Mike!

I am looking forward to retiring my Behringer (great little toy, but not the most user-friendly)...

[BigPines]

Vader wrote:

Thanks, Mike!

I am looking forward to retiring my Behringer (great little toy, but not the most user-friendly)...

Yes, I was seriously considering one of the the Behringer units myself before the AS-EQ1 went on sale. This unit looks to be so much better (and easier to set up) that I have almost decided to get one. It is pricey but I am a firm believer in you get what you pay for. There are still a few questions that I am trying to sort out before I take the plunge but it looks very promising indeed.

Mike

[blekenbleu]

Vader wrote:

(I am currently using a BFD 1124). I intend to upgrade my AVR soon, to one which has auto room correction and EQ (Probably a Denon with Audyssey). My question is, does that EQ also cover the bass regions (I could not find the covered frequency range), or do I still need to EQ the subs separately?

Read carefully qualified reviews of specific implementations that you would consider.
It may very well be that, for your application,
one of the latest AVRs might effectively render an AS-EQ1 superfluous.
However, for constrained sub selections and/or placement and/or room treatments,
accurate pre-compensation of signals is hard to beat.

I have a Denon 5805 with dual mismatched subs (one dedicated to LFE) and BFD.
MultEQ is nice (and newer versions are reportedly appreciably improved),
but FWIW MultEQ unexpectedly disengages itself at seemingly trivial provocations.
Also FWIW, dialing in mismatched subs to blend with MultEQ is fairly tedious.

Traditional systems control theory involves local corrections before global,
which in this case involves correcting subs, then allowing MultEQ to blend them
Digital correction over a wide range of frequencies (10 octaves is pretty wide)
could involve a lot of taps, so partitioning the solution into smaller ranges is good engineering practice.

More pragmatically, for anyone with older equipment who would rather add than replace,
something of this nature makes a good story.

[BigPines]

blekenbleu wrote:

It may very well be that, for your application,
one of the latest AVRs might effectively render an AS-EQ1 superfluous.
However, for constrained sub selections and/or placement and/or room treatments,
accurate pre-compensation of signals is hard to beat.

Sorry but I do not believe this. Name one AVR that has as much resolution to EQ your sub and can handle a dual discrete set-up as the AS-EQ1 can. If there is one, I'd love to know about it.

blekenbleu wrote:

I have a Denon 5805 with dual mismatched subs (one dedicated to LFE) and BFD.
MultEQ is nice (and newer versions are reportedly appreciably improved),
but FWIW MultEQ unexpectedly disengages itself at seemingly trivial provocations.
Also FWIW, dialing in mismatched subs to blend with MultEQ is fairly tedious.

I have not heard that newer MultEQ implementations are improved. Is there a thread about this I can look into to find out more about this?

If MultEQ is randomly disengaging, that sounds like either a defective unit or a bug in the Denon software to me. For the record, I have an Onkyo TX-SR876 and I have had no such problems with Audyssey.

Also, the AS-EQ1 was designed specifically for someone in your situation with dual subs. With this piece, blending the subs is not tedious. That is the whole point of an EQ than can automatically handle dual subs.

Mike

[blekenbleu]

BigPines wrote:

Sorry but I do not believe this. Name one AVR that has as much resolution to EQ your sub and can handle a dual discrete set-up as the AS-EQ1 can.

My point[less] was that the right subs appropriately located in the right room
will not need that much correction.

[BigPines]

blekenbleu wrote:

My point[less] was that the right subs appropriately located in the right room
will not need that much correction.

OK, got it. Yes, I agree that sub placement and room treatment should be considered before any EQ solution. That being said, most of us are under real-world constraints. For instance, my living room doubles as my home theater and I am married. Need I say more?

Mike

[blekenbleu]

BigPines wrote:

If MultEQ is randomly disengaging, that sounds like either a defective unit or a bug in the Denon software to me.

Not necessarily randomly, just unpredictably, and I expect that
Denon would consider it a feature, rather than bug. Denon's 5805 manual
http://www.usa.denon.com/AVR5805DFU_usersmanual.pdf
is less than definitively clear. For example. page 130 states
that the "MultEQ XT" indicator turns red if "Speaker Configuration", "Delay Time",
"Channel Level" or "Crossover Frequency" settings are changed after performing
"Auto Setup". While I do not dispute that statement, so far as it goes,
I observe that it has gone red when none of those settings were changed.
Since I make most changes using its webserver,
I have never actually seen the indicator change from green to red,
so have yet to isolate exactly what other setting changes provoke it.

[Sonnie]

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

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

BigPines wrote:

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 wrote:

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?

I do not have an issue with linking to the Audyssey thread at AVS, not that anyone would have a problem finding it, but we do have our own SVS AS-EQ1 thread here and SVSound is a sponsor of the Shack. While that thread at AVS has over 1000 replies, it has been started since January 2007... ours started in February 2009 and we have almost half as many replies. They have 750,000 members, we have 24,000.

As far as having an Audyssey forum here, I think it would be an excellent idea, regardless of what is going on at AVS. AVS does not have a dedicated "forum" for Audyssey... they simply have an Audyssey thread. Many members and readers do not want to wade through a 15,000 post thread. They would rather start their own thread for discussion of their own situation, issue, question, comments, etc. That is what forums are for and just one reason why a dedicated Audyssey forum would be an excellent benefit to not only Audyssey, but to their customers and potential customers as well.

We have to remember... there are already tons of duplications for all kinds of topics and products between the two forums that anyone can label counterproductive if they wanted to, but in reality, there are very valid reasons for having two forums, otherwise we would not exist.

Sorry to drag this off the trail a bit. If anyone would like to start a discussion thread about this we can, but let's move on with the AS-EQ1 discussion from here. Thanks!

[rosco968]

BigPines wrote:

OK, got it. Yes, I agree that sub placement and room treatment should be considered before any EQ solution. That being said, most of us are under real-world constraints. For instance, my living room doubles as my home theater and I am married. Need I say more?

Mike

No you said it all with living room and married!!!!!

I kid, I kid. I am in the same situation and it looks like the EQ-1 could be that miricle worker that folks in this prediciment are looking for.

Ryan

[blekenbleu]

BigPines wrote:

That being said, most of us are under real-world constraints. For instance, my living room doubles as my home theater and I am married. Need I say more?

My crew chief and I have been married 20 years;
the ceremony was held in our (7200 cu ft) home theater.
However, I have significant dust, pollen and mold allergies,
so about the only sound absorbing materials in that room
are sofas and books (it doubles as our library).

[My wife encouraged me to attend track schools
at all the road courses at which I had watched
Can Am and Trans Am races back in the day.]

[BigPines]

blekenbleu wrote:

Not necessarily randomly, just unpredictably, and I expect that
Denon would consider it a feature, rather than bug. Denon's 5805 manual
http://www.usa.denon.com/AVR5805DFU_usersmanual.pdf
is less than definitively clear. For example. page 130 states
that the "MultEQ XT" indicator turns red if "Speaker Configuration", "Delay Time",
"Channel Level" or "Crossover Frequency" settings are changed after performing
"Auto Setup". While I do not dispute that statement, so far as it goes,
I observe that it has gone red when none of those settings were changed.
Since I make most changes using its webserver,
I have never actually seen the indicator change from green to red,
so have yet to isolate exactly what other setting changes provoke it.

OK, so Audyssey is not disengaging but something seems to be getting changed (automatically?) after the calibration. My take is that even when the light is red, Audyssey is enabled. It is just signifying that it is not operating in pure calibration mode because some changes have been made to the configuration after the calibration. I'm sure there are some threads out there that deal with this particular AVR and others may have some ideas about why that happens.

Mike

[Ed Mullen]

BigPines wrote:

I was just thinking that this may be why some people are reporting neutered bass! Could it be that by not taking into account the AVR cal file, instead of seeing a perfectly flat sub, the AVR is getting a measurement that has an artificial rise in the bottom end? If I am thinking correctly, this could happen. The AS-EQ1 echos back the test tone and then the cal file is applied on top of that in the AVR making the received measurement too hot in the lower frequencies. So, naturally the AVR tries to cut this out via Audyssey EQ.

Now this is just a wild theory and we should not jump to any conclusions until it has been proven out but it stands to reason that this could indeed be happening if Audyssey did not take into account the cal file in the AVR.

I will get an answer to this somehow. I have to figure this out before I buy one of these.

Mike

Hi Mike:

This is a non-issue if the AVR has MultEQ XT, because the Audyssey mic correction curve only applies at high frequencies. It is completely flat in the subwoofer range. That flatness is part of the mic design.

If one were using a non-MultEQ XT AVR with a mic cal curve which is not flat in the bass range (i.e. applies low frequency adjustments), then the result would indeed be the inversion of that curve being applied as a target for the sub. With that said, we would be very surprised if there is any correction in any mainstream AVR's EQ curve in the low frequency range. The electret capsules used for nearly all mainstream consumer AVRs (and they are all essentially a variant of the same basic part) are totally flat in that range.

Bottom line - it's not an issue to be concerned about when using the auto-EQ assist feature of the AS-EQ1.

As for "neutered" bass, that term is at best a mischaracterization, as the AS-EQ1 targets a flat FR and a matched subwoofer/speaker level, and has absolutely no dynamic range compressors or limiters, nor does it artificially or arbitrarily high pass ULFs. While accurate and level-matched bass and reduced room ring/overhang might have less impact/slam than peaky and hotly calibrated bass, I certainly wouldn't characterize the migration to a more accurate low-end as "neutering" the bass. Nearly all users of properly set-up AS-EQ1s report plenty of impact/power to go along with the enhanced sound quality and accuracy. There are very few scenes where the bass is mixed so hot that it completely dominates the soundtrack, but on systems which are running overly hot and/or which are peaky in the 30-50 Hz band, it can seem like that is the case on nearly all blockbusters DVDs. This can quickly become fatiguing, and I think all users will much prefer flat, accurate, and level-matched bass over the long haul after an adjustment period.

[blekenbleu]

BigPines wrote:

I have not heard that newer MultEQ implementations are improved.
Is there a thread about this I can look into to find out more about this?

I think I recall reading an Audyssey employee state that not all MultEQ are created equal,
but that was over a year ago, and I did not document the citation.
Since I only replace them when defects in current home theater equipment become
intolerable, I elected not to focus on obsolescence in the 5805's processing.

Also, the AS-EQ1 was designed specifically for someone in your situation with dual subs.

.. hence my interest. I started plowing thru this thread
to assess which configuration would most likely be most fruitful
(e.g. perhaps recombining LFE with bass) but then got distracted by append 113,
where Ed Mullen wrote that one could performed what seemed (to me) the obvious sequence
(auto-calibrate subs by AS-EQ-1, then auto-calibrate all speakers by AVR),
but then warned about the AVR overlaying its own EQ.
I imagined that this would be desirable, to better integrate overall response
than by having misrepresented an AVR's mic's bass response...

This is a non-issue if the AVR has MultEQ XT, because the Audyssey mic correction curve only applies at high frequencies.
It is completely flat in the subwoofer range. That flatness is part of the mic design.

OK, sorry for burning bandwidth.

[clausdk]

Just read all 19 pages or so, and the conclusion is:

I WANT ONE!

[BigPines]

Ed Mullen wrote:

This is a non-issue if the AVR has MultEQ XT, because the Audyssey mic correction curve only applies at high frequencies. It is completely flat in the subwoofer range. That flatness is part of the mic design.

Good to know! I was speaking from some very basic experience with Room EQ Wizard and the Behringer ECM 8000 which after calibration does seem to correct for frequencies below 80Hz. There definitely appears to be a roll-off in that mic at least.

Ed Mullen wrote:

As for "neutered" bass, that term is at best a mischaracterization, as the AS-EQ1 targets a flat FR and a matched subwoofer/speaker level, and has absolutely no dynamic range compressors or limiters, nor does it artificially or arbitrarily high pass ULFs. While accurate and level-matched bass and reduced room ring/overhang might have less impact/slam than peaky and hotly calibrated bass, I certainly wouldn't characterize the migration to a more accurate low-end as "neutering" the bass. Nearly all users of properly set-up AS-EQ1s report plenty of impact/power to go along with the enhanced sound quality and accuracy. There are very few scenes where the bass is mixed so hot that it completely dominates the soundtrack, but on systems which are running overly hot and/or which are peaky in the 30-50 Hz band, it can seem like that is the case on nearly all blockbusters DVDs. This can quickly become fatiguing, and I think all users will much prefer flat, accurate, and level-matched bass over the long haul after an adjustment period.

Understood and I totally agree with everything you said here and elsewhere about this. I know the term "neutered" does not have a positive connotation. I didn't mean anything by that other than simply using a description from at least one other post. I was just looking for a possible cause other than the obvious that some people do not prefer flat frequency response. Personally, there is so much unrealistic bass in film soundtracks these days that I don't understand the need to run anything but flat FR.

Thank you Ed for taking the time to answer these questions. My experience with SVS has been outstanding so far! I would not hesitate to purchase a product from you. I hope I will get one of these gems.

Mike

[BigPines]

blekenbleu wrote:

I think I recall reading an Audyssey employee state that not all MultEQ are created equal,
but that was over a year ago, and I did not document the citation.

Perhaps they were simply stating that MultEQ XT was superior to the standard MultEQ? There is also the addition of Dynamic EQ which is very helpful in my experience.

blekenbleu wrote:

.. hence my interest. I started plowing thru this thread
to assess which configuration would most likely be most fruitful
(e.g. perhaps recombining LFE with bass) but then got distracted by append 113,
where Ed Mullen wrote that one could performed what seemed (to me) the obvious sequence
(auto-calibrate subs by AS-EQ-1, then auto-calibrate all speakers by AVR),
but then warned about the AVR overlaying its own EQ.
I imagined that this would be desirable, to better integrate overall response
than by having misrepresented an AVR's mic's bass response...

Wow, sorry I misunderstood so much of your original post.

Yeah, I believe Ed has said it is not desirable to overlap the EQ between a MultEQ XT AVR and the AS-EQ1 although I don't really understand why it would be detrimental. Maybe I'll have to go back and check his posts on that subject again. In my mind, it would work like this...

1) Run AS-EQ1 because it is really just an extension of the subwoofer anyway right?
2) Run MultEQ XT in the AVR. Theoretically, at this point (after AS-EQ1 calibration) it will only see a flat (or very near flat) subwoofer and the AVR won't really add too much (if any) EQ to the sub channel anyway right?

The above would seem to hold up in all but the very worst placement/room combinations. where the AS-EQ1 could not fix a null and then the AVR tried to fix the same null and therefore applied the same EQ to the same frequency and caused a loss of headroom and possibly even audible EQ artifacts.

Mike

[blekenbleu]

BigPines wrote:

I would not hesitate to purchase a product from you.

FWIW, I just stopped hesitating. In my experience, products with good stories are rarely all bad.

One question for which I have not already read an answer is:
given options of combined or separate LFE,
for which is an AS-EQ1 likely to yield better results?

..for mismatched subs near front left and right corners?
(I find subs behind too startling.)

Ah, another question:
does the box ship with a printed manual, or should I just go ahead and print the pdf?

[blekenbleu]

BigPines wrote:

1) Run AS-EQ1 because it is really just an extension of the subwoofer anyway right?
2) Run MultEQ XT in the AVR. Theoretically, at this point (after AS-EQ1 calibration) it will only see a flat (or very near flat) subwoofer and the AVR won't really add too much (if any) EQ to the sub channel anyway right?

The above would seem to hold up in all but the very worst placement/room combinations. where the AS-EQ1 could not fix a null and then the AVR tried to fix the same null and therefore applied the same EQ to the same frequency and caused a loss of headroom and possibly even audible EQ artifacts.

Good point on the null, but one should deal with that before AVR integration.
Another consideration, as Ed already explained, is getting electrical levels balanced
so that AS-EQ1 digital stuff is working in its optimal range.

[BigPines]

blekenbleu wrote:

FWIW, I just stopped hesitating. In my experience, products with good stories are rarely all bad.

Congratulations!

blekenbleu wrote:

One question for which I have not already read an answer is:
given options of combined or separate LFE,
for which is an AS-EQ1 likely to yield better results?

..for mismatched subs near front left and right corners?
(I find subs behind too startling.)

From what I understand, in your case you would definitely want to run the AS-EQ1 in the two separate sub configuration. They are different subs that are not co-located so running as separate allows the AS-EQ1 to optimize the two subs together. Is this what you meant?

It is funny that you mention not wanting the sub behind you because it is too startling. At one time I had one of my M&K MX-350s next to my couch with the woofer firing into the couch. On more than one occasion, the bass was so jarring that it really scared me and got my heart going. It was fun but in the end I decided I had better move the sub because it was distracting. Ironically, now I am considering some Crowson transducers so I can get scared again. I guess the grass is always greener...

Mike

[blekenbleu]

BigPines wrote:

From what I understand, in your case you would definitely want to run the AS-EQ1 in the two separate sub configuration. They are different subs that are not co-located so running as separate allows the AS-EQ1 to optimize the two subs together. Is this what you meant?

Sorry, no. The PDF is pretty good on configuring the AS-EQ1 for separate subs,
except there is no recommendation:
"If you have discrete subwoofer or LFE outputs on your AVR
... and want the signals to be treated individually.."

I only want signals treated separately if it is likely to help.
They are being treated separately now because I gave up trying to tweak a BFD
to integrate both subs for music, so dedicated the sub which I was able to tweak
most "musically" for bass and the other for LFE.

After paying for all this processing, I'm hoping it can better integrate
or at least facilitate playing musical subs if relocation is needed.

Ironically, now I am considering some Crowson transducers so I can get scared again.

I got shakers for the sofa; they are now disconnect..
red wine flies quite aways when the startle reflex kicks in,
e.g. at the ambush near the beginning of "Iron Man".
I suspect that Paramount deliberately mixed Blu-ray lead-in fodder low
to seduce folks into jacking the volume.

[BigPines]

blekenbleu wrote:

Sorry, no. The PDF is pretty good on configuring the AS-EQ1 for separate subs,
except there is no recommendation:
"If you have discrete subwoofer or LFE outputs on your AVR
... and want the signals to be treated individually.."

I only want signals treated separately if it is likely to help.
They are being treated separately now because I gave up trying to tweak a BFD
to integrate both subs for music, so dedicated the sub which I was able to tweak
most "musically" for bass and the other for LFE.

After paying for all this processing, I'm hoping it can better integrate
or at least facilitate playing musical subs if relocation is needed.

Got it. Dunno about that one. I would think if you have discrete outs, use discrete but I am not really sure. Hopefully someone will chime in.

blekenbleu wrote:

I got shakers for the sofa; they are now disconnect..
red wine flies quite aways when the startle reflex kicks in,
e.g. at the ambush near the beginning of "Iron Man".
I suspect that Paramount deliberately mixed Blu-ray lead-in fodder low
to seduce folks into jacking the volume.

Hehehe, yeah I can picture it. After a couple of "incidents" I may have to disconnect mine as well.

Mike

[blekenbleu]

Perhaps they were simply stating that MultEQ XT was superior to the standard MultEQ?
There is also the addition of Dynamic EQ which is very helpful in my experience.

.. or better calibration processing? I don't think Dynamic EQ had been announced.
Sigh, guess I'll have to try recreating the context in which I would have stumbled across it.

.. OK, I guess it must have been the inability to upgrade my Denon AVR to CI, so no MultEQ Pro.