Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

Audyssey Graphs - Please post your results!

100K views 121 replies 36 participants last post by  Bear123 
#1 ·
Please post your Audyssey graphs (before and after) here in this thread.

Be sure to tell us what processor or receiver you are using.


Please keep graphs only in this thread and any comments in the Audyssey MultEQ Discussion Thread.

Thanks!

******************************

This is from my NAD T785 .... Audyssey MultEQ.

Gold = No EQ
Red = NAD Audyssey

Sub response range... 1/3 octave smoothing...




Full range... 1/3 octave smoothing...




Sub gain had to be cut considerably from this... it was about 20db hot! I'll get some new graphs posted soon.

All in all, I am very happy with what Audyssey did with my response, especially in the lower end. No reason to even hook up my BFD with this response. Rodny came down to the house today and we setup my new receiver and the new pair of SVS PC-Ultra subs. What surprised us the most is how well Audyssey is able to handle the lowest octaves with what seems to be no adverse effects thus far.


Please keep graphs only in this thread and any comments in the Audyssey MultEQ Discussion Thread.

Thanks!
 
See less See more
2
#29 ·
the peak may be above the average level of the sub, and require ONLY a cut to be in line with the rest.
I don’t think anyone sets their sub level (before equalization) based on a response average.

My premise has nothing to do with SPL meters, Audyssey, etc. It’s based on the assumption (right or wrong :D) that if there is a peak in the room, then before adding equalization, people will have adjusted their sub level based on that “hot” frequency. If they had set the level based on the response average, they would ultimately perceive the sub to be too loud and turn it down. I don’t think anyone’s going to steadfastly endure an overpowering subwoofer just because “that’s what the measurement says is right.” :huh:

Consider this: Assuming there is a peak in the room – The peak is acoustically induced, so it is “free” gain. That translates to “free” headroom, since the peak means that the sub’s level has been set lower than it would be otherwise. Eliminating the peak means that the “free” gain now has to be made up elsewhere. That means the “free” headroom will be lost. Make sense?

Basically, it’s all about the sub’s “before vs. after” gain setting. It doesn’t matter if you cut the peak electronically (via equalization) or acoustically (by relocating the sub). If "after" ultimately means the sub’s level is increased, then additional amplifier power is required.

Regards,
Wayne
 
#30 ·
I don’t think anyone sets their sub level (before equalization) based on a response average.

My premise has nothing to do with SPL meters, Audyssey, etc. It’s based on the assumption (right or wrong :D) that if there is a peak in the room, then before adding equalization, people will have adjusted their sub level based on that “hot” frequency. If they had set the level based on the response average, they would ultimately perceive the sub to be too loud and turn it down.

Regards,
Wayne
I agree. That's the way I perceive the issue.

I always end up calibrating the sub to the mains about 3 or 4 times as the process of dialing things in takes place. The first one is rough and like you mentioned usually has the largest peak or 2 dominating the calibration level. After you get your placement/phase/ crossover to the mains dialed in more you may have significantly smoothed things already and then your sub is a bit low, so re calibrate. From there perhaps you add a second sub or even a couple and dial them in if you are using a multi sub approach (you should be) at which point you may need to recalibrate overall levels again. At that point you might be EQing any remaining peaks down and you guessed it...time to calibrate levels again. After all of that it's time for Audyssey to bat clean-up (which I have yet to use.)
 
#31 ·
The following graphs were measured on a Denon AVR-989 running MultEQ XT with a calibrated mic.

To make the level setting clearer, I am posting separate graphs of the sub & left and sub & right curves. In each graph, light green is Audyssey Off, blue is Audyssey Reference, and the red is Audyssey Flat. 1/3 octave smoothing was used in each full range graph.

Left:
Text White Green Line Purple


Right:
Text Line Green Font Plot


One can see where the Audyssey Reference curve introduces its "BBC dip" near 2kHz, and tails off above 10kHz.

I should explain the unusual sub curve with Audyssey Off. I deliberately configured my Hsu VTF sub in its overdamped mode, only one port open but the high-pass-filter set to two ports open. I found that, after Audyssey equalization, this gave the flattest response in my room.

The room is not treated, most of what dispersion there is comes from numerous bookcases.

Bill
 
#32 ·
Bill -

Thanks for keeping the thread alive. Those Audyssey curves are very respectable overall, and exceptional in the bass. All I would probably do it bump up the sub output by a few dB.

The difference in the high treble between your left and right speaker measurements is a bit odd though. Are your speakers set-up assemetrically? Or did the mic move bewteen readings?
 
#33 ·
The sub output appears level when compared to a single front speaker. When I measure the two mains together with the sub, the curve looks like more typical Audyssey curves. The sub level then appears +3dB higher than the mains; I spent several weekends trying to understand the level difference. Since late 2008, Audyssey includes a DynEQ function that I leave on, except for REW measurements, and that gives a low end boost similar to a house curve, which may be what you were suggesting.

You have correctly identified the next major area of improvement. The speakers are reasonably symmetric to the axis from the TV, but the whole arrangment is offset in the room. The left front is near the corner, whereas the right front is mid wall. So the reflections are very different, with a fireplace on the left, but the wall on the right 8 feet away. Also, there is a couch on the right parallel to the right hand wall, and its far arm blocks some of the sound from the right speaker. I've already broached the idea of re-arranging the room with my wife, but it will take some convincing.

I did not move the mic between the measurements, but it is very difficult to measure from exactly the same point as was used for the Audyssey setup. Also, in my asymmetric environment, it is not surprising that Audyssey, evaluating 8 points around the bubble, calculated different filters for the two fronts.

Thanks,
Bill
 
#34 ·
Hey Bill -

I've got the same speaker placement constraints, with the front stage scrunched over to one side. I've been using manual PEQ for the past year based on an average of 4 mic readings. You may find that if you tighten up the radius of your mic positions, making sure to keep all of them between the speakers, you could get more consistency in the HF between the L/R.
 
#37 ·
I have just re done my graphs again tonight and have used less filters and less cuts which in turn is giving me more between 30 and 80hz. The first is my graph after Audyssey and no EQ (no BFD) which I think Audyssey has done a good job. I don't have the graph prior to Audyssey as I didn't save my measurements but its pretty good all the same. The second is my Sub only with Audyssey and with the BFD filters applied. And the last is my sub and speakers with Audyssey and BFD.

To re cap:

1. Sub only with Audyssey and no BFD

2. Sub only with Audyssey and BFD

3. Sub and speakers with Audyssey and BFD.

Sub crossover: 80hz Speakers: 80hz

I have also increased the sub trim level to +5 and reduced the EP4000 gain down to 24db (it was on max). I am running the sub to about 82db so slightly hot.
 

Attachments

#39 ·
Here is what I'm looking at currently with Audyssey. I will be tweaking this more and re-doing them soon but you can see the cutting and then overall level boost that Audyssey is making to the sub channel. My averaged response after Audyssey is looking good through the bass range, but I need to make some improvements to the main listening position still.



Electrical response comparing Audyssey on and off. 6.5db boost.




Same as above. Electrical with Audyssey levels readjusted to show cuts.




Main position before Audyssey



After Audyssey





6 position average response before Audyssey




6 position average response after Audyssey.
 
#40 ·
New owner of a Denon AVR1610. I used REW a few years ago to set up a home recording studio, and now I'm trying to set up my family room television and sound systems. I'm trying to run REW on a Windows 7 computer, and there are some issues, which I'm sure have been explored on the REW forum. I was able to get it to calibrate everything, and run normally (as far as I could tell). The results are attached.

The first graph shows triplicate runs of REW after Audyssey setup was run and Multi-Eq was on. I used 1/12 Octave smoothing to get rid of some of the jitter but keep the smaller peaks and valleys. I was not able to set the axes to exactly 15-200 Hz and 45-105 dB, but got close. All were run with a 75 db target level.

The second graph shows 2 runs with Multi Eq turned off. I was surprised by the small amount of difference other than the generally lower sound level. Also, unlike the graphs with Mulit Eq on, these don't replicate very well. Both graphs contain what seems to me to be a similar degree of peaks and valleys.

The third and last graph shows all of the data on one plot.

I would appreciate comments on the results, and on whether I am doing things improperly (as far as you can determine from my post).

Thanks in advance for the guidance.
 

Attachments

#42 ·
Thanks Bill.

I was sort of hoping that Moonfly was right and that Audyssey was at least doing something to check the output capabilities, but it appears that is not the case. I could see real subwoofer overload problems with a lot of systems with the amount of low end boosting that Audyssey ends up doing in practice.
 
#44 ·
Hi Dan,
There is no headroom testing. If the sequence of 10 chirps is repeating louder then it means that the mic did not receive enough signal to noise ratio.
What is the exact error message you are getting on the DIY sub?
Best regards,
Chris Kyriakakis
CTO, Audyssey
That should clear that up. Not sure where I got the headroom testing thing from. Another eq device somewhere maybe.
 
#46 · (Edited)
Here are a couple of graphs I took from mine this morning, I may relocate my subs back to their normal postition but I figured since I had some time yesterday I would move em and see what happens.

Using SPL/UCA202, TX-NR1007, ASEQ-1, PBU x2



Full sweep, red is no audyssey and no ASEQ. Blue is with MultEQ-XT & ASEQ






Blue is no MultEQ-XT or ASEQ, Purple is MultEQ-XT only, Teal is MultEQ-XT & ASEQ

 
#48 · (Edited)
yes, I am. I just recieved the NR1007 about 2 weeks ago and this is my first amp with Audyssey so I really have no idea what I'm doing. I only set up 6 mic positions for the MultEQ and used the same six for the ASEQ. The graphs that say no audyssey are actually with the Dynamic Eq turned off, I ran sweeps with the THX volume on an off and really didnt see much of a difference at all.

Please excuse my typing for I have twin 2 year old girls and one of them managed to spill lemon aid on my keyboard and some of my keys stick mainly the shift button.
 
#49 ·
granted a little hot but I ran this one yesterday...I guess when its a bigger gap between db's it doesnt look as bad..Ha!


 
#51 ·
I agree Sonnie, unless there is a way to disable MultEQ on the NR1007 other than going to:

1. Audio Adjust
2. Audyssey
3. Dynamic EQ "off"

If there is something I am missing or not doing someone please fill me in for I would love to run another sweep.:D
 
#55 ·
I guess if I want to see whats going on....I need a calibrated mic, huh? Well....I guess I can start pricing....

Thanks for input Bill


Semper Fi
 
#56 ·
My Xenox502 came in and now I'm waiting on my calibrated 8000 mic and I'm going to run the sweeps again as the subs were in the graphs above and post the outcome so the diff can be seen.
 
#57 ·
As Audyssey builds its equalization based on the full set of measurement points around its bubble, I decided to look at the average of my measures. Compared to my measurements at the primary listening position, this explains some of Audyssey's optimization choices. Apparently the dip around 130Hz is a room effect across much of the bubble, as it appears after averaging, where some of the other deep dips disappeared in the averaging.

The following graphs were measured at all 8 measurement points of Audyssey MultEQ XT, on a Denon AVR-989 with a calibrated microphone. I took a simple average, without any clever level equalization to adjust for differences in distance, as Audyssey might do. As before, I used 1/3 octave averaging as Sonnie did in the first post. The light green curve is Audyssey Off, blue is Audyssey On.

Left only:
Text Green White Blue Line


Right only:
Text Green White Blue Line


Sub only:
Text Green White Blue Line


Left+Right+Sub:
Text Green Blue White Line


It is interesting that averaging the full range measures shows a greater difference between mains and sub than one sees looking at an individual point. Apparently in the main range the responses differ and average out eliminating the peaks. In the sub range, the responses show more correlation, keeping the full peak magnitudes.
 
#59 ·
It is interesting that averaging the full range measures shows a greater difference between mains and sub than one sees looking at an individual point. Apparently in the main range the responses differ and average out eliminating the peaks. In the sub range, the responses show more correlation, keeping the full peak magnitudes.


Very interesting indeed, I have yet to check my speakers at full range, nor have I ran them together, as soon as I can get some time at home alone I plan to see how mine pan out as well.

Thanks for your graphs, I will surely use them as reference as to what I come out with.
 
#58 ·
Well, I finally got everything a Xenyx 502 & a calibrated ECM8000 and I was having some issues with making a decent graph and was in contact with Doug for almost 2 days....man. All I can say is "THANK YOU DOUG" for your time and effort and Semper Fidelis Devil Dog!

As I suspected and mentioned in the NR1007 owners thread over on AVS it may be operator error and it was for the most part. These graphs are not the greatest but I have something to work with for a month or so then everything is getting shipped off to Italy, and I get to go back to the land of vino, pasta, cheese and, stone/concrete walls and floors with no carpet....going to be fun for sure...got the Grammas in sitting ready to go and will probably be ordering some traps and such to help with all the reflective sound I'm going to have.

Having said all of that, Doug if you see this and still have the graphs I sent to you, there are two things I would like to point out first you will see that the huge rise I had at 400hz is almost gone and that was due to me pulling my mains out 6", second I had the wrong cal file in REW for the mic "my bad and I'm sorry". These graphs are with the left front and dual PBU's and an ASEQ and a NR1007. Like I say not the best but I'm very happy with the 11.5 - 200 graph.








 
#60 ·
Moved some stuff around alittle ...not much and ran a couple of sweeps. The first is a sweep with Dynamic EQ on and off, both fronts and dual subs.








Full sweep with Dynamic EQ on and off.






and a sweep with 80-120 hz crossover.....to be honest the 80 to me actually sounds better.










Is there a way to actually turn off Audyssey on the NR1007?
 
#67 ·
... Is there a way to actually turn off Audyssey on the NR1007?
Looking at the NR1007 manual, page 93, it appears under Equalizer settings you have a choice of Manual, Audyssey, or Off, and either Manual or Off should disable Audyssey.

I'm not sure that turning Audyssey Off will do anything about the dip of which you complain. Your left only + sub and right only + sub curves look reasonably even between the sub range and the mains. With multiple subs, you have a lot of combinations to try to see which polarity on the phase yields the smoothest transition.

... I have the LPE/LPF is set to 120 but I have yet to see any difference in any sweep I have made reagaurdless of what setting I have set it on 80 - 120.
REW is not going to show you any effect from changes in the LPF for LFE because it is driving one or two stereo channels; it is not driving the LFE channel.

Bill
 
#62 ·
Sorry bout that.

Gold = 120
Red = 100
Purple = 90
Blue = 80


I have the LPE/LPF is set to 120 but I have yet to see any difference in any sweep I have made reagaurdless of what setting I have set it on 80 - 120.
 
#64 · (Edited)
Yes they are. The graphs above are with both fronts and sub.





The graph here was with right speaker and subs, not much difference, a full sweep with three sub only sweeps with different crossovers.


 
#65 ·
Well, the LFE shouldn't be affected by the crossover. The LFE is a separate channel directed to the sub and the sub alone. Now, info from the other 5 channels in the range affected by the crossover will also be sent to the sub if the speakers are set to small.

Have you played around with the phase on your sub, or the position of your sub/speakers? That could give you smoother response around the crossover frequency. Make sure that you turn Audyssey off, get it as smooth as you can, and then run the Audyssey cal.
 
#66 ·
hate to sound like a moron, but how do turn off Audyssey on the Onkyo? I can turn Dyn EQ off,,,but Audyssey?

It seems no matter where I have placed the duals I get a dratic measurment around the xover. I'm using an ASEQ, I havent really moved the subs and run sweeps with just the subs to find the best place w/out Audyssey, for the ASEQ shows a before graph and it seems no matter where I can place my subs they seem to have a big dip. So as of now I just opted to go with the best "cosmetic wise", to place them and thats between both fronts.





I had them in slightly diff position and got even more extension but still had a dip....
 
#68 · (Edited)
Thanks Bill. I really just wanted to see what the response looked like with no Audyssey and then make sweeps with just the MultEQ and with the ASEQ to see the difference. One would think the ASEQ would be able to correct the phase issue between the two subs, hence one of the reasons I purchased it, I was going nuts just trying to get a decent graph prior to buying it.....come to think of it, I wasnt running REW at the time so, I was actually using an SPL with sine wave disc it was probably a lot of waisted time.

A side note: the graph above with the sub sweeps and the single right front/sub sweep was x-over at 100hz. Any graph made at 80 has a big dip it seems, no matter where I can place them. I may try messing with the phase of one of them...or both, if need be but I sure was thinking the ASEQ would have taken care of this.
 
#69 ·
... the graph above with the sub sweeps and the single right front/sub sweep was x-over at 100hz. Any graph made at 80 has a big dip it seems, no matter where I can place them. ...
If that is what you are seeing, it may come from the mains and not the sub. Where my left front is positioned, near a corner, it has a sharp dip above 70Hz. If I set the crossover below this, the big dip is still present in the combined curve. If I set the crossover above this, the sub covers much of the dip. You may be seeing something like that, where the 80Hz dip is in the mains' response, and the sub crossover at 100Hz lets it be more responsible for this region. Or you may be able to move the mains farther from the wall, to reduce the frequency of their dip below the crossover frequency.

Bill
 
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