Unfair. Feri is Hungarian and his command of English is better than many of the native-English speakers who frequent these forums.
Yes, I agree. In fact I have been contemplating adding some form of external EQ into my own system (treated room, Audyssey Pro, Omnimic-tweaked) to try to deal with a pesky dip I have between about 400Hz and 1kHz. It's only about 5dB at its max, and I doubt if it causing any real audible harm, but it just irks me as my response from 10Hz to 20kHz is fairly flat after much tweaking and so on. I can't eliminate this dip any further using the Target Curve editor in Pro as the max it will boost is 3dB. I was thinking that external parametric EQ might let me flatten it a bit more - do you think it would be worthwhile, or even possible?
I'm not so sure, Feri. I have managed a very respectable FR using Audyssey Pro and then making manual adjustments based on my OmniMic measurements, such as using the Target Curve editor in Pro, and varying the sub delays in the AVP in order to improve the flatness around the XO frequency, but I am thinking that the ability to make small further adjustments, after running Audyssey, eg by using parametric external EQ, could be a good thing. I can't see how it can harm the Audyssey calibration to boost some frequencies a little in order to get a flatter, or preferable, curve.
In fact, I am already doing this to some extent. The amplifier in the Submersive subs has two different DSP modes - one of them (Pgm2) introduces a 3-4dB~ lift starting at around 40Hz. By running Audyssey with the subs in Pgm1 and then, after running Audyssey, changing to Pgm2, there is a subtle but important flattening of the curve at the bottom end. Audibly it is significantly better.
This graph shows the effect of using Pgm2 in this way:
I am a huge Audyssey fan too (and my sig is even more revealing than Feri's :) ) but I agree with you. Audyssey is just a tool and like any tool, in the right hands it can be made to perform better. Audyssey is great for the average guy who just wants to run a few chirps and let the software get him a reasonably good result, right out of the box. In its XT32 form, it is very, very good. But not perfect.
Yes, this is exactly what I am thinking too. A couple of additional filters and I'd be flatter as well. Got to be a worthwhile objective surely?
I/m not sure it matters if the subsequent OmniMic tets use the exact same mic positions, Feri. The idea is not to try to verify what Audyssey has done, but to improve on it. Once Audyssey has done its thing, the result at the MLP will be pretty good. Measuring at the MLP and seeing the actual in-room response (as opposed to Audyssey predicted responses - the famous 'after' graphs) then enables you to make adjustments that will improve the sound even more at the MLP. I have done this on many occasions and improved Audyssey's calibration every time - the most quoted example in the Audyssey Pro thread is the 'sub distance tweak' where measuring and then manually changing the Audyssey-set sub distances can give a huge improvement in the FR around the XO region. Almost everyone who has done this has found similar improvements. Audyssey often seems to struggle to optimise the FR around the XO region and benefits from post-cal tweaking.
EDIT: Audyssey often seems to struggle to optimise the FR around the XO region and benefits from post-cal tweaking. Not surprising really since Audyssey doesn’t do any further measuring or calibration of the combined response of the LCR channels and the subs. They are measured separately and filters are created accordingly, but they are never measured together (which is an Audyssey failing IMO).