or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Using dual 31band EQ's for LCR to Give Audyssey a Head Start?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Using dual 31band EQ's for LCR to Give Audyssey a Head Start?

post #1 of 59
Thread Starter 
I am considering strongly either the Berry or DBX (suggestions between the two?) dual 31 band Eq's to try and see what I can do to my speakers manually before I let Audyssey have it's go at it. This is just for some fun and to possibly even get better response out of my setup if possible smile.gif Any thoughts says you on the benefits of doing something like this? TBQH, I am not all that happy with certain things that Audyssey does to my system, so I would like to see if I can do what I can to no longer need it's processing and/or compare my best shot at its best shot head to head and compare!!! Thanks guys!
post #2 of 59
What are you trying to accomplish? Is it upper octaves or the bass EQ that you don't like with Audyssey?

What measuring gear are you using?

Audyssey can do some not so good things with some systems, that's for sure. I'm curious though what your issue is?
post #3 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

I am considering strongly either the Berry or DBX (suggestions between the two?) dual 31 band Eq's to try and see what I can do to my speakers manually before I let Audyssey have it's go at it. This is just for some fun and to possibly even get better response out of my setup if possible smile.gif Any thoughts says you on the benefits of doing something like this? TBQH, I am not all that happy with certain things that Audyssey does to my system, so I would like to see if I can do what I can to no longer need it's processing and/or compare my best shot at its best shot head to head and compare!!! Thanks guys!

Audyssey doesn't need a head start!! There's no benefit of doing something like that!

Better to discuss:

1. What AVR/AVP do you have?
2. What are you unhappy with that Audyssey "does" to your system?

Maybe moving your query to the "Official Audyssey Thread" would yield more attention and help from all the knowledgable guys over there. smile.gif
post #4 of 59
What sense does it make to screw up the signal quality by a parametric EQ and then have Audyssey trying restore some of the lost signal and then some ?
post #5 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Audyssey doesn't need a head start!! There's no benefit of doing something like that!
Better to discuss:
1. What AVR/AVP do you have?
2. What are you unhappy with that Audyssey "does" to your system?
Maybe moving your query to the "Official Audyssey Thread" would yield more attention and help from all the knowledgable guys over there. smile.gif

I am aware in most cases that Audyssey doesn't need any help, and it certainly does some good things. My biggest improvement I have seen since moving up this year to xt32 and subeq has been its ability to get the sub section down a little better than it did before, and my response right now is pretty darn good already, but I want to see if I can get it better. For instance, lets say pre-test shows my system at +/- 10-15dB, post Aud I get to +/-10db's but would be +/- 5db's with a little extra help in two extra spots. Also, I like to KNOW what my system is doing to the signal, and if I already have my L/R more or less EQ'd before Audyssey does its thing, I would know Audyssey would not require as many filters to get it in line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

What are you trying to accomplish? Is it upper octaves or the bass EQ that you don't like with Audyssey?
What measuring gear are you using?
Audyssey can do some not so good things with some systems, that's for sure. I'm curious though what your issue is?

REW, OM, Audyssey. The bass EQ I use my DCX in concert with the SubEQ system, and Aud. does ok with the surrounds, at least enough for me, the EQ's would basically be more for the LS6's on the sides and that is it...I can't really describe what Aud. is doing to the system other than it doesn't really get my response all the way there. I wont require any ridiculous boosts, but I could, with some more tweaking, get my setup a lot tighter IMO.
post #6 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurkey View Post

What sense does it make to screw up the signal quality by a parametric EQ and then have Audyssey trying restore some of the lost signal and then some ?

Wha? This is a quality 31 band Eq system used by pro's for studio mastering! I really don't think something that is +/- .5dB is really "screwing up" the signal quality, and for that matter, Audyssey certainly isn't going to be trying to restore lost signal. Not really it's cup-a-tea. I'm not trying to be an anti-audyssey hater here, I just want to see what manually eqing might accomplish in concert.
post #7 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

I am aware in most cases that Audyssey doesn't need any help, and it certainly does some good things. My biggest improvement I have seen since moving up this year to xt32 and subeq has been its ability to get the sub section down a little better than it did before, and my response right now is pretty darn good already, but I want to see if I can get it better. For instance, lets say pre-test shows my system at +/- 10-15dB, post Aud I get to +/-10db's but would be +/- 5db's with a little extra help in two extra spots. Also, I like to KNOW what my system is doing to the signal, and if I already have my L/R more or less EQ'd before Audyssey does its thing, I would know Audyssey would not require as many filters to get it in line.
REW, OM, Audyssey. The bass EQ I use my DCX in concert with the SubEQ system, and Aud. does ok with the surrounds, at least enough for me, the EQ's would basically be more for the LS6's on the sides and that is it...I can't really describe what Aud. is doing to the system other than it doesn't really get my response all the way there. I wont require any ridiculous boosts, but I could, with some more tweaking, get my setup a lot tighter IMO.

Well,...all I can wish you is: have fun getting your setup tighter,...whatever that means!! smile.gif See Ya! cool.gif
post #8 of 59
Keep in mind..
The most significant requirement is to balance the frequencies <300Hz...
If one doesn't control the LF room resonances, peaks and nulls, the rest of the audio spectrum will be muddied up..

Just my $0.02... wink.gif
post #9 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

I am considering strongly either the Berry or DBX (suggestions between the two?) dual 31 band Eq's to try and see what I can do to my speakers manually before I let Audyssey have it's go at it. This is just for some fun and to possibly even get better response out of my setup if possible smile.gif Any thoughts says you on the benefits of doing something like this? TBQH, I am not all that happy with certain things that Audyssey does to my system, so I would like to see if I can do what I can to no longer need it's processing and/or compare my best shot at its best shot head to head and compare!!! Thanks guys!

I would be prone to reverse the process and let Audyssey do its thing, and then use the parametric eq to overlay my own preferences on the system's sound.
post #10 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I would be prone to reverse the process and let Audyssey do its thing, and then use the parametric eq to overlay my own preferences on the system's sound.

And then you would get to the same result as gurkey described above: screw up the signal quality by a parametric EQ! eek.gifwink.gif
post #11 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

What are you trying to accomplish? Is it upper octaves or the bass EQ that you don't like with Audyssey?
What measuring gear are you using?
Audyssey can do some not so good things with some systems, that's for sure. I'm curious though what your issue is?

REW, OM, Audyssey. The bass EQ I use my DCX in concert with the SubEQ system, and Aud. does ok with the surrounds, at least enough for me, the EQ's would basically be more for the LS6's on the sides and that is it...I can't really describe what Aud. is doing to the system other than it doesn't really get my response all the way there. I wont require any ridiculous boosts, but I could, with some more tweaking, get my setup a lot tighter IMO.[/quote]

If you already own the parametric EQ, then throw it in and see what happens. Nothing to lose there. My only comment would be that the parametric EQ should be used only below the Schroeder frequency since it will likely do worse than Audyssey in every instance above Schroeder.

But if you're buying the EQ for this issue, I think it's a poor use of funds. Every additional EQ in the chain is going to eat up more and more headroom. The far superior approach would be to invest in more subs to correct the issues and focus on sub optimization with your measuring gear. Unless you have extreme amounts of headroom to start with, the brute force EQ is a very distant third choice compared to modal sub optimization and room treatments. Get that right and then either use Audyssey or the parametric EQ to fix what's left, but not both. Audyssey (and really all EQ) really works best as a fine tune, not to fix big problems.
post #12 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Well,...all I can wish you is: have fun getting your setup tighter,...whatever that means!! smile.gif See Ya! cool.gif

I mean, a smoother overall frequency response smile.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post

Keep in mind..
The most significant requirement is to balance the frequencies <300Hz...
If one doesn't control the LF room resonances, peaks and nulls, the rest of the audio spectrum will be muddied up..
Just my $0.02... wink.gif

Agreed, and between 150-800hz is where the main changes need to be made at this point. Audyssey does a fine job past that, and below about 150hz, I am virtually ruler flat after EQ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I would be prone to reverse the process and let Audyssey do its thing, and then use the parametric eq to overlay my own preferences on the system's sound.

A good suggestion, I might try it both ways to see which yields the best overall results. I will certainly post my findings here when I take the time to try it out wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

REW, OM, Audyssey. The bass EQ I use my DCX in concert with the SubEQ system, and Aud. does ok with the surrounds, at least enough for me, the EQ's would basically be more for the LS6's on the sides and that is it...I can't really describe what Aud. is doing to the system other than it doesn't really get my response all the way there. I wont require any ridiculous boosts, but I could, with some more tweaking, get my setup a lot tighter IMO.
If you already own the parametric EQ, then throw it in and see what happens. Nothing to lose there. My only comment would be that the parametric EQ should be used only below the Schroeder frequency since it will likely do worse than Audyssey in every instance above Schroeder.
But if you're buying the EQ for this issue, I think it's a poor use of funds. Every additional EQ in the chain is going to eat up more and more headroom. The far superior approach would be to invest in more subs to correct the issues and focus on sub optimization with your measuring gear. Unless you have extreme amounts of headroom to start with, the brute force EQ is a very distant third choice compared to modal sub optimization and room treatments. Get that right and then either use Audyssey or the parametric EQ to fix what's left, but not both. Audyssey (and really all EQ) really works best as a fine tune, not to fix big problems.[/quote]

Subs aren't the issue as I stated above, but regardless, I have PLENTY of headroom across the board!!! Room treatments are about as good as I can get it, sans bass traps in the corners, as I have no corners in the back that I could use (hallway and stairway on each corner) and the front of the room has my air return in one corner as well> Also not to mention, the room is only 11 feet wide at the screen, so I dont have a WHOLE lot of room to work with. If only I had another 4 feet smile.gif
post #13 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I would be prone to reverse the process and let Audyssey do its thing, and then use the parametric eq to overlay my own preferences on the system's sound.

And then you would get to the same result as gurkey described above: screw up the signal quality by a parametric EQ! eek.gifwink.gif

Why would a parametric eq necessarily screw up the signal?
post #14 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Why would a parametric eq necessarily screw up the signal?

agreed. I don't think a quality pro EQ would degrade the signal at all, especially assuming it is THD/Noise rated at .003% haha. Not too much degradation or noise added there smile.gif
post #15 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

]

Subs aren't the issue as I stated above, but regardless, I have PLENTY of headroom across the board!!! Room treatments are about as good as I can get it, sans bass traps in the corners, as I have no corners in the back that I could use (hallway and stairway on each corner) and the front of the room has my air return in one corner as well> Also not to mention, the room is only 11 feet wide at the screen, so I dont have a WHOLE lot of room to work with. If only I had another 4 feet smile.gif

OK. I'd go for it. The fact is that Audyssey may not be the best solution in your situation. When it works, its fantastic. But I have first hand experience with poor Audyssey calibrations.

If you're not happy with what its doing I would eliminate it altogether and see how results are with the parametric EQ. It wouldn't surprise me at all if you preferred it over Audyssey.
post #16 of 59
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the help for sure!!! It is funny but I was listening downstairs last night and kept switching between stereo (audyssey) and direct (No audyssey) and both had things that I seemed to like better, so I would love to at least try manually to capture both at the same time and hopefully find the best midpoint that would take the good parts of both settings and create an even better experience. We shall see what I can come up with smile.gif Ill post my findings!!!
post #17 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Why would a parametric eq necessarily screw up the signal?

Always think of a parametric EQ as a frequency dependent volume control (invented in the 20th century, BTW), in this case 31 volume controls (not much). How do you know which one to adjust and to what extent? Without taking frequency response measurements in the room to see what need to be corrected it is nothing but guess work, not anything we could call scientific.

The final result will be a room set to preference. As an example the parametric EQ setting will most like result in a frequency response anything but flat. Now you play an instrument that has a base frequency and lot of fundamentals (harmonics, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). With an uneven frequency resposne there is the likeliness that the ratio among the base frequency and all the harmonics will be changed, thus resulting in loss of fidelity, i.e. the instrument will sound differently than recorded in the studio.

The aim of Audyssey is to EQ each speaker channel (and it's interaction with room acoustics) to a flat frequency response.

Now if you use a parametric EQ in conjunction with Audyssey after running auto setup the para curve will prevail, i.e. you are going to have an uneven frequency response curve in your room set by the para, while Audyssey will be out of the equation since it has a flat response. But if you tweak the para and then run Audyssey, most likely Audyssey is going to flatten out your para settings as well.

Do it at your will, experimenting is free. wink.gif
Edited by mogorf - 12/4/12 at 11:14am
post #18 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Why would a parametric eq necessarily screw up the signal?

Always think of a parametric EQ as a frequency dependent volume control (invented in the 20th century, BTW), in this case 31 volume controls (not much).

You appear to be confused. An Eq with 31 volume controls would be a 1/3 graphic eq., not a parametric eq. The number of sections in a parametric eq is usually far smaller than 31, often only 3 to 6. Each section of a parametric eq has a frequency control, a bandwidth or Q control, and a depth/peaking or volume control.
Quote:
How do you know which one to adjust and to what extent?

God gave me ears, fingers and a brain and the time to learn. ;-)
Quote:
Without taking frequency response measurements in the room to see what need to be corrected it is nothing but guess work, not anything we could call scientific.

So what? Having the resources to do frequency response measurements is not rocket science in this day and age. I have all that at my disposal as well. So do a goodly number of the people posting to this thread, it seems.
Quote:
The final result will be a room set to preference.

Which is far from a bad thing.
Quote:
As an example the parametric EQ setting will most like result in a frequency response anything but flat.

Since you are obviously very confused about simple things like the difference between a graphic eq and a parametric eq, why should I believe such a excessively global statement?

Reality is that the problem of non-flat response is not a failing of either graphic or parametric equalizers as classes of devices, but rather a problem relating to the people making the adjustments. If the people making the adjustments have the right training and resources, they will be able to get reasonably flat response no matter which kind of equalizer they have.
Quote:
Now you play an instrument that has a base frequency and lot of fundamentals (harmonics, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.).

Heck, you don't even know which base is the right bass to use. You're going to lecture me about how to equalize an audio system?
Quote:
With an uneven frequency resposne (sic) there is the likeliness (sic) that the ratio among the base(sic) frequency and all the harmonics will be changed, thus resulting in loss of fidelity, i.e. the instrument will sound differently than recorded in the studio.

That would hardly be a news flash. even if you weren't mangling the English spelling and syntax.
Quote:
The aim of Audyssey is to EQ each speaker channel (and it's interaction with room acoustics) to a flat frequency response.

Of course. That's hardly a news flash.

Whether you know it or not, it is not written on stone tablets that everybody wants their audio system to have perfectly flat frequency response. My thinking was that if you had an equalizer and wanted to use it with Audyssey, one approach would be to let Audyssey do its thing unmolested, and then touch up system response with an independent eq to allow the listener to imprint his personal tastes on the system.

Thanks for trying to play, but...
post #19 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Without taking frequency response measurements in the room to see what need to be corrected it is nothing but guess work, not anything we could call scientific.

I am constantly running sweeps and measuring anytime I even move the speaker's toe-in. The eQ would be COMPLETELY pointless without looking at the real-time effects.
Quote:
As an example the parametric EQ setting will most like result in a frequency response anything but flat.

That would be a pretty poor example then, wouldn't it? If my "after-tweaking" created a worse response than before Audyssey, then I will just blame it on alcohol.
Quote:
Whether you know it or not, it is not written on stone tablets that everybody wants their audio system to have perfectly flat frequency response. My thinking was that if you had an equalizer and wanted to use it with Audyssey, one approach would be to let Audyssey do its thing unmolested, and then touch up system response with an independent eq to allow the listener to imprint his personal tastes on the system.

What do you think about the response when Audyssey does really strange things i.e. boosting unnecessarily, and sometimes exorbitantly, and potentially EQing before Audyssey to hopefully prevent some of the interesting filters that can sometimes arise from some Audyssey calibrations? I have seen it on graphs many a time no less.
post #20 of 59
Quote:
You appear to be confused. An Eq with 31 volume controls would be a 1/3 graphic eq., not a parametric eq. The number of sections in a parametric eq is usually far smaller than 31, often only 3 to 6. Each section of a parametric eq has a frequency control, a bandwidth or Q control, and a depth/peaking or volume control.

When you will look into Audyssey technology (recommended) like MultEQ XT 32 you will see that it has more than 10,000 control points from 10 Hz to 24 kHz and in this regard 31 volume controls is practically nil. Don't you think so? smile.gif
Quote:
God gave me ears, fingers and a brain and the time to learn. ;-)

Our God given ears (+brain) are pretty good when it comes to listening to music and enjoying it but can easily fail when it comes to detailed measurements. Man invented instruments for that kinda job.
Quote:
So what? Having the resources to do frequency response measurements is not rocket science in this day and age. I have all that at my disposal as well. So do a goodly number of the people posting to this thread, it seems.

I thought you said you have good ears! smile.gif
Quote:
Which is far from a bad thing.

Preference can be good when it starts from reference.

Quote:
Since you are obviously very confused about simple things like the difference between a graphic eq and a parametric eq, why should I believe such a excessively global statement?

Show me your flat measurement graphs, please. smile.gif
Quote:
Reality is that the problem of non-flat response is not a failing of either graphic or parametric equalizers as classes of devices, but rather a problem relating to the people making the adjustments. If the people making the adjustments have the right training and resources, they will be able to get reasonably flat response no matter which kind of equalizer they have.

See above.
Quote:
Heck, you don't even know which base is the right bass to use. You're going to lecture me about how to equalize an audio system?

I'm not talking about bass but base frequency.
Quote:
Whether you know it or not, it is not written on stone tablets that everybody wants their audio system to have perfectly flat frequency response. My thinking was that if you had an equalizer and wanted to use it with Audyssey, one approach would be to let Audyssey do its thing unmolested, and then touch up system response with an independent eq to allow the listener to imprint his personal tastes on the system.
Thanks for trying to play, but...

Very strange approach for independently eq'ing on top of Audyssey with a third party device. Thanks for trying but not an advice worth to follow...(reasons I already described in my previous post.)

Take care. smile.gif
Edited by mogorf - 12/4/12 at 12:53pm
post #21 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
When you will look into Audyssey technology (recommended) like MultEQ XT 32 you will see that it has more than 10,000 control points from 10 Hz to 24 kHz and in this regard 31 volume controls is practically nil. Don't you think so?

No, not at all actually. I have seen Audyssey boost a given channel 8dB's before, trying to solve a poor speaker placement where cancellation was taking place. It practically killed the amp headroom right then and there, not even considering any of the other 9,999 filters it could potentially apply. Judging from your Sig, you are certainly a HUGE fan of Audyssey, and know your stuff about it, but sometimes automated processes can do some strange things trying to get to their desired end-point that could also be potentially devastating for someone's system. Not to say it does its job right 90% of the time, and that due diligence should be taken in proper room configuration before the sweeps are done, but I digress, it is a process which can still get confused and do things that otherwise, a human would stop and try to figure out WHY it was boosting 8dB's unnecessarily, and try to solve the issue before pressing forward.
Quote:
Very strange approach for independently eq'ing on top of Audyssey with a third party device. Thanks for trying but not an advice worth to follow...(reasons I already described in my previous post.)

Take care.

I couldn't disagree more. As I have said before, Audyssey will get your time domain issues right, and EQ you out to a pretty good response. Mine for example after all of this is around +/- 6-7dB. With a couple additional filters across the 150-800hz range I could get my response to +/- 3dB's. Now what part of that is "very strange?"
post #22 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

No, not at all actually. I have seen Audyssey boost a given channel 8dB's before, trying to solve a poor speaker placement where cancellation was taking place. It practically killed the amp headroom right then and there, not even considering any of the other 9,999 filters it could potentially apply. Judging from your Sig, you are certainly a HUGE fan of Audyssey, and know your stuff about it, but sometimes automated processes can do some strange things trying to get to their desired end-point that could also be potentially devastating for someone's system. Not to say it does its job right 90% of the time, and that due diligence should be taken in proper room configuration before the sweeps are done, but I digress, it is a process which can still get confused and do things that otherwise, a human would stop and try to figure out WHY it was boosting 8dB's unnecessarily, and try to solve the issue before pressing forward.
I couldn't disagree more. As I have said before, Audyssey will get your time domain issues right, and EQ you out to a pretty good response. Mine for example after all of this is around +/- 6-7dB. With a couple additional filters across the 150-800hz range I could get my response to +/- 3dB's. Now what part of that is "very strange?"

As I said before, experimenting is free and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, please do not misundestand me. smile.gif What may be problematic is drawing the wrong conclusions!

Tell a bit more about your measurement technique, please. REW? Omnimic? How many measurements to you take? Same 8 as Audyssey or just one? Do you take utmost care to place the test mic to the exact same place as the Audyssey mic was placed? If you take 8 test measurements do you do an RMS averaging in REW or look at just one graph? Etc...
post #23 of 59
Quote:

 

Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

That would hardly be a news flash. even if you weren't mangling the English spelling and syntax.

 

 

Unfair. Feri is Hungarian and his command of English is better than many of the native-English speakers who frequent these forums.

 

Quote:
Whether you know it or not, it is not written on stone tablets that everybody wants their audio system to have perfectly flat frequency response. My thinking was that if you had an equalizer and wanted to use it with Audyssey, one approach would be to let Audyssey do its thing unmolested, and then touch up system response with an independent eq to allow the listener to imprint his personal tastes on the system.

 

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?

post #24 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Very strange approach for independently eq'ing on top of Audyssey with a third party device. Thanks for trying but not an advice worth to follow...(reasons I already described in my previous post.)
 

 

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:

 

 

1000

 

 

 

 

post #25 of 59
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

No, not at all actually. I have seen Audyssey boost a given channel 8dB's before, trying to solve a poor speaker placement where cancellation was taking place. It practically killed the amp headroom right then and there, not even considering any of the other 9,999 filters it could potentially apply. Judging from your Sig, you are certainly a HUGE fan of Audyssey, and know your stuff about it, but sometimes automated processes can do some strange things trying to get to their desired end-point that could also be potentially devastating for someone's system. Not to say it does its job right 90% of the time, and that due diligence should be taken in proper room configuration before the sweeps are done, but I digress, it is a process which can still get confused and do things that otherwise, a human would stop and try to figure out WHY it was boosting 8dB's unnecessarily, and try to solve the issue before pressing forward.

 

 

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.

 

Quote:
I couldn't disagree more. As I have said before, Audyssey will get your time domain issues right, and EQ you out to a pretty good response. Mine for example after all of this is around +/- 6-7dB. With a couple additional filters across the 150-800hz range I could get my response to +/- 3dB's. Now what part of that is "very strange?"

 

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?

post #26 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

No, not at all actually. I have seen Audyssey boost a given channel 8dB's before, trying to solve a poor speaker placement where cancellation was taking place. It practically killed the amp headroom right then and there, not even considering any of the other 9,999 filters it could potentially apply. Judging from your Sig, you are certainly a HUGE fan of Audyssey, and know your stuff about it, but sometimes automated processes can do some strange things trying to get to their desired end-point that could also be potentially devastating for someone's system. Not to say it does its job right 90% of the time, and that due diligence should be taken in proper room configuration before the sweeps are done, but I digress, it is a process which can still get confused and do things that otherwise, a human would stop and try to figure out WHY it was boosting 8dB's unnecessarily, and try to solve the issue before pressing forward.
I couldn't disagree more. As I have said before, Audyssey will get your time domain issues right, and EQ you out to a pretty good response. Mine for example after all of this is around +/- 6-7dB. With a couple additional filters across the 150-800hz range I could get my response to +/- 3dB's. Now what part of that is "very strange?"

As I said before, experimenting is free and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, please do not misundestand me. smile.gif What may be problematic is drawing the wrong conclusions!

Tell a bit more about your measurement technique, please. REW? Omnimic? How many measurements to you take? Same 8 as Audyssey or just one? Do you take utmost care to place the test mic to the exact same place as the Audyssey mic was placed? If you take 8 test measurements do you do an RMS averaging in REW or look at just one graph? Etc...

 

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).


Edited by kbarnes701 - 12/4/12 at 2:09pm
post #27 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Unfair. Feri is Hungarian and his command of English is better than many of the native-English speakers who frequent these forums.

I'm being flattered here Keith, ain't I? smile.gif
post #28 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

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:







Keith, you also know the general advice of taking out every possible filter (and any additional circuitry) out of the way of Audyssey prior to eq'ing a subwoofer. Crossover set to max., phase knob set to 0, best if sub amp has an LFE input bypassing this kinda stuff, and all that jazz. Now you want to introduce another set of filters into the chain in form of a PEQ. Care to reconsider? smile.gif
post #29 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

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:







Keith, you also know the general advice of taking out every possible filter (and any additional circuitry) out of the way of Audyssey prior to eq'ing a subwoofer. Crossover set to max., phase knob set to 0, best if sub amp has an LFE input bypassing this kinda stuff, and all that jazz. Now you want to introduce another set of filters into the chain in form of a PEQ. Care to reconsider? smile.gif
That's advice for folks without measuring gear and it doesn't apply to more complex systems.

Audyssey is not the only tool in the shed for those with the knowledge and measuring gear.
post #30 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

That's advice for folks without measuring gear and it doesn't apply to more complex systems.
Audyssey is not the only tool in the shed for those with the knowledge and measuring gear.

IMHO, it's not a question of having measuring gear or not, but a question of adding additional circuity into the chain or not. My position is that it is not advisable to clutter the system with circuitry that may add unpredictable results like phase distortion that may result in unwanted lessening of audio-fidelity at frequencies affected when it comes to odds adding up. On the contrary, feel free to use a PEQ, but make sure to turn Audyssey off. Dual systems are always harder to handle (and troubleshoot) than single systems. Agree?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Using dual 31band EQ's for LCR to Give Audyssey a Head Start?