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? - Page 2

post #31 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

 

Feri, can you not see the improvement in the bass curve in my graph?  Why on earth would I want to reconsider?

post #32 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

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

 

No - it is true, based on some of the posts I read every day.

post #33 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

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?

 

Not only does my system measure better using the Pgm2 tweak I mention above, but it also sounds better. What else is there?

post #34 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


I am a huge Audyssey fan too (and my sig is even more revealing than Feri's smile.gif ) 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?

Absolutely!!! Last night I did some measuring, moving, and distance/XO adjustments, just to see what I could come up with over an hour or so of tweaking. I can post graphs this evening, but essentially, with just a couple filters (XO region especially) I was able to get the best response I have ever seen between all my speakers. I meant to post some graphs, but I got sucked in to just sitting and listening for a while and was more than pleased with what I came up with. The biggest thing I noticed though, was the Audyssey sweep I did last night was DRAMATICALLY different from the one I did previously (at least to my ears, I didn't measure the last response). Bottom line, it kinda goes to prove that your results, all things being equal, can be quite different between Audyssey testings, and for that, I think additional eQ is certainly beneficial to keep your naked response closer to the final objective to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

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?

Phase distortion shouldnt be an issue unless you are throwing a shoddy component in the chain. I would hardly consider the DBX eQ as such. Dual systems will certainly require a little additional attention, and is certainly not for everyone. For me however, I like the challenge, and will most definitely reap the benefits of having the added flexibility in my system.
post #35 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Absolutely!!! Last night I did some measuring, moving, and distance/XO adjustments, just to see what I could come up with over an hour or so of tweaking. I can post graphs this evening, but essentially, with just a couple filters (XO region especially) I was able to get the best response I have ever seen between all my speakers. I meant to post some graphs, but I got sucked in to just sitting and listening for a while and was more than pleased with what I came up with. The biggest thing I noticed though, was the Audyssey sweep I did last night was DRAMATICALLY different from the one I did previously (at least to my ears, I didn't measure the last response). Bottom line, it kinda goes to prove that your results, all things being equal, can be quite different between Audyssey testings, and for that, I think additional eQ is certainly beneficial to keep your naked response closer to the final objective to begin with.
Phase distortion shouldnt be an issue unless you are throwing a shoddy component in the chain. I would hardly consider the DBX eQ as such. Dual systems will certainly require a little additional attention, and is certainly not for everyone. For me however, I like the challenge, and will most definitely reap the benefits of having the added flexibility in my system.

If you think phase distortion is a quality factor and the more expensive the gear the lower it is, then I think I'm not gonna post in this thread anymore.

Have fun, enjoy your system. smile.gif
post #36 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

If you think phase distortion is a quality factor and the more expensive the gear the lower it is, then I think I'm not gonna post in this thread anymore.
Have fun, enjoy your system. smile.gif

Not what I said at all. Just saying a good piece of equipment done right should not just immediately introduce phasing issues, but even if it did, it is still able to be adjusted back out.

I am not in the "more expensive it is, the better it is" camp by a long shot. Don't insult me.
post #37 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


I am a huge Audyssey fan too (and my sig is even more revealing than Feri's smile.gif ) 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?

Absolutely!!! Last night I did some measuring, moving, and distance/XO adjustments, just to see what I could come up with over an hour or so of tweaking. I can post graphs this evening, but essentially, with just a couple filters (XO region especially) I was able to get the best response I have ever seen between all my speakers. I meant to post some graphs, but I got sucked in to just sitting and listening for a while and was more than pleased with what I came up with. The biggest thing I noticed though, was the Audyssey sweep I did last night was DRAMATICALLY different from the one I did previously (at least to my ears, I didn't measure the last response). Bottom line, it kinda goes to prove that your results, all things being equal, can be quite different between Audyssey testings, and for that, I think additional eQ is certainly beneficial to keep your naked response closer to the final objective to begin with.
 

 

Yes, I think it is wrong for anyone to believe that Audyssey can never be improved upon. In fact I know it is wrong because I (and many others) have improved on Audyssey's results. For example, Audyssey rarely gets the sub distances absolutely correct and by tweaking them post-calibration, almost everyone who has tried this has reported an improvement in the FR at the vital XO region. Of course you do need measuring equipment and the knowledge of how to use it, but these days very many serious hobbyists have REW or an OmniMic and are able to make and interpret the various measurements and graphs. 

 

Audyssey Pro even provides a built-in tool for changing the results afte calibration by way of the Curve Editor - and again it requires independent measuring gear to be able to use it. 

 

Audyssey is terrific for those who want to simply run the calibration and then sit back and enjoy their system. They will almost certainly have made very substantial improvements compared with an un-EQd system. But, like everything, it is not perfect and those with the desire, knowledge, skill and patience can effect subtle but significant improvements by doing some careful after-calibration tweaking of the sort we have been discussing. 

 

There are also the issues with deep, room-induced nulls, which electronic EQ can do nothing of significance about and after running Audyssey, some post-cal measuring will reveal the nulls and then one can contemplate means of eliminating or reducing them, with traps or multiple subs or room rearrangement etc. It is not fair to criticise Audyssey over  something it is scientifically impossible for it to fix, and I am not doing that, but this example does show that Audyssey can simply be one tool in the chest when it comes to seeking the 'perfect response'.

post #38 of 59
While not perfect it is amazing to me how well Audyssey does given imperfect rooms and speakers.
post #39 of 59
Thread Starter 
Came home for lunch, here is a little before and after graph...


Before


After


Keep in mind the graph constraints are much tighter in the second graph. Not too bad at all, but I can still see a few spots that additional EQing would be nice smile.gif
post #40 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

While not perfect it is amazing to me how well Audyssey does given imperfect rooms and speakers.

Absolutely. 

post #41 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Came home for lunch, here is a little before and after graph...


Before


After


Keep in mind the graph constraints are much tighter in the second graph. Not too bad at all, but I can still see a few spots that additional EQing would be nice smile.gif

 

What smoothing are you using?

 

Nearest I have to your measured range is:

 

 

1000

This is with 1/12th smoothing and I have since improved on the flatness of the curve, but can't find the darn graph (I think it is still on my laptop).

post #42 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

What smoothing are you using?

Nearest I have to your measured range is:



This is with 1/12th smoothing and I have since improved on the flatness of the curve, but can't find the darn graph (I think it is still on my laptop).

1/6th smoothing, but 1/12th was quite similar as far as the +/- range goes. Keep in mind that "after" graph is still pre additional eQ, and that my dB range is quite constricted. Even though it looks kinda ugly, I am still +/-3db across the entire range. I think I could get it even better messing around with that one little area from 400hz to 1.2kHz. I would then reset my low-end house curve, which it appears you have as well smile.gif
post #43 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

What smoothing are you using?

Nearest I have to your measured range is:



This is with 1/12th smoothing and I have since improved on the flatness of the curve, but can't find the darn graph (I think it is still on my laptop).

1/6th smoothing, but 1/12th was quite similar as far as the +/- range goes. Keep in mind that "after" graph is still pre additional eQ, and that my dB range is quite constricted. Even though it looks kinda ugly, I am still +/-3db across the entire range. I think I could get it even better messing around with that one little area from 400hz to 1.2kHz. I would then reset my low-end house curve, which it appears you have as well smile.gif

 

1/6th smoothing makes for a nice looking graph but it doesn’t tell us enough about what is really going on IMO.  Generally the most useful smoothing IMO is 1/24th and that is what I (and others) usually use for any graphs I 'publish' here. I also stick to a 5dB range for the graphs as most people seem to use that which makes it easier to compare. If your graph was using the same smoothing and same dB range, I bet it wouldn't look all that different to mine.

 

Here's one of mine with 1/6th smoothing (probably made on a different occasion to the 1/2th graph shown before so they won't compare precisely):

 

 

 

1000

 

 

I am striving for +/- 3dB across the spectrum (other than the low end where I run the subs a little hot as you can see. I have read that a plus or minus 3dB is probably inaudible, hence my striving to get there. To get it to where it is has taken some effort though with Audyssey Pro, room treatments, OmniMic and additional DSP in my Submersives.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 12/6/12 at 8:19am
post #44 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

1/6th smoothing makes for a nice looking graph but it doesn’t tell us enough about what is really going on IMO.  Generally the most useful smoothing IMO is 1/24th and that is what I (and others) usually use for any graphs I 'publish' here. I also stick to a 5dB range for the graphs as most people seem to use that which makes it easier to compare. If your graph was using the same smoothing and same dB range, I bet it wouldn't look all that different to mine.

Here's one of mine with 1/6th smoothing (probably made on a different occasion to the 1/2th graph shown before so they won't compare precisely):






I am striving for +/- 3dB across the spectrum (other than the low end where I run the subs a little hot as you can see. I have read that a plus or minus 3dB is probably inaudible, hence my striving to get there. To get it to where it is has taken some effort though with Audyssey Pro, room treatments, OmniMic and additional DSP in my Submersives.

1/6th smoothing is about the resolution that the human ear can hear as well. I will work on getting some additional 1/12th graphs for you as well. What I was trying to say is the 1/12th graph I was looking at in real-time was within the same range as the 1/6th, so I opted for the 1/6th. As you can see, I care more about having a graph that is easily readable, as opposed to just looking pretty, but I will get it back to 5dB increments for the sake of good comparison. You have a great response btw, but with the subM's, wouldnt you want to expand out the bottom end of the graph to measure down to at least 10hz?
post #45 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

1/6th smoothing is about the resolution that the human ear can hear as well. I will work on getting some additional 1/12th graphs for you as well. What I was trying to say is the 1/12th graph I was looking at in real-time was within the same range as the 1/6th, so I opted for the 1/6th. As you can see, I care more about having a graph that is easily readable, as opposed to just looking pretty, but I will get it back to 5dB increments for the sake of good comparison. You have a great response btw, but with the subM's, wouldnt you want to expand out the bottom end of the graph to measure down to at least 10hz?

 

Yes, a graph with 1/24th and 5dB increments would be great - that is what most seem to use.  Yes, you are right, I did do some graphs with the bottom end expanded - I made the 20Hz ones for ease of comparison with my old subs, which had no significant output below 20Hz. Here's one that shows the bass frequencies only. This is with a 100Hz XO to the Submersives, 1/24th smoothing.

 

 

1000

 

 

Here's the same response with 1/6th smoothing:

 

 

1000

 

Here I am pretty much on the money for +/- 3dB.

post #46 of 59
Thread Starter 
No Kidding! That is wonderful. I will have some time Saturday where I might do a little messing around downstairs, and I am also hoping the EQ comes by then as well. Next two nights I have Willie Nelson and then Killswitch Engage (talk about broad genre selection) so I won't have a whole lot of time (or sobriety) to measure properly.
post #47 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post


1/6th smoothing is about the resolution that the human ear can hear as well. I will work on getting some additional 1/12th graphs for you as well. What I was trying to say is the 1/12th graph I was looking at in real-time was within the same range as the 1/6th, so I opted for the 1/6th. As you can see, I care more about having a graph that is easily readable, as opposed to just looking pretty, but I will get it back to 5dB increments for the sake of good comparison. You have a great response btw, but with the subM's, wouldnt you want to expand out the bottom end of the graph to measure down to at least 10hz?

Hi guys,

Quick note on measurement resolution. 1/12th-1/24th octave resolution is of interest below 100-300Hz, where there are much narrower band effects we are concerned with or where subwoofer and speaker location changes can make significant changes to very narrow/high Q issues. When looking at the full range frequency response, 1/6th octave does have a good relation to what we discern with our ears, but for purposes of tailoring the balance/voicing of a system, it can also be very useful to look at 1/3rd octave with a glance at 1/12th octave to confirm what is causing the shape of the 1/3rd octave curve. EQ in the upper ranges should always be done with care and lots of listening and measuring.

While the programs will give you a high resolution plot at high frequencies, often it doesn't mean much unless you have sufficient windowing flexibility to compare direct sound (shorter time window) and long term average (ie RTA). Unless it's clear there is a problem in the speaker itself you are taming, better results are often had with more subtle and broad EQ of the response with wide PEQs or shelf filters. Figuring out how to apply such adjustments can be difficult when only looking at high resolution plots with lots of hair and sharp changes. Heavier smoothing helps visualize trends and lets us look at the overall spectral balance we might be hearing.
post #48 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

No Kidding! That is wonderful. I will have some time Saturday where I might do a little messing around downstairs, and I am also hoping the EQ comes by then as well. Next two nights I have Willie Nelson and then Killswitch Engage (talk about broad genre selection) so I won't have a whole lot of time (or sobriety) to measure properly.

Sounds like fun!  Enjoy. I'll look forward to seeing your graphs after the EQ is in...

post #49 of 59
@beastaudio
A note to your signature:
European models mostly do accept banana plugs, but you have to remove the small insert in the middle of the speaker connectors beforehand which is needed because of European regulations.
Edited by gurkey - 12/7/12 at 11:24am
post #50 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurkey View Post

@beastaudio
A note to your signature:
European models mostly do accept banana plugs, but you have to remove the small insert in the middle of the speaker connectors beforehand which are been needed because of European regulations.

And an easy way to remove the plug is to partially screw in a small self-tapping screw and then pull out the plug using pliers. 

 

I used to work in the fashion photography business and a lot of the European models accepted all manner of plugs eek.gif  (Is this what Beast meant?? :))

post #51 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post


1/6th smoothing is about the resolution that the human ear can hear as well. I will work on getting some additional 1/12th graphs for you as well. What I was trying to say is the 1/12th graph I was looking at in real-time was within the same range as the 1/6th, so I opted for the 1/6th. As you can see, I care more about having a graph that is easily readable, as opposed to just looking pretty, but I will get it back to 5dB increments for the sake of good comparison. You have a great response btw, but with the subM's, wouldnt you want to expand out the bottom end of the graph to measure down to at least 10hz?

Hi guys,

Quick note on measurement resolution. 1/12th-1/24th octave resolution is of interest below 100-300Hz, where there are much narrower band effects we are concerned with or where subwoofer and speaker location changes can make significant changes to very narrow/high Q issues. When looking at the full range frequency response, 1/6th octave does have a good relation to what we discern with our ears, but for purposes of tailoring the balance/voicing of a system, it can also be very useful to look at 1/3rd octave with a glance at 1/12th octave to confirm what is causing the shape of the 1/3rd octave curve. EQ in the upper ranges should always be done with care and lots of listening and measuring.

While the programs will give you a high resolution plot at high frequencies, often it doesn't mean much unless you have sufficient windowing flexibility to compare direct sound (shorter time window) and long term average (ie RTA). Unless it's clear there is a problem in the speaker itself you are taming, better results are often had with more subtle and broad EQ of the response with wide PEQs or shelf filters. Figuring out how to apply such adjustments can be difficult when only looking at high resolution plots with lots of hair and sharp changes. Heavier smoothing helps visualize trends and lets us look at the overall spectral balance we might be hearing.

Thanks Mark. Very illuminating - esp the comments wrt to 1/3 smoothing.

post #52 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurkey View Post

@beastaudio
A note to your signature:
European models mostly do accept banana plugs, but you have to remove the small insert in the middle of the speaker connectors beforehand which are been needed because of European regulations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

And an easy way to remove the plug is to partially screw in a small self-tapping screw and then pull out the plug using pliers. 

I used to work in the fashion photography business and a lot of the European models accepted all manner of plugs eek.gif   (Is this what Beast meant?? smile.gif)

Ding Ding!! We have a winner! Haha. I saw that message in my Denon user manual and my mind immediately took it out of context. I thought it was hilarious. Sorry for any confusion, but I have gotten plenty of messages asking me to clarify.

Willie Nelson was great last night! I am gearing up for the Killswitch Show now, and then hopefully this thread can go back to being more constructive.
post #53 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

Hi guys,
Quick note on measurement resolution. 1/12th-1/24th octave resolution is of interest below 100-300Hz, where there are much narrower band effects we are concerned with or where subwoofer and speaker location changes can make significant changes to very narrow/high Q issues. When looking at the full range frequency response, 1/6th octave does have a good relation to what we discern with our ears, but for purposes of tailoring the balance/voicing of a system, it can also be very useful to look at 1/3rd octave with a glance at 1/12th octave to confirm what is causing the shape of the 1/3rd octave curve. EQ in the upper ranges should always be done with care and lots of listening and measuring.
While the programs will give you a high resolution plot at high frequencies, often it doesn't mean much unless you have sufficient windowing flexibility to compare direct sound (shorter time window) and long term average (ie RTA). Unless it's clear there is a problem in the speaker itself you are taming, better results are often had with more subtle and broad EQ of the response with wide PEQs or shelf filters. Figuring out how to apply such adjustments can be difficult when only looking at high resolution plots with lots of hair and sharp changes. Heavier smoothing helps visualize trends and lets us look at the overall spectral balance we might be hearing.

Very excellent post Mark! Is this method similar to how you voice the catalysts and develop their XO network? What type of windowing would you recommend for the standard OM user? I think the default is 5.0ms
post #54 of 59
Which level Audyssey do you have? Have you contacted tech support at Audyssey? Chris usually is the one that responds via e-mail and is quick to answer. Also, it looks like your graphs (before and after) are reversed. The before looks way more smooth than the after and reason for my thinking is the extended and smoother bass response and smoother high end. Just looks backwards. If you aren't happy with your current version of Audyssey and its not the XT32, maybe invest in a receiver that can have the Audyssey Pro version installed. That my friend would be a cleaner signal solution before adding multiple electronics into the path. Pro audio using multiple pieces also have conditioners and various signal processing units to clean the signal. One could also say that because the cable used in pro audio is vastly different from what HT uses, electronics, processing, all that stuff could also effect the signal when we try to cross use pro pieces. I just think it can all be easier and all inclusive, i.e. receiver with more advanced room correction. My opinion gentlemen.
post #55 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hspecialist View Post

Which level Audyssey do you have? Have you contacted tech support at Audyssey? Chris usually is the one that responds via e-mail and is quick to answer. Also, it looks like your graphs (before and after) are reversed. The before looks way more smooth than the after and reason for my thinking is the extended and smoother bass response and smoother high end. Just looks backwards. If you aren't happy with your current version of Audyssey and its not the XT32, maybe invest in a receiver that can have the Audyssey Pro version installed. That my friend would be a cleaner signal solution before adding multiple electronics into the path. Pro audio using multiple pieces also have conditioners and various signal processing units to clean the signal. One could also say that because the cable used in pro audio is vastly different from what HT uses, electronics, processing, all that stuff could also effect the signal when we try to cross use pro pieces. I just think it can all be easier and all inclusive, i.e. receiver with more advanced room correction. My opinion gentlemen.

And a great opinion as well. Thanks for the input. If you look at the graph y axis constraints you will see why the first looks better than the second. The second is much more constricted so it accentuates the peaks/dips. I am currently using the Denon4311, and see the benefit of xt32 for sure. My response is anything but bad right now, and it is not that I am unhappy, actually, I am very happy with the sound right now. My main want for doing all of this tho, is to just push the envelope a little bit, just to see what can be had with some additional tweaking. I don't think at all that there is something wrong with Audyssey in my system or in general for that matter. I just know that even with "pro" it isn't a perfect process, and results can still vary. I want to try to do something that will make that a lot less likely, and also have the ability to cater to my personal tastes smile.gif
post #56 of 59
Thread Starter 
Brian, as you go back and look, you will see the first response has a total deviation across the whole band and the second one deviates a total of 6dB's which is pretty darn good IMO. I will redo some of the graphs and maybe save the FRD's to REW and overlay the responses.
post #57 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

Hi guys,
Quick note on measurement resolution. 1/12th-1/24th octave resolution is of interest below 100-300Hz, where there are much narrower band effects we are concerned with or where subwoofer and speaker location changes can make significant changes to very narrow/high Q issues. When looking at the full range frequency response, 1/6th octave does have a good relation to what we discern with our ears, but for purposes of tailoring the balance/voicing of a system, it can also be very useful to look at 1/3rd octave with a glance at 1/12th octave to confirm what is causing the shape of the 1/3rd octave curve. EQ in the upper ranges should always be done with care and lots of listening and measuring.
While the programs will give you a high resolution plot at high frequencies, often it doesn't mean much unless you have sufficient windowing flexibility to compare direct sound (shorter time window) and long term average (ie RTA). Unless it's clear there is a problem in the speaker itself you are taming, better results are often had with more subtle and broad EQ of the response with wide PEQs or shelf filters. Figuring out how to apply such adjustments can be difficult when only looking at high resolution plots with lots of hair and sharp changes. Heavier smoothing helps visualize trends and lets us look at the overall spectral balance we might be hearing.

Very excellent post Mark! Is this method similar to how you voice the catalysts and develop their XO network? What type of windowing would you recommend for the standard OM user? I think the default is 5.0ms

This applies to a few of the many things I look at and consider when optimizing speakers in real rooms. The speaker design and voicing stage entails plenty more info as well as extensive measurement and listening in an open space. Smoothing the response is still highly useful to help give a perspective on the overall balance across the frequency range, but it's just one of many details.

As for windowing, I'd suggest looking through the REW user forums at HTShack, as that's not a simple answer. The important understanding is that as you window out reflections, you progressively limit how low in frequency you have accurate information. A good exercise is to take a full range measurement and then keep shortening the window to see what changes and what is gained/lost in what you can see.
post #58 of 59
Thread Starter 
interesting! Would 5ms be a possible reason why I have substantial rolloff in my measurement rig at about 12hz? all other things considered, I should be able to get well below that, and it is not my system that is holding me back for sure...
post #59 of 59
Thread Starter 
Here are some graphs after the new EQ came into play:

Before any EQ



After some custom EQ with the new DBX Dual 31 band EQ



And then with the subs where I actually LIKE them haha:


Edited by beastaudio - 12/11/12 at 6:55am
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?