"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 955

OK, understood. One question though. If I were to measure my room and get some waterfall reports and such, what particular issues would be more likely to be corrected with increased filter resolution, and what issues are especially amenable to time alignment correction? Thanks

Yep, that was me. As to misunderstandings, it is easy and common in this medium. No problem, it just means I didn't have enough clarity in my post.

I am about to do a Pro calibration for my dipole surrounds, having done one already for the "ITU" monopole surrounds. This is the beginning of me manually swapping surround speaker connections at the wallplate and loading the related Audyssey corrections for those speakers when I switch between movies/concert videos and "in-the-band" multichannel music. Over and out ....

Far be it for me to suggest to the Audyssey team how they should market their products, but it seems to me that it might be the time to de-couple Audyssey from specific AVRs, and simply to offer the spectrum of Audyssey products as separate products that are put into the chain with any AVR. I.e., many persons (such as me) would like to have a top drawer room eq system like Aud XT32, but if this will only be available in $3 or 4K AVRs--that have multi-room outputs, and many other bells and whistles that I care nothing about--it is not an attractive investment.

I suppose that AudysseyPro is step in this direction, but it is still tied to a specific AVRs that are 'pro compatible'. Couldn't the whole array of Audyssey cababilities, from the simplest 2EQ to XT32, etc., be offered as a box (with its own DSP), e.g., in the spirit of the SMS-1?

Sure as long as users will tolerate an additional box and the extra A/D/A conversions entailed.

I hear you, but that would make them a hardware company and on day 1 of them announcing that business model they would immediately lose their licensees and their licensing revenue stream would quickly drop. As much as it causes some of us consternation, the mass-market consumer licensing with the high end pro installer licensing is probably their best model.

I have a video processor in every piece of gear in my system that touches the video signal. In every processor or receiver I own right down to the lowly $500 unit in the bedroom, there are unused "extra" zones. Redundancy and stuff I'll never use abounds and shows no signs of changing.

Jeff

Narrow-bandwidth issues

Subs with different distances from the prime listening location

That's great news Chris.

The typical consumer won't have the want to get a SEQ or SubEQ any longer (for us folks with only one zone anyway). Hopefully you have convinced Denon (and others AVR manufacturers too, not that I'm partial or anything ) to adapt the technology of pinging subs individually only to set their trims and distances, then together for the rest?

We already have DynEQ and DynVol (which isn't possible with the SEQ as most of us already know).

I am eager to read some real life impressions of this new technology. It should be fantastic and relatively cheap.

I still see a place for Pro, so I figure that's not going away any time soon. Now if you could just get the AVR manufactures to get rid of that nasty r232 (serial) requirement!!!

One thing you haven't mentioned is how many channels Audyssey will be able to provide 512x resolution for... 11.x?!

This has been discussed in previous posts. For those of us that have invested in expsensive Prepros or recievers and added Pro along with Audyssey Sub EQ for our sub(s), couldn't there be a firmware upgrade of MultEQ XT 32 for them? I have a large investment in this gear and certainly don't want to have to do it all over again just to have Multi XT 32.

Bill

Not gonna happen.

My system did not suddenly begin sounding worse when I learned of MultEQ XT 32 and what it was. Did anybody's?

Increased filter resolution will only improve rooms that have problems that were not fixed with the existing resolution. If all of a room's problems are fixed, then greater filter resolution not only wouldn't improve the sound, it would not even be utilized.

Jeff

Thanks, considering my subs will be located up front and equilateral to the MLP, perhaps a new receiver with MultEQ32 would be a smarter upgrade than adding adding the Sub EQ to an older receiver that has MultEQxt, but lacks DV and DSX

Could not agree more!

I'd pay a considerable sum to have my (balanced) pro remain at the state of the Audyssey art, but apparently there's zero consideration for offering that option.

(It's hard to believe that it would be an expensive firmware update to program, given that the algorithms are now well established in other gear.)

I doubt anyone here would not appreciate (and jump at) the same sort of offer for M32 as when the DEQ/DVol advance was offered as a $100 upgrade on some Denons like the 3808.

Chris, I'm a bit puzzled.

I thought that ver. 3.3 of the software for SVS AS-EQ1 (which I assume is the same as that for the Sub Equalizer) now offers 4x the resolution of MultEQ XT, which means 128 x 4 = 512 ... and which is the same sub resolution of MultEQ XT32 that you mentioned a few posts earlier.

Is there a difference in filter resolution between the AS-EQ1 and the Sub EQ?

Mark

Perhaps not but I'd guess it might require a lot more DSP capability than was originally installed.

Nope.

My understanding (perhaps in error) is that it would only require a firmware upgrade.

Getting 512 on the front three speakers, which I'd be running full range, would be a pretty material upgrade for me.

I would be surprised but I do not know for certain. We are just speculating until we all find out.

As many channels as the AVR supports.

Like streetsmart88 above, I'm confused by this. According to at least one post in the AS-EQ1 thread, the filter resolution for both the AS-EQ1 and the Sub EQ are 512, which would make their resolutions equal to MultEQ XT 32.

What's the straight story on this? Can anyone from Audyssey confirm the resolution of the AS-EQ1 and Sub EQ units?

Thanks,

Larry

I'm a bit confused by this last statement - what algorithms and gear are you referring to?

My understanding is Audyssey XT in PR-Pros/AVR's has 128x filter rez for the LFE/Sub output(s)

The sub EQ is 4x128 = 512x so 4x the Filter Rez compaired to Audyssey XT's Sub out in A PRE-PRO

The New MultEQ XT32 has 32x the Filter resolution of Audyssey XT's 128x for the Sub out
so thats 128x32 = 4096x filter resolution ..

Audyssey XT offers 16x for the other Sat channels 5/7/9/
Audyssey MultEQ XT32 offers 16x32= 512x.
so thats the same filter rez as the Sub EQ offers but for the Sats...

Cheers...

Batpig, thanks for the tip. I chased down Chris's 32 announcement with an advanced search.

Seems to me that the SubEQ with Pro is still a very compelling combo, and has the flexibility of dealing with asymetrcial sub locations.

Kal, I was referring to Chris' earlier repy back at post #28535, which strongly implied that the gains stemmed from new firmware making more efficient use of existing MIPs, not new chips coming in new processors:

Originally Posted by Jarno:
Since the hardware requirements (MIPS, mic, number of channels etc.) did not change between XT and 32, this could still be sold as a "feature upgrade".

Originally Posted by audyssey:
You're right. The main reason is the cost of the resources required by each AVR manufacturer (and Audyssey) to reprogram the firmware for older platforms.
__________________
Chris

According to Chris' previous comment: "I should have been a little more clear: MultEQ XT 32 will increase the resolution of the main channels from 16x to 512x and the resolution of the subwoofer from 128x to 512x. So, all channels will have the same 512x resolution."
__________________

Does anyone know if Onkyo is going to have XT32 on any of the new line? It appears from the product descriptions on the 3008 & 5008 that they will only have XT.

Has anybody with Pro been editing the CSV file of the target curve? (Chris has emailed me that it works and is done.) That would seem to be a much more precise way than mousing around a graph. Plus, I've been mousing around with a touchpad, so my mousing has been erratic.

Also, I had been looking for a way to lock a particular range and have found that setting a "zero" grip does that ... locks that frequency .. and isolates it from adjustments made above or below it. Case in point, if I want to reduce the target curve by 1dB at 7k but not affect above 7.5k or below 6.5k, my CSV would contain these lines:

6500, 0
7000, -1
7500, 0

Also, if I want to gently lift the target curve only above 10K, there would be:

10000, 0
24000, 1

Anybody else try this?

Jeff

Sorry.. I added to the resolution confusion because I forgot about the firmware upgrade that doubled the resolution of the Subwoofer Equalizer and the AS-EQ1 months ago. So, the correct numbers are:

MultEQ
Sats: 2x Sub: 128x

MultEQ XT:
Sats: 16x Sub: 128x

MultEQ XT on Sound EQ
Sats: 32x Sub: 256x

MultEQ XT 32
Sats: 512x Sub: 512x

MultEQ XT on Sub EQ
Sats: N/A Sub: 512x

Pro is ??

The filter resolution is determined by the available processing power in the DSP chip found in each device. MultEQ Pro is the software that you run on your PC. It will generate filters with whatever resolution your hardware can support.