"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 957

I'm not Audyssey, obviously. But ALL receivers with an Audyssey solution will have the SAME filter resolution you bought it with, regardless of whether or not you run the Pro software. These filter resolutions are noted below:


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

So pick whatever Audyssey flavor that came with your receiver and see above. If you want more filter resolution, you need to buy better hardware. That, at least, is my understanding.

Went into the theater last night with the Craig and Dennis and listened to some reference recordings of some live jazz and some classical music. Specifically with saxophonist Ernie Watts' recording, we determined my system was just a bit thin and his tenor sax sounded more like an alto sax. I opened the CSV file in a spreadsheet, inserted a row and typed "300" in the first column and ".5" in the next. Saved the file, opened MultEQ Pro, "logged on" to my 885, loaded the AMD for the speaker configuration we were using and added the just-saved CSV at the design screen. I hit "edit" to look at the curve and there was a new grip at 300Hz.

Since I did not lock any points around it, there was a gentle swell in the curve centered at 300Hz. We loaded and listened and now Ernie's tenor sax sounded much more tenor-like. Not quite right yet though, so I edited the 300Hz line in the CSV and changed .5 to 1. Saved, uploaded and listened again. We were happy with that recording, so we moved on to some other material to make sure we hadn't made everything else worse. Female and male vocals sounded spot on with ... ahem! ... a bit more cojones where expected in the male vocals.

A comment from a previous critical listening session was regarding thinness, but that went unaddressed as at the next get together we played with the midrange compensation and 7KHz to remove some harsh sibilance in vocals and percussion that was evident in movies with things like breaking glass.

I'm again posting this link as our main reference when translating flaws we heard to adjustments in the target curve to correct those flaws. I will now use the system for a while on a variety of material and decide whether anything else needs tweaked.

Jeff

So much redundancy in questions that many can be answered with a simple cut-and-paste from a previous audyssey post. Unfortunately, many of the cuts/pastes come from the previous page. Are we reading, people?

Anyway, Gooddoc and the rest of us can answer many questions giving Chris more time to ... obsolete our gear at a faster rate.

Jeff, what were your conclusions regarding the mid range compensation testing?

Hey Jeff,

Although I'm currently on a monopole diet, I'm curious as to how the swapping of speakers between monopole and dipole configurations has been working out? Is it too onerous?

I should have believed Audyssey's research showing that it was needed.

Putting that back into the target curve made a very noticeable improvement. Without it, consonants were hard and listening was fatiguing.

Jeff

So true. I had XT with my Onk 805, and was totally satisfied with this AVR until I decided I wanted to try out the Aud DSX Width speakers. So I had to go to the 1007 to get XT (and also Dyn EQ, which I like). But I think I will jump off the yearly upgrade bandwagon for a few years and let XT32 pass me by (at least for several years).

Well, I wouldn't want to alternate too frequently in one session.

I can reach the wall plates on my tiptoes and make the change. But the laptop needs to be connected to the pre/pro by USB-to-serial, MultEQ Pro needs to run, measurements loaded, crossovers selected, target curve added, filters generated and uploaded. I can do all that in about ten minutes.

I have been challenged by Craig and Dennis to try my M&K SS-150s in Tripole mode. Craig advocates for bipoles and the balance of diffuse and direct sound they have. Dennis is ready to leave dipoles behind and referred to them being from the Dolby Pro-Logic "era." For movies, I just do not like monopoles; the surround effects are just to ... prominent and precise.

However, one thing I did was engage Neural 7.1 on native 5.1 lossless audio, something I had not done before, and they thought that the monopole rear surrounds were a marked improvement when added to the dipole surrounds. For me, having gotten used to no rears on most movies, it was a bit distracting.

So I will experiment with my surrounds set to Tripole, and I will separate my presently collocated rear monopole surrounds and set them to Tripole in an attempt to find a configuration that works perfectly for everything except in-the-band multichannel music. I just do not see anything but five identical monopoles doing the job for me for that content.

That's where I am on my journey. How was the vacation?

Jeff

Interesting. So far, I have found this seems to depend on the speakers and the acoustic environment. It's a tough one to accept for me.

Me either. And as I've stated before, if I have to give up some on the movie soundtracks I am willing to do that for the bliss of monopole music nirvana. Multichannel music has the highest of my priorities. If I could, I would attempt what you are doing, but it's just not realistic in my current setup.


Thanks for asking. I took the kids camping/canoeing. It was hot and exhausting...but I had a blast. The sound was incredibly diffuse yet distinctly directional when appropriate...perhaps God uses tripoles

And no more than +3 or -3 from the original.

Chris,

Will the new technology that makes MultiEQ XT 32 possible, benefit regular MultiEQ on new forthcoming products?

I have already read the above from a few pages ago. I am referring to MultEQ Pro and Chris said the filters are generated with whatever resolution the hardware can support. Am I misinterpreting this sentence somehow and that the MultEQ filter resolution is just a static value regardless of hardware?

The filter resolution is determined by the hardware, period. This should not be confused with the FIRMWARE with which Chris & Co have found a way to increase the effective filter resolution on that hardware.

And it certainly should not be confused with MultEQ Pro software.

You are misinterpreting. The hardware is what creates the static value. The Pro software just allows you to manipulate the data points. For instance, if you had a receiver that had hardware that could run MultEQ32, then the Pro software would be able to generate 512x filters for the subs and sats. Or if Audyssey released a standalone EQ hardware device that had 1,000,000x filters then the Pro software would generate 1,000,000x filters...get it?

Hey, don't be startin' rumors!

Are you suggesting such an Audyssey device is in development....

Have spent 20 plus hours with Pro the last few days, and have learned a lot as far as my room and my equipment anyway. It is simply an amazing technology.

I ran a few calibrations and had some filters, and dedicated today to some A-B testing with some pretty sonically challenging movies. My goal was to have three types of calibrations.

1) Where I tried to measure the room. I did 27 measurements not only on the couch where my wife and I sit, but also behind the couch and off the the right and left side of the couch (between the edge of the couch and the wall).

2) Where I measured the listening area in a smaller bubble. No measurements were outside the couch except the back row of measurements that were about a foot behind the couch.

3) Same as #2 except I didn't include the measurements behind the couch.

For all calibrations I was OCD about the mic being 90 degrees straight up and ear height. I tried to keep the room as quiet as possible. I even removed my watch because of the ticking noise.

The best calibration was #2. Clearly. The balance of the speakers was uncanny, the bass was detailed like I have never heard it before with MultXT. I was amazed to watch scenes from Transformers and literally hear details I have never heard before. MultXT removed a veil, but Pro removed another. I think the more accurate trims levels are very important so that no frequency is stepping on the toes of another and obscuring it.

So once I found the best sounding calibration, I then did a further comparison with the filters and without. I was skeptical at this point of the filters as I literally felt the sound was perfect. Everything I had thrown at it was reproduced seemingly perfect......the bass revealed details and layers that were new, the soundstage was ultra coherent, and the satellites also popped to life. I was thinking damn...Audyssey nailed it. What could a filter do. Well, the filters made the channels they were applied to a bit louder, but the soundstage's balance slightly lost it's step, and while the bass was a touch louder, the quality declined a tad....so the overall effect was negative.

After much experimentation, I can say I am a reference man. I think teh key was taking a few different approaches with teh calibrations and then seeing which one worked best for my room and equipment. Ironically I could have saved time and just followed the Audyssey guide. But I am one who has to do it myself to know for sure.

The biggest differences with the winning calibration for me was the mic placement. I have a smaller room, so keeping the bubble fairly tight (1.5 feet to the right and left of the two seating positions at widest, 1.5 feet behind the main two seating positions, and 2.5 feet in front of the main seating positions) was the key I think.

I am definitely ecstatic with this product.


[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

Also, I got the bass to have a trim of zero. Probably doesn't mean a thing, but it felt good.

Pepar,

I see that you used Neural 7.1 on 5.1 movies and found it a little distracting in the back surrounds. Have you tried PLIIx or some of the other options? I was experimenting with the various options and found that Neural 7.1 tended to be a little louder in the rear surrounds then say PLIIx. Perhaps trying another option may not be so distracting.

Also, have you watched the vampire movie daybreakers? It is relatively new and has discrete 7.1 sound which is a totally different exeprience than the matrixed sound in the rears. I use monpoles for all seven speakers and found that if I point the side surrounds more straight forward than directly at the MLP I get a nice diffuse sound. (after audyssey has fixed the errors that pointing them in such a direction causes)

Brian

Still experimenting at this time with speaker locations and speaker radiation patterns. I think it was using any listening mode that sent content to the rear speakers when previously they had been silent that threw me off.

I will say that after using the ITU layout and monopoles for movies - which I didn't like, I am finding it hard to return to pure dipoles at 90° as the only "non-front" channels. Go figure.

Jeff

Skål!

Could I bother you for some more words to clarify that? I was accused on a different thread of having "poor comprehension", so perhaps that's the problem...

Well, my previous post was a bit of a rant. I didn't define "several" in the "several years" for MultEQ XT 32 to be available on $750 AVRs. I'm aware that at least a couple of Onkyos were downgraded from MultEQ XT to plain MultEQ in successive model years. But I believe the overall trend is for audio DSPs (like other digital electronics) to become more powerful at lower cost. Hence, XT 32 will eventually reach entry or near entry level models. Who would have predicted 5 to 10 years ago that the room correction and sound processing capabilities of MultEq + Dynamic Eq + Dynamic Volume would be available on entry level AVRs?

Typically, in AVR purchase decisions, one can decide either to go for cost savings by getting a used / refurbished / clearance model, at expense of leading-edge technology, or pay more for a new model with leading technology. I made the former decision before, getting a refurb Marantz SR5500, then Marantz 7001 on clearance. I'm now toying with idea of getting an XT 32 model soon after it comes out. I hope the "512x sub + 512x mains" filter resolution of XT 32 will help a lot with my listening environment. My room has a complex asymmetric shape, and my mains can easily handle 60 to 80 Hz cross-over.

Tack så mycket. The thing that is stunnig about Pro is that I wasn't expecting a clearly noticeable improvement per say, just a peace of mind that I had done all I could to maximize the performance of my speakers. Calibration is so important to getting the performance speakers are capable of. So I was very excited to right away being able to hear not only the improved balance but the detail that revealed in the soundtrack. I have a small room, and the calibrations I did with Pro where I expanded the bubble must have picked up some effects from the walls, thus creating filters that took a some life out of my speakers. The slightly smaller bubble made a marked difference.

I opted out of using the custom filters I had for two reasons. It literally sounded perfect to my ears without them. Everything I wanted was already present, so making certain speakers louder at certain frequencies just slightly threw that balance off that the calibration had achieved. I could understand someone possibly wanting to boost the higher frequencies so that the roloff is more subtle to add a bit of a high end sparkle, but with my calibration I found that it sparkled just the right amount without being harsh in any way. Impactful yet naturally accurate and easy to listen to.

I specifically opted out of the sub filter because my calibration was giving me visceral bass at -20 MV. The likes of which I had never had before at -20. I also have peace of mind that I can go as high as I want with the MV and retain that balance and not stress my sub amps. I think they could handle it, but just to be on the safe side. I actually ran FOTP and WOTW at reference and plugged my ears. I got down by teh subs and watched the driver go crazy! And the limit light on the amp never came on. In fact having four drivers in total definitely allows the subs to work easier.

The only caveat to the calibration is that I feel that for music raising the sub trim 3 db seems more to my taste. That is at MV -20. I use THX Neural 5.1 for CD's and I love it. I see the Audyssey light on my Pre pro, and I think dynamic EQ is active as well...but not sure.

Having paid x hundred dollars, I expected "something" would be better. But I didn't expect it to be in the areas that had already been improved by MultEQ XT to a level I had never before experienced, i.e. main/surround integration and main/sub integration. I would attribute a lot of that to the individually calibrated mic helping the software "understand" the system and room better.

Regarding customizing the target curve. I was amazed ... AMAZED ... at the improvement a dB cut here and a dB boost there makes. Sibilance bites a bit too much? Cut a dB at 7KHz. Think male voices are a bit thin? Boost a dB at 300Hz.

Jeff

Goodbye Reference Land. Hello Preference Land.

Jeff.. please stop giving away all of my mixing secrets... I'll be put out of work..

(Although 7k is a little high for sibilance. )

What is MultiEQ??? There is a mandatory $1 penalty for those who put an "i" in MultEQ

The answer is yes, in a way... The lessons learned from the new MultEQ XT 32 approach to filtering will allow us to greatly reduce the processing requirements of MultEQ XT while maintaining the same exact resolution that we have today. That will mean that it will find its way further down the line of our licensees' products.

Preference is what counts, since there is no reference.

What??? But there is a reference... flat. Isn't that what we've come to expect from our audio systems?... and what we hope to achieve within a listening environment?

I agree that we can do whatever we want to obtain our desired results but the system should reproduce (exactly) what's being input.

Example: I have a friend that is somewhat deaf in the upper frequencies (musician with many years of exposure to loud music in the club scene) and he has 'EQed' his system for his prefered sound. Needless to say, everyone that listens to movies/music in his home must endure a harsh sounding audio system due to his compensating for his lack of hearning high frequency sound. It's a shame because he has a nice system. But hey! He likes it. Right?

Taking care of minor anomalies as Pepar has done I find acceptable, however. What he's doing is correcting speaker design problems like a slightly nasal tone in the midrange or a tweeter's resonant frequency.