"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 111

If your sub has an input called "LFE" of "THX" then you should use that. It "defeats" the volume control by ignoring it. I am pretty sure that this is what the manual means.

Chris

AAAARRRRGHHHHH!!!!

The pro version requires you to purchase a license key. the license key is tied to the MAC address of the ethernet card in the AVR. A reset does not change the MAC address (nothing can change the MAC address actually on the AVR). Hence a reset will have no effect on the license key.


Yes, the config file contains the Audyssey data


Yes, I have done a full reset and restored all my Audyssey settings (including PRO)

Thanks to all with this.

D.

1. the more bands the better,
2. parametric will be better because each band is not fixed to a particular frequency

Yamaha used to use parameteric in all of their YPAO (used to be called Yamaha Parametric Acoustic Optimizer, now they changed the name to Yamaha Professional Acoustic Optimizer ).

I tried both MCACC and YPAO. MCACC was the king (before YPAO), then YPAO was the king for a very short while (maybe about a year) but once they moved to graphic EQ, MCACC went back to be the king.

I've never used Audyssey so can't comment on that.

I apologize in advance if this question has been asked before. (I did a search and didn't find an answer) but has anything changed in Audyssey MultiEQ XT over the last generation of receivers. For example, does the Denon 3808 have any differences in the Audyssey implementation compared to the Denon 3806?

I think the resolution has increased, especially in the bass, perhaps by a factor of 4, maybe more. By the way, you owe Chris $1 - it's MultEQ, not MultiEQ

So the name (MultEQ XT) stayed the same over the past two generations, but resolution has increased? Good to know.

Mul - tEe - Que

I didn't catch this sub-thread running here exactly in parallel with my question. You are asking the same question I am - I happen to be using REQW and DEQ2406 (RTA has high coolness factor in the rack) in line with my subs.


After I thought about this for a while I think it makes sense, and this is what I will do unless Chris says otherwise.


Kal, I know this wasn't directed at me, but I was asking the same thing: how to manually edit or PEQ the automatic result. My interest is not to create a "house curve" across all 20 KHz, just more control over things MultEQ isn't/won't take out or that are abnormalities beyond what MultEQ can consider particularly in the pesky subwoofer regime and room modalities. And yes, my room is treated, but there is an economic limit for all things (ok, ok, no there isn't in this hobby but you know what I mean).

Chris, a below the cross-over PEQ stage or software application to post-edit the automatic result might be a value-added function like your other optional modules for you to consider offering. If I am willing to buy a Behringer product to do this, and you have the DSP cycles left on the SSP/AVR, hey, why not pick up that $100-300 with a license key? Doing this tweaking without the addition of an additional ADC stage is a definitely a selling feature.

As has been posted many, MANY times, you have ZERO access to the Audyssey filters. Period. A coarse representation of the frequency domain filters can be "copied" to the manual EQ and that can be changed. But it does not transfer filters derived from time domain analysis.

LOL, am I the only one who got that joke?

Nope

Nope

Ok, I get it. That's the problem with threads that go on for 3,314 postings and 111 pages. It is a lot to read to catch up. And people end up repeating themselves.

It still doesn't make the fact go away that there is a "prosumer" customer need here to manually bang out certain unresolved anomalies. That's likely why people keep asking...

I agree that editing a time & frequency domain inverse transform is not the right answer. I think adding a post-processing, cross-over limited PEQ stage is the right answer. The is exactly what you are doing when deploying a *2496 or SMS-1, just with an extra ADC stage. So its a business opportunity for Audyssey to pick up the cash on the table.

Tell me about it.


And Chris/audyssey (Audyssey) keeps reading, though he'll never comment on what might be ahead. My experience tells me that "unresolved anomalies" after running Audyssey MultEQ XT can't/shouldn't be fixed should be fixed with EQ, but should addressed with acoustical treatments. Electronic correction, and Audyssey is no exception, should be thought of as icing on the cake, not the cake itself. OK, to be fair, Audyssey would be the Death by Chocolate icing!

a perfectable laudable aim however real world constraints mean that electronic correction may be the only tool you have. For many many people room correction is *never* going to happen (and I suspect this is more common in England where houses are typically smaller) and hence audyssey have an opportunity here to take onboard a few more people who want to be able to exert a little more control over what audyssey does than what audyssey gives you. It is a change in design goal (hence why I'm not sitting here waiting for it to happen) but it strikes me as a perfectly valid one (obviously as I'm asking for it ).

FWIW I think that what I want is orthogonal to room correction, the filter audyssey applies at the low end looks (with respect to impact on a waterfall so not ideal but hopefully close enough) much like the sort of filter that I could impose via a BFD. The difference is that I would choose a shallower and perhaps wider cut because my goal is different. Even if I had room treatments, which are aimed AFAIK (and I haven't looked deeply into it admittedly so could be off base) at controlling the response in the time domain, then I would still want a different correction at the bottom end.

I realise I am going O/T here so leaving the why's and wherefore's of room correction to one side; is there a reason why EQing flat to induce audyssey into thinking it has little to do below the crossover is a "bad thing"? My thinking is that it's the best way to do what I want because it shouldn't really impact the response at the crossover and hence audyssey can just do it's thing unhindered from there.

"electronic correction may be the only tool you have."

That's what my doctor was telling me about ECT as well.

Yes, exactly. Thank you. Real world constraints like budget and space. Solving very low frequency problems is HARD and thus, expensive. And it often requires lots of space due to the wavelengths involved, which many people cannot sacrifice.


Let's make sure we are on the same page here. I have an professionally designed extensively treated room, rebuilt from the brick up using a room-in-room design, including an under-riser base trap, front corner traps and a fully treated rear wall with full wall bass trap nearly 7" deep. I have enough mineral wool in my walls to insulate a small subdivision and enough mass loaded vinyl to sink a small boat, never mind the 6+ layers of material on both sides of the walls.

My issue will not be resolved by just adding a couple more corner bass traps.

So, spend thousands more to solve one remaining problem or put in a PEQ cut and bit of a LF rolloff with $500 of electronics? The answer is obvious to me.

OIC...in that case, nope--my SVS sub's input is labeled "Low Level"

Thanks for the clarification!

Maybe it would help to measure your room response near that 31 Hz peak to see exactly how big the peak is post-MultEQ correction.

There's one other thing to try - that's moving your sub from where it is to a place halfway along the 17' wall. That way it's sitting at the the null of the 31Hz resonance, and shouldn't excite it as much.

I know that the 1.7 update is old hat by now, but I am getting ready to do it and have 2questions:

1) For logistical reasons, I want to do the DSP update first (tonight) and the Firmware update tomorrow. Is it okay to do the DSP update first and the firmware at a later date?

2) If will do the DSP update tonight, reload my settings, and run Audyssey while it is quiet. If I do the firmware update tomorrow, will I have to reload my settings and run Audyssey again following the firmware update?

Very interesting idea. I have a second mid-room sub position roughed in but not yet activated. I will play around with this and see what it does. Thanks for the suggestion.

Sweet. thank you!

We have been informed by Integra that the official firmware update was just received (this week) and is being distributed to their dealer and service network. There have been unauthorized and untested versions of the firmware distributed through this forum. These resulted in several problems including wiping out MultEQ Pro installations. Although these firmware changes have nothing to do with Audyssey, we received emails from people who lost their data because the update cleared the flash memory on the DSP. Please be aware that the only official (and supported) method for this and other updates is via the Integra dealer network.

Chris

I'm curious if people are using the Dynamic EQ setting or not.

Engaging it on my system results in an overwhelming amount of low frequency slam... it sounds nice and full, but overpowering to the point that I'm lowering my 2 subs down to -12db (when Audyssey set them at 0 and +4 db).

Is this happening for all content or perhaps for TV and/or some music content only?

Chris

Thanks Chris.

Good question. I've mostly been listening to music, but from different sources: some DVD/Bluray concerts, HD concerts recorded on my DVR and music stored on my Apple TV. On the latter source I have a playlist of music that I'm very familar with that I use for evaluation.

Not everything sounds out of line, but enough sounds overly thumpy. Disengaging the Dynamic EQ results in too little bass (unless I really crank up the volume or use the Tone controls to compensate). So I really like the concept of Dynamic EQ and am wondering if I should try processing Audyssey again.

Ian, you have stumbled into the wonderful world of reference levels and bass (mis)management during content production.

In film sound the industry standardized on mix and playback levels many many years ago. Every film is mixed in a calibrated dubbing stage at a reference of 85 dB SPL. That means that a -20 dBFS pink noise signal will measure 85 dB SPL at the mixing position. Movie theaters are calibrated the same way. Home theaters should be as well in order to have the same experience.

The music industry is, how do I put it..., standards-challenged. With the exception of a few of the best mastering houses the rest of the mixes are done at whatever level the producer felt like that day. Some pop and most hip hop is mixed at ear bleeding levels that are 10-20 dB above film reference!

Dynamic EQ assumes that the content was mixed at film reference. That's the only known standard and, in all fairness, much of the music industry is slowly converging to it. But, if you play content that assumes reference level to be 10 dB higher, than you will end up with the problem you are observing.

A second, equally important issue, comes from the lack of proper bass management during the mix. While the film industry does this correctly, music and television are all over the map. I have personally met a well-known music mixer who told me: "I don't need a subwoofer, I can do bass management in my head while mixing". Yikes. The result is excessive bass that only shows up in systems with proper bass management. The mixer never heard it! This is very common in television production and particularly in commercials. Subwoofers--what a concept!

Chris