or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779) - Page 2056

post #61651 of 70896
I'm not saying that isn't the case either really, assuming it will adjust the final filters using the two summed subs together which it would APPEAR it does, would just love some confirmation on that. IME, it seems to not affect my rolloff, but then again, I don't start rolling off until around 10hz so that is out of the realm of Audyssey's filters to begin with. I would like to see someone take measurements with some subs that have say a 20hz rolloff separately like I was saying, and see if the bottom end comes up when making the subs "One" instead of "two" separate subs.
post #61652 of 70896
I'm new to all of this Audyssey stuff, I have a Denon 3313. I have read the Audyssey FAQ and have no problems with the mic placement but I'm a little lost with what I need to set on my sub. I have added the diagram for the sub below, I have the M&K MX5000 THX, the diagram is for the 350 but it is from the joint 350/5000 manual. Any help would be appreciated.

post #61653 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Well lets think about this a bit, and assume that there is a "big" and a "small" sub. Let us also assume that each are optimally placed in the room, and are phase and/or delay adjusted to be maximized to play together.

Ok, so you play the scene with the single BIG sub and it is able to pass through the bass heavy scene just fine, without hearing much distortion and at a listening level you would not want to go past. So what is the point of the second sub at this juncture? It is simple, the multisub approach will smooth out room modes to make for a better experience. ANY single sub system will have room modes somewhere in its passband. Sometimes these modes are slight, and sometimes they are pretty drastic, depending on the room. Now. why else would the need for the second sub be important? well, some like a nearfield sub for additional "tactile" feel. Others may need some additional headroom that the single BIG sub couldn't produce on its own (I am in this camp, and it only took 7 more before I was happy).

I can't stress enough the importance of integrating two IDENTICAL subs the right way, if which SubEQ HT seems to do a pretty good job of, but two different subs, one would almost completely need a standalone unit to truly get them to be "optimized" fully.

I can say that with my mismatched subs I do get higher spl at MLP and less with one sub off.
post #61654 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazz063 View Post

I'm new to all of this Audyssey stuff, I have a Denon 3313. I have read the Audyssey FAQ and have no problems with the mic placement but I'm a little lost with what I need to set on my sub. I have added the diagram for the sub below, I have the M&K MX5000 THX, the diagram is for the 350 but it is from the joint 350/5000 manual. Any help would be appreciated.


Use the only the Left/mono input from the Denon's sub out , next set the sub level switch to variable ( try it in the THX position first but if the gain is to high for Audyssey flip to variable and adjust accordingly)

Keep the phase at + and bass EQ at THX.

lastly set the Low pass filter to THX mode. smile.gif
post #61655 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yes, I am aware of Audyssey's purpose. But Audyssey builds in safeguards to ensure that equipment isn't damaged or overextended - for example the very fact that it checks the F3 point and stops EQing below it, and the limit of a 9dB boost are examples of that. So it isn't entirely the user's responsibility to ensure that equipment isn’t damaged and, indeed, the very fact that people are using Audyssey will often be because they lack knowledge to apply EQ themselves. Audyssey assumes no knowledge at all on the part of the user, other than plugging in the mic and following some simple guidelines.

Hi Keith,
I've been following the thread on Feri's question to Chris K. on the Facebook Audyssey Tech page, and Chris made some interesting comments

First, about the "lesser" vs. "greater" sub issue: "If the AVR allows individual pinging of the subs then the roll off of each one is calculated. However, when the subs are used as "one" acoustically the lesser one may suffer because the EQ filter is calculated based on the combined acoustical response. That's why we strongly recommend against using subs with very different roll off points....the lesser sub may suffer if it's told to boost below its roll off point because the combined response saw the bigger sub during the measurement". IOW, user beware if you aren't using identical subs. Fair enough.

 

This is what I have always said in the FAQ AIUI. So the F3 of each sub IS determined when each sub is pinged and because of that the pair of subs is EQd to the capability of the lesser sub. This is what we have always said in this thread, until recently. I agree that Chris's explanation is slightly different but the effect is the same.

 

 

Quote:
Now, here's the interesting thing. In the course of the thread, I raised this argument as a reason why you wouldn't want to use LFE inputs from powered speakers on one sub input (i.e. my Mythos ST, run as Small, but having LFE connection to an AVR's sub input via Y-splitter), and independent subs on another. There are a fair number of folks on the DefTech threads on AVS that try this, or even run powered DT speakers as large even if they have standalone subs. One of the other FB participants followed up by asking Chris if a "full range" speaker should be run as Large/double bass along with independent subs.

His response was surprising:
"Large is fine if you have XT32...With XT32 it won't matter if you run them as Large or Small. It will easily correct the speakers down to 35 Hz and the sub down to 16 Hz".

While I think I understand that he's referring to the capability of XT32 to have as many mains filters as sub filters, and EQ frequencies whatever speaker they come from, I can't believe he's actually telling Audyssey users that running a mains speaker as full-range is fine. The correction element may be the same, but what the speaker is doing (handling the bass down to 35 Hz) isn't really optimal practice, especially in terms of placement for where those frequencies are coming from! And as we know, there's a world of difference between a powered speaker handling a 35 Hz frequency and a sub in terms of headroom.

Consider that he said in the (pre-XT32) old days, in the link on Large vs. Small in the Audyssey FAQ....that if you have subs, run Small, period. Has Chris really been replaced by a user-friendly alien?

 

Chris often answers just the part of the question that concerns MultEQ and this is what I think he has done here. Regardless of how MultEQ EQs the subs, there is no good reason to use 'large' in a system with a sub and, of course, doing so effectively bypasses all bass management. There are also other good reasons for not using 'large' and they are well-known to all of us I think.

post #61656 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjminch View Post

Wow thanks for the quick response.

Will redo the sub wiring to use the LFE input.

I did not have the Dynamic EQ enabled. Will do this after I set it back up again.

When I didn't hear the rear surrounds, it was using the Dolby PLII sound setting and streaming music/movies through my Sony BDP S370. They are rather close to the seating position (6 feet) and I think Audyssey turned them down significantly as a result.

Wasn't aware that Direct canceled everything out, I thought that was "Pure Audio". I need to find a good preset for Blu Ray movies then that keeps all the calibrations. Any suggestions?

Also is there a good FAQ anywhere on THX settings? I see my receiver has these but wasn't sure where to ask on them, or if I even use them with Audyssey, etc.

 

On an Onkyo, 'Direct', as Batpig rightly says, bypasses the Audyssey processing (and any other form of processing as it happens). The difference between Direct and Pure Audio is that the latter also turns off some of the video processing as well.  If you want the benefits of Audyssey, do not use Direct or Pure Audio - use the straight codec if you want no additional processing - eg Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA. If you wish to add a DSP to that straight codec, such as THX CInema, then by all means do so. But before you use a THX DSP, check that FAQ link Baptpig referred you to.

post #61657 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by asere View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjminch View Post

Wow thanks for the quick response.

Will redo the sub wiring to use the LFE input.

I did not have the Dynamic EQ enabled. Will do this after I set it back up again.

When I didn't hear the rear surrounds, it was using the Dolby PLII sound setting and streaming music/movies through my Sony BDP S370. They are rather close to the seating position (6 feet) and I think Audyssey turned them down significantly as a result.

Wasn't aware that Direct canceled everything out, I thought that was "Pure Audio". I need to find a good preset for Blu Ray movies then that keeps all the calibrations. Any suggestions?

Also is there a good FAQ anywhere on THX settings? I see my receiver has these but wasn't sure where to ask on them, or if I even use them with Audyssey, etc.

I have never owned a THX receiver but from talking to Chris you can use THX at the same time as Audyssey.

 

Yes you can. The thing to watch out for is RE-EQ.  There is a FAQ answer specifically devoted to that. Also (with Onkyos at least) you can choose when using a THX mode to use THX Loudness Plus or Dynamic EQ as you wish.

post #61658 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by asere View Post

I have never owned a THX receiver but from talking to Chris you can use THX at the same time as Audyssey.

At the same time, ...but with another receiver in another room...tongue.gifwink.gif

 

Nit sure if you are joking there Feri - but you can use THX and Audyssey at the same time in the same AVR without problem. I do it all the time.

post #61659 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by asere View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

At the same time, ...but with another receiver in another room...tongue.gifwink.gif

So if you example have it on THX cinema mode that overrides the Audyssey?

 

No!  Feri was kidding (I think).  THX CInema is a DSP and you can use any and all DSPs with Audyssey. For example, I use Dolby PLIIz with Audyssey almost all the time. Sometimes I even use Dolby PLIIz plus THX cinema at the same time with Audyssey.

 

What you can't do is use THX's version of Dynamic EQ (Loudness Plus) at the same time for obvious reasons - and the AVR prevents you from doing this - but you can choose to use THX processing and Dynamic EQ instead of Loudness Plus if you wish. On some older Onkyos you also had to manually intervene to turn Re-EQ on and off when using THX if you were also using the Audyssey Movie curve, but on later units this happens automatically. See the FAQ answer on Re-EQ which Baptpig just linked to above.

post #61660 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Mogorf is being flip but not very helpful or accurate.

"mogorf" tried to reply (better to say comment) on a simple question with a simple reply. cool.gif

 

 

Problem was, Feri, the reply was both wrong and misleading.

post #61661 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

It was a simple question but deserved more than your simple, flip and unhelpful reply. Your response did nothing but confuse the OP by implying that Audyssey and THX are totally incompatible.

I think the answer is quite relevant to THIS thread for people who want to understand how the various THX technologies may or may not be compatible with which Audyssey technologies. The RE-EQ aspect is covered in the FAQ but there are a lot of other angles to consider.

 

Absolutely. I assume Feri was joking but it shows the danger of such a response when someone is asking a question because they are genuinely confused. It's taken two of us two or three lengthy posts to 'undo' Feri's reply.

post #61662 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by asere View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

As regards the issue of "capable subs" mixed with "inferior subs" here' what Chris K. has to say in a Q&A format:

Quote

Me: "Hi Chris and all, long time no Q, eh? smile.gif OK, here's an interesting one: Does XT32, when pinging each sub individually for level and delay, also measure the F3 of each sub? If so, does it use that information when applying EQ to the combined response of the subs? IOW, does XT32 EQ to the capability of the lesser sub if the pair of subs are not identical? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Feri

Chris Kyriakakis:

Hi Feri,
If the AVR allows individual pinging of the subs then the roll off of each one is calculated. However, when the subs are used as "one" acoustically the lesser one may suffer because the EQ filter is calculated based on the combined acoustical response. That's why we strongly recommend against using subs with very different roll off points. To this day I will never understand the silliness of doing that. More boxes is not better if one of them can't keep up with the other. In fact, this is true whether you use Audyssey or not. Why on earth would you add a small sub to a big one--there is no benefit.

Feri: First of all thank you for your reply Chris. For better understanding: how does the lesser sub "suffer"? Does the EQ filter cause some boost for the lesser one around or even below the F3 point that was calculated for that sub at time of the first ping while MultEQ is trying to level out the combined frequency response curve? Or there is something else to the "suffering"? Thanks again.

Chris Kyriakakis:

Yes the lesser sub may suffer if it's told to boost below its roll off point because the combined response saw the bigger sub during the measurement."

Unquote

Open for discussion Guys!

Does this mean that I now should use only one of my mismatched subs even if they both sound good together? I am using the Hsu for the mid and upper bass and the other is set to IN at 50hz so it's capacity is more reserved for lower bass - the DXD has plenty of output for the mid to upper bass. Hsu VTF3 MK4 and Kreisel 12012

 

If they are very mismatched you might care to try using the better sub just on its own, for comparison - to see how much the lesser sub might be 'holding it back'.  You may well be OK - usually two subs are used to smooth response not to give greater output.

post #61663 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Who is going to start to explain the lots of other "angles" of THX to be considered? Are you sure the issue is really relevant to be discussed in the "Official Audyssey" thread? Do not-THX certified Denon owners need to follow up?

As Baptig explained, there are things one needs to understand when using THX with Audyssey - for example the use of Re-EQ and whether to set the AVR to use Dynamic EQ instead of THX Loudness plus. This makes it relevant to the Audyssey thread when THX is discussed in that context. Of course, for those who do not have THX-certified AVRs, then they can safely ignore all such discussions due to their 100% irrelevance.

post #61664 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 

I have ceased to bother with "Ask Audyssey" on account of my (possibly erroneous) belief that Audyssey aren't really interested in us enthusiasts any more and are concentrating their energies elsewhere these days. Feri is a frequent poster of issues there though, so maybe he will take up the issue. I think the question would be: "Does XT32 ,when pinging each sub individually for level and delay, also measure the F3 of each sub? If so, does it use that information when applying EQ to the combined response of the subs? IOW, does XT32 EQ to the capability of the lesser sub if the pair of subs are not identical?" 

 

Dang it - I've done the work now so I may as well Ask Audyssey despite what I just said ;)  I will report back.

 

EDIT: Oh - there is no Ask Audyssey any more! What was I saying about them no longer being interested in enthusiasts (aka nuisances) like us?

 

 

I've sent an email as requested.

 

Follow-up.

 

I have received this less than helpful response from the replacement for Ask Audyssey:

 

"John Hager, Apr 24 03:11 pm (PDT):

Hello Keith,
Using the Audyssey Sub EQ HT function found in newer receivers, the two subs are first aligned in time and level and then corrected by MultEQ as "one". This gives better results than applying individual correction to each sub."

 

 


Edited by kbarnes701 - 4/25/13 at 3:32am
post #61665 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

and because of that the pair of subs is EQd to the capability of the lesser sub.

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion based on his response. He says the exact opposite here, "However, when the subs are used as "one" acoustically the lesser one may suffer because the EQ filter is calculated based on the combined acoustical response." He then goes on to caution against using mismatched subs b/c there's a possibility of boosts being created based on the combined response that could do damage to the inferior sub if applied below its f3. If the subs are EQed to the lesser sub, there's no reason for that caution as no boosts will be applied below its f3.

Like I said in an earlier comment, I'd imagine Audyssey is programmed to always calculate distance, trim, and f3 when pinging; however, in this case, individual f3 gets discarded since the combined f3 is actually used to generate filters.
post #61666 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

This is what I have always said in the FAQ AIUI. So the F3 of each sub IS determined when each sub is pinged and because of that the pair of subs is EQd to the capability of the lesser sub. This is what we have always said in this thread, until recently. I agree that Chris's explanation is slightly different but the effect is the same.



Chris often answers just the part of the question that concerns MultEQ and this is what I think he has done here. Regardless of how MultEQ EQs the subs, there is no good reason to use 'large' in a system with a sub and, of course, doing so effectively bypasses all bass management. There are also other good reasons for not using 'large' and they are well-known to all of us I think.

I tested it yesterday (Onkyo 818 with XR32) to run the fronts on Large and use Onkyo's Double Bass.... I have a sub but with Double Bass Feature it sounds really nice like having two subs? Audyssey XT32 detects my speakers with 40 Hz / Small.... problem is on 40 Hz/Small the Double Bass Feature is not available to fill the room better with bass.... and i don't not want to put in a second subwoofer. Any idea what would you remommend me?
post #61667 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by benunc View Post

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion based on his response. He says the exact opposite here, "However, when the subs are used as "one" acoustically the lesser one may suffer because the EQ filter is calculated based on the combined acoustical response." He then goes on to caution against using mismatched subs b/c there's a possibility of boosts being created based on the combined response that could do damage to the inferior sub if applied below its f3. If the subs are EQed to the lesser sub, there's no reason for that caution as no boosts will be applied below its f3.

Like I said in an earlier comment, I'd imagine Audyssey is programmed to always calculate distance, trim, and f3 when pinging; however, in this case, individual f3 gets discarded since the combined f3 is actually used to generate filters.

I agree, for example in my case my Kriesel has not lost sound quality because of the Hsu.
post #61668 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by asere View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Well lets think about this a bit, and assume that there is a "big" and a "small" sub. Let us also assume that each are optimally placed in the room, and are phase and/or delay adjusted to be maximized to play together.

Ok, so you play the scene with the single BIG sub and it is able to pass through the bass heavy scene just fine, without hearing much distortion and at a listening level you would not want to go past. So what is the point of the second sub at this juncture? It is simple, the multisub approach will smooth out room modes to make for a better experience. ANY single sub system will have room modes somewhere in its passband. Sometimes these modes are slight, and sometimes they are pretty drastic, depending on the room. Now. why else would the need for the second sub be important? well, some like a nearfield sub for additional "tactile" feel. Others may need some additional headroom that the single BIG sub couldn't produce on its own (I am in this camp, and it only took 7 more before I was happy).

I can't stress enough the importance of integrating two IDENTICAL subs the right way, if which SubEQ HT seems to do a pretty good job of, but two different subs, one would almost completely need a standalone unit to truly get them to be "optimized" fully.

I can say that with my mismatched subs I do get higher spl at MLP and less with one sub off.

Seems you have what I first pointed out then, two well integrated and phase-aligned subs! Very nice biggrin.gif Some people go for a second sub and put it in the wrong places sometimes, and then wonder why it didn't help...You could actually even completely cancel out the other sub if you indeed did this wrong...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyTurbo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

This is what I have always said in the FAQ AIUI. So the F3 of each sub IS determined when each sub is pinged and because of that the pair of subs is EQd to the capability of the lesser sub. This is what we have always said in this thread, until recently. I agree that Chris's explanation is slightly different but the effect is the same.



Chris often answers just the part of the question that concerns MultEQ and this is what I think he has done here. Regardless of how MultEQ EQs the subs, there is no good reason to use 'large' in a system with a sub and, of course, doing so effectively bypasses all bass management. There are also other good reasons for not using 'large' and they are well-known to all of us I think.

I tested it yesterday (Onkyo 818 with XR32) to run the fronts on Large and use Onkyo's Double Bass.... I have a sub but with Double Bass Feature it sounds really nice like having two subs? Audyssey XT32 detects my speakers with 40 Hz / Small.... problem is on 40 Hz/Small the Double Bass Feature is not available to fill the room better with bass.... and i don't not want to put in a second subwoofer. Any idea what would you remommend me?

You might just prefer bumping the sub level up then. Double bass is only available when speakers are set to large.
post #61669 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by benunc View Post

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion based on his response. He says the exact opposite here, "However, when the subs are used as "one" acoustically the lesser one may suffer because the EQ filter is calculated based on the combined acoustical response." He then goes on to caution against using mismatched subs b/c there's a possibility of boosts being created based on the combined response that could do damage to the inferior sub if applied below its f3. If the subs are EQed to the lesser sub, there's no reason for that caution as no boosts will be applied below its f3.
Like I said in an earlier comment, I'd imagine Audyssey is programmed to always calculate distance, trim, and f3 when pinging; however, in this case, individual f3 gets discarded since the combined f3 is actually used to generate filters.
I agree with your interpretation of Chris' response. However, Keith was uncannily correct both in predicting both that the F3s are indeed measured AND that the response from Chris would still leave plenty of wiggle-room for debate!biggrin.gif
post #61670 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by benunc View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

and because of that the pair of subs is EQd to the capability of the lesser sub.

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion based on his response. He says the exact opposite here, "However, when the subs are used as "one" acoustically the lesser one may suffer because the EQ filter is calculated based on the combined acoustical response." He then goes on to caution against using mismatched subs b/c there's a possibility of boosts being created based on the combined response that could do damage to the inferior sub if applied below its f3. If the subs are EQed to the lesser sub, there's no reason for that caution as no boosts will be applied below its f3.

Like I said in an earlier comment, I'd imagine Audyssey is programmed to always calculate distance, trim, and f3 when pinging; however, in this case, individual f3 gets discarded since the combined f3 is actually used to generate filters.

 

Tell me how the 'combined F3' works - or even what that means ... eg, if one rolls off at 40Hz and the other at 20Hz. Then what?


Edited by kbarnes701 - 4/25/13 at 7:33am
post #61671 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyTurbo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

This is what I have always said in the FAQ AIUI. So the F3 of each sub IS determined when each sub is pinged and because of that the pair of subs is EQd to the capability of the lesser sub. This is what we have always said in this thread, until recently. I agree that Chris's explanation is slightly different but the effect is the same.



Chris often answers just the part of the question that concerns MultEQ and this is what I think he has done here. Regardless of how MultEQ EQs the subs, there is no good reason to use 'large' in a system with a sub and, of course, doing so effectively bypasses all bass management. There are also other good reasons for not using 'large' and they are well-known to all of us I think.

I tested it yesterday (Onkyo 818 with XR32) to run the fronts on Large and use Onkyo's Double Bass.... I have a sub but with Double Bass Feature it sounds really nice like having two subs? Audyssey XT32 detects my speakers with 40 Hz / Small.... problem is on 40 Hz/Small the Double Bass Feature is not available to fill the room better with bass.... and i don't not want to put in a second subwoofer. Any idea what would you remommend me?

 

Personally, I'd recommend you turn off Double Bass. If you feel you are lacking bass, then the only real answer is a better sub unfortunately.

 

f)7.    What is ‘LFE + Main’ or ‘Double Bass’ and should I use it?

post #61672 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by benunc View Post

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion based on his response. He says the exact opposite here, "However, when the subs are used as "one" acoustically the lesser one may suffer because the EQ filter is calculated based on the combined acoustical response." He then goes on to caution against using mismatched subs b/c there's a possibility of boosts being created based on the combined response that could do damage to the inferior sub if applied below its f3. If the subs are EQed to the lesser sub, there's no reason for that caution as no boosts will be applied below its f3.
Like I said in an earlier comment, I'd imagine Audyssey is programmed to always calculate distance, trim, and f3 when pinging; however, in this case, individual f3 gets discarded since the combined f3 is actually used to generate filters.
I agree with your interpretation of Chris' response. However, Keith was uncannily correct both in predicting both that the F3s are indeed measured AND that the response from Chris would still leave plenty of wiggle-room for debate!biggrin.gif

 

:)  I can't see the point of them measuring the F3 for each speaker and then discarding the information that results from the measurement.  We will never really know the answer - Audyssey won't say and nobody else really knows. It still seems reasonable to me that XT32 measures the F3 of each sub (as we now know ir does) and then EQs to the capability of the lesser sub - this prevents EQ being applied to a sub that cannot handle it.

post #61673 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

smile.gif  I can't see the point of them measuring the F3 for each speaker and then discarding the information that results from the measurement.  We will never really know the answer - Audyssey won't say and nobody else really knows. It still seems reasonable to me that XT32 measures the F3 of each sub (as we now know ir does) and then EQs to the capability of the lesser sub - this prevents EQ being applied to a sub that cannot handle it.

Knowing the F3 of the lesser sub, presumably at only the number one mic position, probably doesn't provide enough information to extrapolate how that higher F3 figures into overall room response when both subs are at work. If Audyssey could figure that out, it might not be necessary to ever ping the 2 subs together. But Audyssey does ping them together to capture the data for the EQ calculations. Presumably the reason F3 is captured when going one sub at a time is (a) if there's only one sub, you need the info, and the system doesn't "know" there are two subs until it pings them both and gets a response); and (b) what would be the benefit of rewriting the information capture software then complicating the software for the "real" eq run to behave differently, only for the subs, only if there are two subs. Just let the machine capture all the data it's set up to capture, and use only what you need.
post #61674 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

Presumably the reason F3 is captured when going one sub at a time is (a) if there's only one sub, you need the info, and the system doesn't "know" there are two subs until it pings them both and gets a response); and (b) what would be the benefit of rewriting the information capture software then complicating the software for the "real" eq run to behave differently, only for the subs, only if there are two subs. Just let the machine capture all the data it's set up to capture, and use only what you need.

Exactly, I think you nailed it. I don't have SubEQ HT so not sure if you indicate the # of subs you have prior to running Audyssey; if not, then your point 'a' makes perfect sense. And from a programming standpoint, it's easier to let it capture and discard data then write new code to not capture the data at all.
post #61675 of 70896
In fact Dr Hsu told me I could even just have the Kreisel handle the mid and upper bass and change the crossover for the Hsu su to 50hz so that way the Hsu can handle only the low bass.
post #61676 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

smile.gif  I can't see the point of them measuring the F3 for each speaker and then discarding the information that results from the measurement.  We will never really know the answer - Audyssey won't say and nobody else really knows. It still seems reasonable to me that XT32 measures the F3 of each sub (as we now know ir does) and then EQs to the capability of the lesser sub - this prevents EQ being applied to a sub that cannot handle it.

Knowing the F3 of the lesser sub, presumably at only the number one mic position, probably doesn't provide enough information to extrapolate how that higher F3 figures into overall room response when both subs are at work. If Audyssey could figure that out, it might not be necessary to ever ping the 2 subs together. But Audyssey does ping them together to capture the data for the EQ calculations. Presumably the reason F3 is captured when going one sub at a time is (a) if there's only one sub, you need the info, and the system doesn't "know" there are two subs until it pings them both and gets a response); and (b) what would be the benefit of rewriting the information capture software then complicating the software for the "real" eq run to behave differently, only for the subs, only if there are two subs. Just let the machine capture all the data it's set up to capture, and use only what you need.

 

Nicely reasoned!

post #61677 of 70896
I think the key distinction here is whether Audyssey uses what it "knows" about the lesser sub when actually calibrating. Chris's response seems pretty explicit in that it doesn't: "However, when the subs are used as "one" acoustically the lesser one may suffer because the EQ filter is calculated based on the combined acoustical response."

This to me is pretty clear -- the MultEQ software simply "listens" to the combined response and creates the filters based on what it hears.

So in fact to me it's the opposite of the idea that the system is "EQd to the capability of the lesser sub". Chris's response indicates that the issue is not "holding back" the bigger sub, but rather the fact that the combined system response may end up pushing the lesser sub farther than it can go because the combined acoustical response is superior to what the lesser sub could provide on its own.
post #61678 of 70896
A little Audyssey related news for those who wanted a lower price point entry to XT32 and were basically limited to the Onkyo 818....

It is now officially confirmed that the soon-to-be-released Denon AVR-X4000 (the replacement for the 33xx level model under Denon's new branding scheme) is going to feature MultEQ XT32 with SubEQ HT, plus the ability to expand to 9 channels with an external amp (using either PLIIz, DSX or DTS Neo:X). Crutchfield Product Link. MSRP is $1,299 but street price will probably be closer to $1k or even lower once stock is up.

It's probably safe to assume this will also apply to the next gen Marantz 700x model, since this model is essentially a souped-up clone of the corresponding Denon 33xx model.
post #61679 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

I think the key distinction here is whether Audyssey uses what it "knows" about the lesser sub when actually calibrating. Chris's response seems pretty explicit in that it doesn't: "However, when the subs are used as "one" acoustically the lesser one may suffer because the EQ filter is calculated based on the combined acoustical response."

This to me is pretty clear -- the MultEQ software simply "listens" to the combined response and creates the filters based on what it hears.

So in fact to me it's the opposite of the idea that the system is "EQd to the capability of the lesser sub". Chris's response indicates that the issue is not "holding back" the bigger sub, but rather the fact that the combined system response may end up pushing the lesser sub farther than it can go because the combined acoustical response is superior to what the lesser sub could provide on its own.

Also nicely reasoned IMO.  If you look back through this humungous thread, I'm sure the idea that XT32 EQ'd to the ability of the lesser sub gained ground at a time when Chris was active here (the good old days). I've changed the FAQ following your (and Jerry's) previous input anyway and it now just offers a general caveat when using dissimilar subs. The idea that the way it actually works could cause a problem for the lesser sub is counter to what we seem to have always believed - and is quite shocking too IMO. Personally I am glad I have always had subs in identical pairs and can never see me deviating from this - it's a surefire way to know for certain that no problems or anomalies will raise their head.

post #61680 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

A little Audyssey related news for those who wanted a lower price point entry to XT32 and were basically limited to the Onkyo 818....

It is now officially confirmed that the soon-to-be-released Denon AVR-X4000 (the replacement for the 33xx level model under Denon's new branding scheme) is going to feature MultEQ XT32 with SubEQ HT, plus the ability to expand to 9 channels with an external amp (using either PLIIz, DSX or DTS Neo:X). Crutchfield Product Link. MSRP is $1,299 but street price will probably be closer to $1k or even lower once stock is up.

It's probably safe to assume this will also apply to the next gen Marantz 700x model, since this model is essentially a souped-up clone of the corresponding Denon 33xx model.

 

Nice. XT32 is well worth that sort of money.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)