AVS Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
My "receiver" or pre-amp has an auto room EQ function on it, which I haven't used yet. Is it worth me using it?


Apparently it analyses reflections, etc. etc. and compensates for the change in audio quality. I haven't tried it yet due to the loud test tones it is stated to produce in the manual.


My listening position is about 1.8m from each speaker (which are bookshelf speakers), in the equilateral triangle set-up when I am "critically" listening to songs, otherwise I have to settle for about 1.2m when I'm doing work at the desk.


Any reply greatly appreciated,


e.E.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
There is a lot of info online about room correction. Loud test tones may be a bit overstated. Just leave the room if it bothers you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The noise won't be bothering me, but other people. I will look into it some more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,452 Posts
Does it work? Yes, but some systems are better than others.


Some brands use their own in-house solutions like Pioneer MCCAC and Yamaha YPAO. Others like Denon and Onkyo use a third party system like Audyssey solutions.


Also the lower end products usually have more basic implementations of room correction.


And the implementation of the third party systems vary with manufacturers.


Many of the inhouse solutions rely on basic EQs or parametric EQs. The knock on these systems is they tend to play games with signal phase and many of the standard versions don't help in the bass areas of the signal where most room problems are usually located.


Audyssey has a different approach. They use FIR, Finite Impulse Response, filters. Audyssey will help in the bass region and it will not mess up the phase of the audio signals. FIR filters though do have an inherrent flaw with latency/delay. Audyssey does have several versions available. They vary with the number of measuring points and filter resolution.


So in my opinion... yes they help but to varying degrees.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,788 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita /forum/post/17053451


Does it work? Yes, but some systems are better than others.


Some brands use their own in-house solutions like Pioneer MCCAC and Yamaha YPAO. Others like Denon and Onkyo use a third party system like Audyssey solutions.


Also the lower end products usually have more basic implementations of room correction.


And the implementation of the third party systems vary with manufacturers.


Many of the inhouse solutions rely on basic EQs or parametric EQs. The knock on these systems is they tend to play games with signal phase and many of the standard versions don't help in the bass areas of the signal where most room problems are usually located.


Audyssey has a different approach. They use FIR, Finite Impulse Response, filters. Audyssey will help in the bass region and it will not mess up the phase of the audio signals. FIR filters though do have an inherrent flaw with latency/delay. Audyssey does have several versions available. They vary with the number of measuring points and filter resolution.


So in my opinion... yes they help but to varying degrees.

Agreed but let me add that one version of Audyssey (2EQ) and some of the other proprietary EQs will not equalize the subwoofer. So, again, some systems are better than others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,309 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson /forum/post/17054036


Agreed but let me add that one version of Audyssey (2EQ) and some of the other proprietary EQs will not equalize the subwoofer. So, again, some systems are better than others.

The major acoustic problems are low frequencies (
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
868 Posts
Tom Danley was once telling me that EQ can only really be effective for minimum phase issues such as anechoic system response imperfections and room response issues for frequencies near or below what will be near field in the room. If some systems are cutting out subwoofer corrections this is going to eliminate much of what DRC EQ ing can even help out with. Seems like a bad idea on several levels to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,788 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugly1 /forum/post/17054593


Tom Danley was once telling me that EQ can only really be effective for minimum phase issues such as anechoic system response imperfections and room response issues for frequencies near or below what will be near field in the room. If some systems are cutting out subwoofer corrections this is going to eliminate much of what DRC EQ ing can even help out with. Seems like a bad idea on several levels to me.

I agree with you that the lf correction is the most important and the most difficult to accomplish physically. However, it is a matter of cost for the cheaper units.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
I've got a Yamaha RX-Z11 with the latest version of their "in-house" YPAO equalization. I have not found the results using it be satisfactory at all. I've ended up recalibrating nearly every parameter using test discs and SPL meters. I've heard that Audyssey is much better, but have no experience with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
868 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson /forum/post/17054664


I agree with you that the lf correction is the most important and the most difficult to accomplish physically. However, it is a matter of cost for the cheaper units.

I don't really have a good idea of what is necessary for most of the EQing algorithms that get stuffed into low end recievers but processing power is getting dirt cheap these days. The profit margins must be extremely tight on these types of products considering, what I would call, the significant benefits potentially involved. I would have an easier time understanding if you said it is for product differentiation instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,452 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Docray1 /forum/post/17054754


I've got a Yamaha RX-Z11 with the latest version of their "in-house" YPAO equalization. I have not found the results using it be satisfactory at all. I've ended up recalibrating nearly every parameter using test discs and SPL meters. I've heard that Audyssey is much better, but have no experience with it.

Again, it's because Audyssey uses a totally different approach. I think the P in YPAO is for Parametric. This type of system could cause havoc with signal phase if it is trying to do too much.


I like Audyssey, but they seem to be positioning their higher end XT version of MultEQ into receivers well above the $1k mark now. A couple of years ago MultEQ XT was on the Onkyo 705 that was streeting for a little over $600 back then.


XT gets you the higher resolution filters and the full eight position sample points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,788 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugly1 /forum/post/17054845


I don't really have a good idea of what is necessary for most of the EQing algorithms that get stuffed into low end recievers but processing power is getting dirt cheap these days. The profit margins must be extremely tight on these types of products considering, what I would call, the significant benefits potentially involved. I would have an easier time understanding if you said it is for product differentiation instead.

I am sure that product differentiation is a factor as well. OTOH, I see a lot of corner-cutting, even in some of the pricier products.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top