AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Can anyone elaborate on the differences between MultEQ and MultEQ XT, beyond what it says on audyssey's site?

http://www.audyssey.com/technology/multEQ_products.html


I've found a couple posts that say the XT version is technically and subjectively superior, but I have issues spending a few hundred bucks for the extra resolution (esp. when the cost to implement xt is probably marginal)


The denon AVR-589 has multEQ, dynamic volume and dynamic EQ and costs $300. If I shell out an extra ~$250 and buy a tx-sr705 I get multEQ XT and I lose dynamic volume and dynamic EQ. So to get XT AND keep all the features of the avr-589 I'd probably realistically have to shell out an extra $500.


I'm sure you get more for your extra $500, but I really don't want all that extra stuff. I don't need extra wattage because my speakers are efficient. I don't need video switching or networking or faroudja video processors or THX certification or 18 audio inputs or gold plated knurled binding posts or bluetooth. I just want good sound at a reasonable price.


Sorry this turned into a bit of a rant, I'm just a bit frustrated by the pricing/feature packaging thing....


Anyone still want to answer my original question?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,351 Posts
My understanding is that to the end user, MultEQ XT is not utilized. Basically, the XT buys them nothing. However, if you are a custom installer, or you hire a custom installer to interface with the receiver, then the XT portion can be utilized for additional readings, settings, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
I have an onkyo tx-sr805 with the MultiEQ XT and I leave the Audyssey disabled. To me it makes my system sound "dull". It cuts out the highs and makes stereo sound more monorual if that makes sense. Technically it may be more accurate as far as time and frequency response but I much prefer the sound with it turned off. I did the auto 8 point setup as per the instructions in this link http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post14456895 . I have a Onkyo HT-5100 with the dynamic EQ in another room and I actually love the sound of it with dynamic EQ on.


I would not pay $250 extra for a receiver for this function alone that you may or may not like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by wje /forum/post/15578365


My understanding is that to the end user, MultEQ XT is not utilized. Basically, the XT buys them nothing. However, if you are a custom installer, or you hire a custom installer to interface with the receiver, then the XT portion can be utilized for additional readings, settings, etc.

Hmm. My understanding is that xt has more sampling points and can generate a more detailed correction curve. This is useful whether the system equalizes itself or a professional does the job.


According to the chart in the link above the subwoofer correction is the same for both, but for the satellite channels its 2x vs 16x. I imagine 8x more resolution should make a dramatic difference, but that's just my guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
487 Posts

Quote:
Hmm. My understanding is that xt has more sampling points and can generate a more detailed correction curve. This is useful whether the system equalizes itself or a professional does the job.

You are confusing MultiEQ Pro with MultiEQ XT. MultiEQ XT is the highest consumer level of Audyssey currently on receivers. MultiEQ Pro is where a professional comes to your house with specialized Audyssey equipment, calibrates and then loads it into your receiver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,800 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms89 /forum/post/15578673


I have an onkyo tx-sr805 with the MultiEQ XT and I leave the Audyssey disabled. To me it makes my system sound "dull". It cuts out the highs and makes stereo sound more monorual if that makes sense. Technically it may be more accurate as far as time and frequency response but I much prefer the sound with it turned off. I did the auto 8 point setup as per the instructions in this link http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post14456895 . I have a Onkyo HT-5100 with the dynamic EQ in another room and I actually love the sound of it with dynamic EQ on.


I would not pay $250 extra for a receiver for this function alone that you may or may not like.

If you are using DynamicEQ, you are using Audyssey, of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson /forum/post/15579531


If you are using DynamicEQ, you are using Audyssey, of course.

Yes I know.. Different system, different room. I guess my point is I like the Audyssey Dynamic Eq on my smaller HTIB set up but do not like the Audyssey MultiEQ XT on my main larger system. So you may or may not like the results you get with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,800 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms89 /forum/post/15580368


Yes I know.. Different system, different room. I guess my point is I like the Audyssey Dynamic Eq on my smaller HTIB set up but do not like the Audyssey MultiEQ XT on my main larger system. So you may or may not like the results you get with it.

OK. My experience with Audyssey has always been positive but some have different "tastes."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
This is quoted from the Audyssey website under FAQ:

Quote:
What target curves does MultEQ use?


Contrary to popular belief, a target curve that is flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz is not always the one that will produce the correct sound. There are several reasons for this including the fact that loudspeakers are much more directional at high frequencies than they are at low frequencies. This means that the balance of direct and room sound is very different at the high and low ends of the frequency spectrum.


The Audyssey target curve setting makes the appropriate correction at high frequencies to alleviate this problem. A slight roll-off is introduced that restores the balance between direct and reflected sound.


The Flat setting uses the MultEQ filters in the same way as the Audyssey curve, but it does not apply a high frequency roll-off. This setting is appropriate for very small or highly treated rooms in which the listener is seated quite close to the loudspeakers. It is also recommended for all rooms when the receiver is in THX processing mode. This allows THX re-equalization to operate exactly as it was intended.

I believe this roll-off is what I am hearing with my set up and what makes them sound more "flat"
or dull to my ears. Unfortunately my receiver does not have the audyssey "flat"
setting that does not apply the high frequency roll off when it is engaged.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,779 Posts
I know this isn't a "why I like Audyssey" thread...but I think I can listen at 0dbMV because of it. The rolloff is perfect and the EQ is outstanding.It timbe matched all my speakers so that, when I run sweeps with truerta they over lap with little difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Ok, I think these two threads just told me what I need to know:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1053572

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1096540


In a nutshell, dynamic EQ and MultEQ are preferable to multEQ XT alone, IF you are listening below reference levels (at least that's what I gleaned from those threads). I almost always listen below reference levels to avoid pissing off everyone around me and I can't afford an amp with multEQ XT and dynamic EQ, so the problem is solved.


I am still curious to know what the actual resolution of MultEQ is on the satellites. I know it's 1/4 or 1/8 the resolution of XT, but that is somewhat meaningless since we don't know what the actual resolution is. If MultEQ has a trillion sample points and MultEQ XT has 8x that, then they're both better than they need to be. If MultEQ has two sample points and MultEQ XT has 8x that, then they're both essentially worthless.


Anyone want to provide more in depth information on the technology behind MultEQ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewS99 /forum/post/15598888


Did you try audyssey.com?

http://www.audyssey.com/technology/multEQ_products.html

Yes. Again, the only information available is:


1. MultEQ XT (AVR version) uses "high resolution" filters for the satellites, while MultEQ uses "mid resolution" filters for the satellites.


2. MultEQ XT (AVR version) has 16x resolution in the satellites and MultEQ has 2x (I assume this makes MultEQ XT 8 times the resolution of MultEQ?)


3. "Control points" are distributed such that lower frequencies have higher resolution (does this mean that the points are distributed logarithmically within each channel? Or just that the resolution of the sub channel is higher than that of the satellites?)


4. In the graphing section it states that "it is necessary to use hundreds of points." I'm guessing this means that the best versions of Audyssey have hundreds of "control points."




So, beyond that there is no information about the satellite channel filters, which makes me a tad suspicious. I can imagine a few reasons why Audyssey would not reveal the actual number of sampling points for their filters:


1. It is a trade secret, and revealing the number of "control points" will aid their competitors (somehow I doubt this).


2. Audyssey has a policy of not disclosing technical information beyond what is available on their website (this is just silly).


3. Audyssey has an agreement with manufacturers that they will not disclose certain technical information (this is possible, although I imagine this would only apply to information that would hurt their image).


4. The resolution varies depending on the customer's setup (crossover freq, room response, etc.), and is not easily explained in layman's terms.


4. The number of "control points" in the satellite channels of the MultEQ and 2EQ products is low, and Audyssey is protecting their reputation by not releasing resolution information (This seems most likely to me. That being said, Audyssey seems to be pretty down to earth and I would also guess that the number of control points is sufficient in their lower end products, even if the number sounds low).



Now time for some wild speculation. Audyssey has a graph on their site (which may or may not be representative of their products) showing control points on a room FR plot:

http://www.audyssey.com/technology/g...ges/graph2.gif


Audyssey does not tell us what product we are looking at, but we can make some educated guesses. We know it's not 2eq, because there is low frequency information on the graph, so lets assume it's either MultEQ, MultEQ XT AVR or the MultEQ XT equalizer.


If we also assume the crossover frequency is a standard 80hz THX crossover, we can count 112 "control points" between 80hz and 20khz and we have the following possibilities.


1. The graph is MultEQ which gives the following satellite channel resolutions for the product line:

2EQ (1x)
56 "control points"
MultEQ (2x)
112 "control points"
MultEQ XT AVR (16x)
896 "control points"
MultEQ XT EQ (32x)
1792 "control points"

2. The graph is MultEQ XT AVR which gives the following satellite channel resolutions for the product line:

2EQ (1x)
7 "control points"
MultEQ (2x)
14 "control points"
MultEQ XT AVR (16x)
112 "control points"
MultEQ XT EQ (32x)
224 "control points"

3. The graph is MultEQ XT Equalizer which gives the following satellite channel resolutions for the product line:

2EQ (1x)
3.5 "control points"
MultEQ (2x)
7 "control points"
MultEQ XT AVR (16x)
56 "control points"
MultEQ XT EQ (32x)
112 "control points"

Option number one is out because Audyssey advertises "hundreds of control points." If was thousands, they would let you know (MultEQ XT amps would probably say 896 band equalizer on the front). Option number two also seems unlikely since a 3.5 band EQ is worthless, and 112 hardly qualifies as "hundreds."


So the most likely case is that 2EQ has ~7 control points, MultEQ has 14 control points, MultEQ XT AVR has 112 and MultEQ XT EQ has 224. This makes sense. These numbers are adequate, but don't sound fantastic and therefore are not advertised (eg, 2EQ sounds sexier than "7 point equalizer," which connotes low budget car stereo). Remember, this is just a guess based on a graph that may not be accurate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Now that I think about it, the # of control points are probably powers of 2 and the control points probably extend beyond the crossover point.


So instead of 7,14,112 and 224 control points its probably 8, 16, 128 and 256 control points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
I have a Denon receiver with MultiEq and then decided to upgrade to a NAD with XT. In the end I've decided to send the NAD back, in part because of problems with the audio playback and also because I didn't really hear a dramatic difference between MultiEq and XT. If anything the MultiEq on the Denon did a better job of identifying speaker distances, crossover points and phase than the NAD with XT did.


I'm starting to think that XT and XT 32 are just marketing gimmicks to spawn more upgrades in the market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,192 Posts
You'll pulled up a 2.5 year old thread.



Try some Denon receivers with MultiEQ, MultiEQ XT and XT 32. Some parts of the calibration process are not Audyssey related but from the mfr design.


I have two Denon receivers, one with MultiEQ and the other with MultiEQ XT and I can tell the difference in the way they calibrate the speakers.


But if you think it is a gimmick that's fine.


You should head over to the Audyssey thread instead reviving threads from early 2009. Info is way more current there.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=795421
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,684 Posts
+1

Going from a Denon 3310 to a 3311 I have noticed a difference with XT. Dialog is the biggest improvement I've found for movies. After running MultEQ I always had to bump the center up 1.5 db so that dialog was loud enough. I have not had to do that with XT. It's not even that it's louder but its just stands out more from background music. I wouldn't say there is a night and day difference but the difference is noticeable to me. Hope this helps the OP if he hasn't bought a receiver in the last 2 years or if he still reads the forum.
 

·
Registered
Display: TCL 65R617, AVR: Denon X2300W, Source: PS4 Pro, Fronts: Infinity Primus 250
Joined
·
3,035 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjpearce023 /forum/post/20680542


+1

Going from a Denon 3310 to a 3311 I have noticed a difference with XT. Dialog is the biggest improvement I've found for movies. After running MultEQ I always had to bump the center up 1.5 db so that dialog was loud enough. I have not had to do that with XT. It's not even that it's louder but its just stands out more from background music. I wouldn't say there is a night and day difference but the difference is noticeable to me. Hope this helps the OP if he hasn't bought a receiver in the last 2 years or if he still reads the forum.

It might help me, as I am preparing to purchase a new A/V receiver and am trying to decide if I want an Onkyo 609 with 2EQ or a Denon 1911/1912 with MultEQ. The Onkyo has more features and connection options than the Denon and seems like a much better deal at $20 less, however, the Denon has MultEQ which is one of my most wanted features. (XT would be better, but I'm not trying to spend the kind of money it takes to get an XT model)


So the decision is performance vs features. Denon vs Onkyo. I will probably place my order next week so I have until then to decide....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,192 Posts
You can get Multi EQ XT on the Denon 1712 which is less than the Onkyo NR609. It has less features though.


what features are you looking for in a receiver?
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top