AVS Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

Is it accurate to say that at the end of the day they are all just tweaking the following for each speaker :

 

1. frequency equalization

2. timing delay (phase)

3. crossover frequency

4. volume

 

If so, could the same theoretically be achieved manually using your own calibration equipment?

 

What about a pro installer coming to your house?  Does that render the built-in room correction unnecessary if done correctly?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,747 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by hemants  /t/1523978/question-about-room-correction-algorithms-audyssey-macc-ypao-etc#post_24520755

 

Is it accurate to say that at the end of the day they are all just tweaking the following for each speaker :

 

1. frequency equalization

2. timing delay (phase)

3. crossover frequency

4. volume

 

If so, could the same theoretically be achieved manually using your own calibration equipment?

 

What about a pro installer coming to your house?  Does that render the built-in room correction unnecessary if done correctly?
Let me ask you what equipment would implement and perform the adjustments if you measured and calculated them with "your own calibration equipment" or that of "a pro installer coming to your house?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,991 Posts
Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 has 512 bands for the satellites and 512 bands for the subwoofer plus setting crossover, delay, and levels using algorithms designed to optimize time and frequency domains. That's a lot of work to do manually.
 

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

Audyssey Pro for example?

 

I guess where I'm coming from is two things I read repeatedly

 

1. that people are often not happy with the 'out of the box' calibration that a receiver gives you

 

and

 

2. that 3 different calibration runs will often yield 3 different calibration results in the same room

 

To me that seems to suggest that the ability to tweak after the fact is important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,455 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by hemants  /t/1523978/question-about-room-correction-algorithms-audyssey-macc-ypao-etc#post_24521011


Audyssey Pro for example?


I guess where I'm coming from is two things I read repeatedly


1. that people are often not happy with the 'out of the box' calibration that a receiver gives you


and


2. that 3 different calibration runs will often yield 3 different calibration results in the same room


To me that seems to suggest that the ability to tweak after the fact is important.

That would seem to be Yamaha's thinking too. But if you want a plug-n-play solution Audyssey XT32 seems to come from a lot more R&D than YPAO (I've never tried Pioneer's or Anthem's solution, only YPAO's latest and Audyssey up to XT). Whether it'll produce a dramatically different result might depend on other factors, like your room, speaker placement, etc.


Auto EQ does a little more than what you've listed, but you seem to have the gist of it. I think what Kal is getting at is that any pro calibration is only going to be as thorough as your components allow. If your AVR doesn't have a built-in manual EQ and you're not using an external EQ, there's not much a professional will be able to do in terms of EQ correction - there's got to be something to work with. They can still optimally position the speakers or acoustically treat the room though, both of which stand to be more beneficial than EQ.


Audyssey Pro allows for additional tweaking beyond what XT32 does, so any inaccurate calculations or readings can supposedly be compensated for. But Audyssey Pro is similarly limited by whatever version of Audyssey you have in your AVR too, as I understand it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,991 Posts
There can always be a bad cal, but an untreated room cannot be completely "fixed" with any room correction program. Comb filter effects and other issues from room reflections and such mean you can change the response by a mile when you move the mic an inch. Using a tripod to place the mic at ear level and isolated from the couch or chair usually yields more repeatable results. Still can get wide swings in response if you relocate the mic even slightly in an untreated room.


I suspect many people have never heard and thus do not like flat frequency response.


You can always tune to taste after running room correction, though some programs make it difficult and expensive. MCACC lets the user tweak about everything, Audyssey locks you into their presets unless you buy the Pro kit (or have an installer cal and tweak for you). I have a very old Yamaha and do not recall how easy YPAO is to tweak (or if it is even possible). Can't remember what my Sony does. The bottom line is you may have to teak to taste, and the room will always win though room correction can make a significant difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,455 Posts
^I've found measurements to be fairly inconsistent (likely related to precise mic placement or mic angle) in a fully treated room as well. Though XT was more consistent than the previous version of Audyssey that I used - which possibly had something to do with the mic's design. I haven't run YPAO enough to speculate very precisely exactly how it fares in the same respect. But I'd agree that speaker placement and room treatment has a larger impact on acoustics and that EQ alone isn't likely to be a cure all.


I can't speak for their lesser models, but Yamaha's Aventage line makes it very easy to tweak YPAO's auto correction or manually PEQ the room from the start, not running YPAO altogether, if one prefers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
553 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50  /t/1523978/question-about-room-correction-algorithms-audyssey-macc-ypao-etc#post_24523589


. MCACC lets the user tweak about everything

I was very appreciative of this when I had a VSX-1121. I ran Auto MCACC and didn't like the results at all. No life, bland, and well, flat. Count me as one who doesn't like flat response I guess. MCACC allowed me to eq every channel separately, with (I think) a 9-band parametric eq, and I just did it to taste. I did leave MCACCs distance measurements in there though. I loved the way it sounded until lightning did some damage to it, and now I have a lesser, non-adjustable VSX-42 instead. Sounds fine, but not as good as the 1121.


I'm also interested in what the auto calibration programs can adjust other than the 4 variables listed above
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,652 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jontyrees  /t/1523978/question-about-room-correction-algorithms-audyssey-macc-ypao-etc#post_24524392


I was very appreciative of this when I had a VSX-1121. I ran Auto MCACC and didn't like the results at all. No life, bland, and well, flat. Count me as one who doesn't like flat response I guess.

I wouldn't blame a flat response for that. I would doubt very much that your AVR actually did produce a flat response. More than likely it rolled off the top end too much.


A flat response would more than likely sound too bright to someone not use to it. Usually people go for a house curve or a big push up in the bass region.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,991 Posts
When I measured, MCACC put a slight HF roll-off, but it was not noticeable to me (but I am an old fart; the 22 kHz response I had in college is now 10 - 12 kHz, age and too much loud music, playing it or making it).


I have moved my mic around and the results are consistent and repeatable (except the room modes, natch), but I have a heavily-treated room. I was frankly amazed at how consistent the response was as I moved the mic around and repeated runs.


Regarding the four variables, true time delay and phase are not the same thing. The former delays all frequencies equally; phase is frequency-dependent. However, the trick is how you implement the correction.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top