AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,952 Posts
There are going to be some valid arguments for doing either way, but I run the SMS after Audyssey for a couple of reasons.

1. I can change the things that I don't like that Audyssey does to the bass.

2. Other than my flat primary curve that I use most of the time, I like to have a few different curves to use for some material that I find lacking. The only way to have these these curves the way I want is to form them after Audyssey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike /forum/post/16904184


There are going to be some valid arguments for doing either way, but I run the SMS after Audyssey for a couple of reasons.

1. I can change the things that I don't like that Audyssey does to the bass.

2. Other than my flat primary curve that I use most of the time, I like to have a few different curves to use for some material that I find lacking. The only way to have these these curves the way I want is to form them after Audyssey.

Based on your comment ,I might do the same thing and then as an added step ..run the SMS-1 followed by fine tuning via Audy and then implement the SMS-1 again..Just brain storming .Also, do you really think the SMS-1 is all that good because I am thinking about selling mine and getting the new one from SVSound, provided it gets good reviews. Thanks , for the input. george h.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,952 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by homer612 /forum/post/16904894


Based on your comment ,I might do the same thing and then as an added step ..run the SMS-1 followed by fine tuning via Audy and then implement the SMS-1 again..Just brain storming .Also, do you really think the SMS-1 is all that good because I am thinking about selling mine and getting the new one from SVSound, provided it gets good reviews. Thanks , for the input. george h.

I can't really comment on the SVS since I haven't tried it, but I really like the fact that SMS operates on the TV screen and allows for real-time tweaking. I also really like having remote control over my subs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,049 Posts
The official recommendation is to not run a second EQ with Audyssey. Audyssey is a different kind of EQ than the SMS-1. It measures multiple positions and uses Finite Impulse Response Filters to EQ an "area" in both the frequency and time domains. The SMS-1 measures at a single point and uses Infinite Impulse Response Filters to EQ that single point in the frequency domain only.


Cascading these EQ's can lead to significant phase issues, especially if you use large boosts or cuts that attempt to "undo" what Audyssey has done.


If you just want to use the SMS-1 as a glorified subwoofer tone control, as it seems mojomike does, then some gentle boosts or cuts to shape a curve are probably not too problematic. However, I suggest you measure multiple positions with the SMS-1 to ensure that you don't make some spots much worse by implementing some EQ for the primary LP.


The SVS AS-EQ1 is an Audyssey based EQ. It has double the resolution of MultEQ XT, and it's all focused on the subwoofer. I have heard pepar's system with and without the AS-EQ1 and there is a significant improvement in bass resolution with it.


Craig
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,980 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson /forum/post/16904965


Since I started using the v3 Pro software, I have found no need for an additional sub EQ for tweaking.

Hi Kal,


Do you mean just in using the pro-kit and software in a pre-processor or do you mean with the separate Audyssey based sub EQ?


As I recall you have only one "row" of listening locations to deal with, correct?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,788 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton /forum/post/16905254


Do you mean just in using the pro-kit and software in a pre-processor or do you mean with the separate Audyssey based sub EQ?

Either way. My situation is that there is only one listening sofa in each room/system and, frankly, optimization for ME is preemptive. The point was that the ability of the V3 to let you adjust the target curve means that adding another device to tweak the FR is unnecessary.

Quote:
As I recall you have only one "row" of listening locations to deal with, correct?

Yup. 3 seats on one sofa.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john /forum/post/16905047


The official recommendation is to not run a second EQ with Audyssey. Audyssey is a different kind of EQ than the SMS-1. It measures multiple positions and uses Finite Impulse Response Filters to EQ an "area" in both the frequency and time domains. The SMS-1 measures at a single point and uses Infinite Impulse Response Filters to EQ that single point in the frequency domain only.


Cascading these EQ's can lead to significant phase issues, especially if you use large boosts or cuts that attempt to "undo" what Audyssey has done.


If you just want to use the SMS-1 as a glorified subwoofer tone control, as it seems mojomike does, then some gentle boosts or cuts to shape a curve are probably not too problematic. However, I suggest you measure multiple positions with the SMS-1 to ensure that you don't make some spots much worse by implementing some EQ for the primary LP.


The SVS AS-EQ1 is an Audyssey based EQ. It has double the resolution of MultEQ XT, and it's all focused on the subwoofer. I have heard pepar's system with and without the AS-EQ1 and there is a significant improvement in bass resolution with it.


Craig

All good advice/comments, but you will have to admit that the SMS-1 is a good unit to get quick feedback e.g. when trying to locate the "best" location for a couple of subs. I do think it is more than a tone control because I can tell the diff. with and w/o the sms-1 . I realize thats its not in the same league as the EQ1 and so far all I have heard is how hard it is to use aand no real good reviews yet .Also, based on your post would you then do the sms-1 first followed by audyssey, while only , as you stated ..do small amounts of corrections .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,980 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by homer612 /forum/post/16904117


When using the SMS-1 for PEQ should you run Audyssey before or after you have done all the corrections to the freq. response?

I would start in saying that the answer to this question might be different if using a receiver/preamp based Audyssey system vs. the dedicated subwoofer box. The dedicated subwoofer EQ is more flexible and has different means of handling the subwoofers when setting up 2 or more in a system.


The next question is how much tinkering you want to be able to do. Most are highly impressed and very happy by simply smoothing the subwoofer response and getting the levels right, which is what Audyssey does a nice job with.


If you have an idea of the subwoofer performance you are after or aren't sure about how to get Audyssey to set up the subwoofers as you want, the addition of an EQ can be welcome. There are ways to coax different results from the systems or ways around this assuming you have the right set of features in the components of the system, but adding an EQ makes it easy so long as you can measure the subwoofer response.


For most systems you would first want to have the EQ in the chain, with the EQ "on" (not bypassed) with all the filters set to zero. Then you can run and work with Audyssey until you are happy with the general results. Then you can use the EQ and measurement system (already integrated into the SMS-1) to see what the measurements are at the seats of interest. You now have the ability to add a little tilt one way or the other as well as make the call of the response at the main seat being more important than some others if you like. How much you can improve the results depends greatly on the system, the flexibility and capabilities of the subwoofers being used, as well as your knowledge of the gear and its limits.


The above is just my current position and opinion based on my experience with the systems I have set up. I have not yet used the outboard sub EQ from SVS or Audyssey, but do own the Audyssey pro kit which I've used on a few occasions now. My comments above should also be tempered with the fact that I am used to having extensive control over the bass range with flexible EQ systems and a pretty good idea of what I want to hear from a system. Realizing most won't have the patience, persistence or knowledge I have, I see the Audyssey solutions as quite welcome options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike /forum/post/16904184


There are going to be some valid arguments for doing either way, but I run the SMS after Audyssey for a couple of reasons.

1. I can change the things that I don't like that Audyssey does to the bass.

2. Other than my flat primary curve that I use most of the time, I like to have a few different curves to use for some material that I find lacking. The only way to have these these curves the way I want is to form them after Audyssey.

Arent you worried about the comment below regarding the stacking of corrections which could do more harm than good. please advise, your thoughts?. george h.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson /forum/post/16904965


Since I started using the v3 Pro software, I have found no need for an additional sub EQ for tweaking.

I have no ideal what the v3 pro is, could you please explain because this could be another option vs the EQ1. thanks. george h.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,952 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton /forum/post/16905480


I would start in saying that the answer to this question might be different if using a receiver/preamp based Audyssey system vs. the dedicated subwoofer box. The dedicated subwoofer EQ is more flexible and has different means of handling the subwoofers when setting up 2 or more in a system.


The next question is how much tinkering you want to be able to do. Most are highly impressed and very happy by simply smoothing the subwoofer response and getting the levels right, which is what Audyssey does a nice job with.


If you have an idea of the subwoofer performance you are after or aren't sure about how to get Audyssey to set up the subwoofers as you want, the addition of an EQ can be welcome. There are ways to coax different results from the systems or ways around this assuming you have the right set of features in the components of the system, but adding an EQ makes it easy so long as you can measure the subwoofer response.


For most systems you would first want to have the EQ in the chain, with the EQ "on" (not bypassed) with all the filters set to zero. Then you can run and work with Audyssey until you are happy with the general results. Then you can use the EQ and measurement system (already integrated into the SMS-1) to see what the measurements are at the seats of interest. You now have the ability to add a little tilt one way or the other as well as make the call of the response at the main seat being more important than some others if you like. How much you can improve the results depends greatly on the system, the flexibility and capabilities of the subwoofers being used, as well as your knowledge of the gear and its limits.


The above is just my current position and opinion based on my experience with the systems I have set up. I have not yet used the outboard sub EQ from SVS or Audyssey, but do own the Audyssey pro kit which I've used on a few occasions now. My comments above should also be tempered with the fact that I am used to having extensive control over the bass range with flexible EQ systems and a pretty good idea of what I want to hear from a system. Realizing most won't have the patience, persistence or knowledge I have, I see the Audyssey solutions as quite welcome options.

Mark, I complelety agree with what you just said.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,049 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by homer612 /forum/post/16905459


All good advice/comments, but you will have to admit that the SMS-1 is a good unit to get quick feedback e.g. when trying to locate the "best" location for a couple of subs. I do think it is more than a tone control because I can tell the diff. with and w/o the sms-1 . I realize thats its not in the same league as the EQ1 and so far all I have heard is how hard it is to use aand no real good reviews yet .

Yes, the OSD does allow quick and easy feedback for sub and LP positioning. However, you need to realize that that the best response at the primary LP may not equate to the best response at all the LP's in the listening area. Hence why I suggested multiple measurement positions.


My SMS-1 improved the response in my room, at my primary LP. I could use the filters to get the response to within +/- 1 dB from 20 to 80 Hz... at one, very small LP. As long as I kept my head very very close to that position, the bass was superb. Elsewhere, not so much.


Now that I have MultEQ XT, I have removed the SMS-1 from my system. The sound is now (subjectively) better over the entire listening *area*.


Craig
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
After reading your post , I thought of another variable.Sinc you appear to be very well versed on this subject, what are your recommendations regarding ..how to obtain the best freq. resp. curve with the following equip. Onkyo 875,2- Ultra 13s plus the SMS-1.Do you recommend using the PEQ on the subs coupled with not using the SMS-1 and then run Audyssey. Please advise the best way to achieve what I need using this equip. thanks. george h.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,952 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by homer612 /forum/post/16905482


Arent you worried about the comment below regarding the stacking of corrections which could do more harm than good. please advise, your thoughts?. george h.

The use of PEQ filters should always be judicious and using them this way should be no exception. In my own experience with Audyssey (Denon 2807), it seems to avoid heavily boosting anything. When following up with the SMS-1, I too try to avoid heavily boosting any filters, but instead attempt to flavor the overall response more to my liking than just what Audyssey has left me. While I am of course attempting to adjust a reponse that looks good on the screen, the ultimate judge of success is how it actually sounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike /forum/post/16905565


The use of PEQ filters should always be judicious and using them this way should be no exception. In my own experience with Audyssey (Denon 2807), it seems to avoid heavily boosting anything. When following up with the SMS-1, I too try to avoid heavily boosting any filters, but instead attempt to flavor the overall response more to my liking than just what Audyssey has left me. While I am of course attempting to adjust a reponse that looks good on the screen, the ultimate judge of success is how it actually sounds.

Very well spoken. But would you use the PEQ on the subs to obtain what sounds best followed by tweaking the sms-1 after running audy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,049 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by homer612 /forum/post/16905527


After reading your post , I thought of another variable.Sinc you appear to be very well versed on this subject, what are your recommendations regarding ..how to obtain the best freq. resp. curve with the following equip. Onkyo 875,2- Ultra 13s plus the SMS-1.Do you recommend using the PEQ on the subs coupled with not using the SMS-1 and then run Audyssey. Please advise the best way to achieve what I need using this equip. thanks. george h.

I would start by turning off the PEQ's in the Ultra's and removing the SMS-1 from the chain. Run MultEQ XT from the 875. If this gets you to audio "nirvana", you're done.


If it doesn't, then you're left with trying to optimize some single point, frequency-only EQ's, and get them to integrate with Audyssey's multi-point, frequency and time-based EQ. At that point, it's merely trial and error. Good luck.


Craig
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,952 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by homer612 /forum/post/16905618


Very well spoken. But would you use the PEQ on the subs to obtain what sounds best followed by tweaking the sms-1 after running audy.

If you mean the PEQ's that are built-in to the subs, I'd say no. There is nothing that they can do that SMS-1 can't do better.
 
1 - 20 of 35 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