Audyssey MultEQ Room Correction Interview With Chris Kyriakakis

[admin]

Most readers of Audioholics are probably familiar with auto-calibration systems like Audyssey MultEQ. They make your lives easier by measuring and compensating for your speaker's relative distance and levels, as well as their in-room response. Beyond that basic description, these systems are a bit of a mystery. Today we aim to start lifting the veil of secrecy. We peppered Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey with questions, and he was kind enough to give us the inside scoop on just what MultEQ can do. Click to read all the details.

Read the Audyssey Interview Article

Do you use Audyssey? Share your experiences here.

 

[Adam]

I wish receivers with Audyssey could store multiple configurations (e.g. one for the main listening area, and one for an area off to the side). Multiple configurations lets you store settings with different speaker timings and levels for distinctly different locations, and Audyssey's inability to do that is a drawback to me. My 2009 Pioneer with MCACC lets me store six different configurations, which is a big plus for me and why I buy their products.

 

[Marshall_Guthrie]

Arent there some avrs that at least allow you to save and load settings through a computer for the whole AVR? Denon I think did this on some of their models. Can anyone confirm this off the top of their heads?

I know one of the things that I find frustrating is the need to run/re-run whenever I have speakers in for review and then switch my old speakers back in. Maybe the pro-kit allows for saving setting? Can mere mortals buy the pro-kit yet, or is it still reserved for custom installers?

 

[Living Stereo]

Steve, is there any detailed info like this for Yamaha's latest version of YAPO ?

 

[Steve81]

We're looking to do similar articles for all of the major room correction systems, though our contact at Yamaha has yet to respond.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I wish receivers with Audyssey could store multiple configurations (e.g. one for the main listening area, and one for an area off to the side). Multiple configurations lets you store settings with different speaker timings and levels for distinctly different locations, and Audyssey's inability to do that is a drawback to me. My 2009 Pioneer with MCACC lets me store six different configurations, which is a big plus for me and why I buy their products.

Audyssey takes time-domain measurement of 8 different locations and effectuates so that all 8 different locations will sound equally good and all 8 locations will have smooth time-aligned flat frequency responses. Thus giant theaters like IMAX that utilize Audyssey don't run into issues where some locations sound bad and some sound good.

Perhaps Chris can elaborate.

 

[crossedover]

Audyssey takes time-domain measurement of 8 different locations and effectuates so that all 8 different locations will sound equally good and all 8 locations will have smooth time-aligned flat frequency responses. Thus giant theaters like IMAX that utilize Audyssey don't run into issues where some locations sound bad and some sound good.

Perhaps Chris can elaborate.

While that does answer some concerns, levels and distances still won't be optimal in a way Adam describes. Also saving 1 touch configuration for reference, daytime, company, etc comes in handy. I've found audyssey to really work well with own frequencies but I still prefer pioneers personally, which requires me to eq my subs with outboard PEQ. As a one touch solution I'd like to see more try the pro version of audyssey and post their opinions as its noticeably an improvement.

 

[pbarach1]

Arent there some avrs that at least allow you to save and load settings through a computer for the whole AVR? Denon I think did this on some of their models. Can anyone confirm this off the top of their heads?

I know one of the things that I find frustrating is the need to run/re-run whenever I have speakers in for review and then switch my old speakers back in. Maybe the pro-kit allows for saving setting? Can mere mortals buy the pro-kit yet, or is it still reserved for custom installers?

Some upper-level Denon models can save your Audyssey configurations and other settings to a file on your PC, and you can then reload them later on. This would indeed be handy if you were periodically moving in different speakers to review, then replacing them with your own speakers. Possibly some of the higher-level Marantz units may have this feature, too--not sure.

I don't own Audyssey Pro, so I can't comment on that. But yes, mere mortals can buy the kit, but then you have to buy a license for each AVR on which you use it.

 

[ira]

I think it's great you'll do more articles on room correction systems. Please consider the following topics for future articles:

1) One button solutions are great when they correct a room/playback system appropriately, but not great when they don't. The mystery for many users is to be able to tell when the one button solution isn't appropriate, and to do so before buying a one button solution as well as after trying one.
- defining "appropriate" must also be done simply and effectively. For example, don't boost any frequency more than something like 10 dB to prevent frying speakers at high volumes. Or whatever you think is meaningful for a definition. But then if one applies such a rule of thumb then the overall frequency response is disappointing, then one must do other things.

2)When a one-button solution isn't appropriate, then what to do? I think Jriver with its convolver and REW/Acourate/Audiolense/Dirac have come a long way. Or something like miniDSP and any of those applications.
- while these alternatives are more complicated because they are not one-button solutions, you really only need to run through the correction process once per system (until you change audio components or rooms or redo rooms), and hiring a local pro to run through this kind of one-time process and using much or all of one's existing A/V equipment with a miniDSP can be cheaper than or about the same cost as buying a new one-button solution that doesn't work so well.

3) Target curve recommendations. I think there is one basic curve for relatively high volumes (B&K house curve), and a slightly different one at low volumes (B&K house curve with boosted low frequencies).

In short, room correction is great, but it feels like one needs to know ahead of time the best way to go about it, but without the info to make the best decision. If money is no object then this isn't a problem, but the more money matters, the larger this dilemma becomes.

Out of the box recommendation: I think room correction is a high growth area for many listeners, but no one website pulls it all together with room correction advice for any situation. Perhaps you become that one. Hometheatershack is awesome for REW and minDSP, but no so much for other solutions. avsforum has quite a bit on Audyssey and a little on REW, but not much on anything else. "Mitchco" is awesome over at computeraudiophile (and in my estimation vastly underappreciated) in all areas related to room correction, so maybe you could get "mitchco" to be an expert mod here to help cover all aspects and situations in a way no other website currently offers.

 

[TLS Guy]

I do use Audyssey but not for frequency correction. I have two systems that use it.

I find it excellent for leveling and distance but not correction. On both systems Audyssey only makes changes to the region above 5 KHz. Now my speakers are very finely calibrated and I can vouch for the fact the top end is correct. On both systems Audyssey lifts the top end enough to make things unpleasant, even to the point of causing slight sibilance.

I think the problem is that Audyssey does not allow sufficiently for the fall off of HF with distance, which our brains expect.

I say this because in my main system the rear backs are very close to three of the microphone positions. Audyssey lifts all speakers on the top end, except the rear backs. I think this is something Chris needs to look at. The effect is not pleasant and leads to listening fatigue.

Fortunately my system is not in need of any frequency response tinkering. It has a very natural frequency balance sound stage and presentation, with the illusion of all instrument in their natural acoustic space. It does not take much to muck this up and the few dbs Audyssey insists on lifting the top end mucks it up.

This might be something to do with the age old Pop/classical divide. However as far as I'm concerned the frequency balance of my system is correct, and Audyssey mucks it up putting it just the wrong side of pleasant. That applies to both systems.

Interestingly its worst offense is with the 4" JW full ranger I use for the center channel in our Townhome. These drivers do have a very slight HF roll off above 6kHz. It is minor, and speech is natural and highly intelligible without unnatural shout. Audyssey wants to boost the top end a whopping 12 db, and make these lovely drivers sound perfectly horrid. Why it does that I have no idea.

My advice is to be highly suspicious of any frequency response changes made by Audyssey, especially on the top end.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I still prefer pioneers personally, which requires me to eq my subs with outboard PEQ.

What's the point of having an automatic EQ system if it requires you to use an additional manual outboard EQ?

Here is one example of MCACC (blue, green) from a $1700 Pioneer. Original FR is red.

 

[TLS Guy]

What's the point of having an automatic EQ system if it requires you to use an additional manual outboard EQ?

Here is one example of MCACC (blue, green) from a $1700 Pioneer. Original FR is red.

Trying to eq a sub from the seating position is plain daft. The fact that the Pioneer did little is probably to its credit.

I had an interesting discussion with Billy Woodman of ATC about this. His view is that trying to Eq a system in the manner these systems do, is just plain wrong, with nothing to recommend it. My experience backs that up.

 

[Adam]

Say what you want, believe what you want - MCACC makes an obvious and distinctly positive improvement in my system. Absolutely, that has to do with my speakers in my room. I can say without question that my <$1700 Pioneer make a bigger change than what is shown in that plot above. It really helps smooth out the response and get the fronts and center channel to truly be matched (even though they are supposed to be in the first place, but really aren't).

Audyssey also does a good job, but only for one location. To me, in the spot that is calibrated, both Audyssey and MCACC sound the same to me...which is better than my system sounds without an EQ.

 

[TLS Guy]

Say what you want, believe what you want - MCACC makes an obvious and distinctly positive improvement in my system. Absolutely, that has to do with my speakers in my room. I can say without question that my <$1700 Pioneer make a bigger change than what is shown in that plot above. It really helps smooth out the response and get the fronts and center channel to truly be matched (even though they are supposed to be in the first place, but really aren't).

Audyssey also does a good job, but only for one location. To me, in the spot that is calibrated, both Audyssey and MCACC sound the same to me...which is better than my system sounds without an EQ.

Statistically it is bound to improve some. I don't think people should regard these systems as a sure fire cure all.

I have just responded to a thread of Herbu's about center channel, were I have gone into detail about what I have learned about integrating speakers in a multichannel system. I think lobing problems have a lot to do with unsatisfactory integration.

As I point out, since my system is DIY, I can design for total system integration. On that basis if Audyssey made a change you would predict it would be a negative one.

 

[crossedover]

What's the point of having an automatic EQ system if it requires you to use an additional manual outboard EQ?

Here is one example of MCACC (blue, green) from a $1700 Pioneer. Original FR is red.

Your kinda missing my point but ok. As for EQing my subs with an separate PEQ, I have way more flexibility in achieving my goals than with any auto eq. That's just my preference for my goals.

What's the above plot supposed to show? A bad room? Is there a plot of how other eq systems compare?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Your kinda missing my point but ok. As for EQing my subs with an separate PEQ, I have way more flexibility in achieving my goals than with any auto eq. That's just my preference for my goals.

What's the above plot supposed to show? A bad room? Is there a plot of how other eq systems compare?

Same room & speakers. Audyssey. Red is no EQ. Blue/green is Audyssey.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Trying to eq a sub from the seating position is plain daft. The fact that the Pioneer did little is probably to its credit.

I had an interesting discussion with Billy Woodman of ATC about this. His view is that trying to Eq a system in the manner these systems do, is just plain wrong, with nothing to recommend it. My experience backs that up.

So if room correction can smooth the entire FR from the seating position, that's just bad ?

If room correction can smooth the FR from 20Hz-20kHz +/-10dB to +/-5dB, that's bad?

 

[crossedover]

Same room & speakers. Audyssey. Red is no EQ. Blue/green is Audyssey.

Id be careful looking using one plot as judgment. Just like audyssey needs to be ran with a procedure so does mcacc. I dont think anyone is saying audyssey is bad, especially the xt32, just might not be the end all be all for eq. They have put a ton of money behind research and I applaud there efforts in said work.

 

[TLS Guy]

So if room correction can smooth the entire FR from the seating position, that's just bad ?

If room correction can smooth the FR from 20Hz-20kHz +/-10dB to +/-5dB, that's bad?

Yes, it's likely to be bad. The frequency response should be flat at the speaker, not at the seating position. There are changes to the frequency response envelope that the brain expects with increasing distance, especially in the high frequency area.

This approach might help some systems, but only if there are significant problems with the speakers before hand. If the system is right to start with, then Audyssey can only muck it up, which it does mine.

By the way, it is a plus that in that example you show, that the Pioneer system does practically nothing especially to the high end response. That is pretty much how the top end response should look at the seated position, if that is where those measurement were recorded. My beef with Audyssey is that it tries to correct it, when it should leave it alone.

 

[gene]

Trying to eq a sub from the seating position is plain daft. The fact that the Pioneer did little is probably to its credit.

I had an interesting discussion with Billy Woodman of ATC about this. His view is that trying to Eq a system in the manner these systems do, is just plain wrong, with nothing to recommend it. My experience backs that up.

I disagree. If you first get all subs to properly sum and level match and then apply a global EQ, you can really improve things. This is NOW how Audyssey does it. It's how Harman's SFM system does it and it works. My experience with MCACC is the same as the poster here, it doesn't do much of anything for bass frequencies which is were EQ is needed most.