Do we really need Audyssey MultEQ xt32? Smart decision??? What I hear ...

BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Slumlord
The real question here is Do we really need bizmord on the AH Forums ? Is it Smart decision to keep feeding obvious troll ???
 
J

JonnyFive23517

Audioholic
Audyssey, of any flavor, doesn't do a simple "weighted average". The entire concept uses Fuzzy Clustering as a significant improvement over averaging of any kind. When you take measurements and average them, all data points get figured into the average, even if they are anomalous and way out of line with others. Fuzzy Clustering determines what data points are unique to a position and, if radically different, ignores them, then looks for points that are more in agreement. Where a simple average decreases the total resolution of the result, Fuzzy Clustering tunes in on the common trends, or specifically what would be heard as a character of the system in all locations, effectively increasing the EQ resolution. Additionally, it does this independently for each speaker.
How can bass room modes be considered a character of the system in all locations? What might be a peak on the left side of the couch could be a null on the right, a global EQ in the signal path can not solve both these issues. A global signal adjustment can attempt to solve a bass issue at one location, but not both. Or, it can attempt to address them both and try to minimize the RMS deviation in FR, which is what Audyssey does.

For my example, I have a bass peak on the left of the couch. How does knowledge of this peak help to improve Audyssey's performance at my main LP? Would it not be better for Audyssey to ignore this huge problem at a seating location I don't care about, and instead focus on the FR at the prime LP?
 
Last edited:
fuzz092888

fuzz092888

Audioholic Warlord
I'm sorry to differ, but this is incorrect. Audyssey does *not* try to optimize listening for the main LP. It sets distance based on the first measurement, but the end results are intended to minimize the root-mean-square deviation of frequency response at all seats in question. So "on average" one's listening environment may be better, but the prime LP may suffer to bring up that average.
Challenge accepted.

The green trace is no audyssey, the pink trace is with 6 measurements from the main LP and the blue trace is from 6 different positions within 2-3 ft around the main LP. It's pretty clear to see that audyssey does a much better job of smoothing out anomalies when the mic is moved around vs staying at a single position. 1/12 smoothing.

 
Last edited:
J

JonnyFive23517

Audioholic
Your green trace is better than most people's response even after Audyssey. Question, did Audyssey get the same number of measurements at the prime LP? That is, did you run it 6 times at the exact same spot to make it apples-to-apples? Second question, are these post-Audyssey results measured at the prime LP only?

But those things in mind, my chief argument for single-point Audyssey, or any Audyssey for that matter, is the bass regions 200hz and below. Your graph cuts off at 300hz. I'm not trying to be a jerk or a troll, but if more non primary LP measurements really is better at the prime LP... then my understanding of physics and Audyssey is flawed, and I want to correct it.
 
fuzz092888

fuzz092888

Audioholic Warlord
I took a measurement with my mic and REW. Then I ran Mult XT32 with 6 sweeps all from the main LP, after which I took another measurement from the main LP. Then I re-ran mult XT32 with the first measurement from the main LP and then moved the mic according to the audyssey directions from their website for a total of 6 sweeps. Then took another measurement with my mic and REW. All measurements with the mic and REW were from the exact same position as the audyssey mic when it was at the main LP.

Based on how a multi-point measurement did for the given range, why would you expect it to perform differently below 300hz?
 
J

JonnyFive23517

Audioholic
Based on how a multi-point measurement did for the given range, why would you expect it to perform differently below 300hz?
Two reasons: I'm assuming only 1 subwoofer, so there is only 1 speaker emitting bass frequencies. Second, sounds above the room transfer frequency (200hz+) behave like more like rays, bouncing around and adding constructively/destructively so closely spaced that we don't really even perceive it. The peaks/nulls for bass frequencies are further spaced and so we perceive them more readily.

So if I measure only at the prime LP, something as simple as a global EQ can go a long ways towards solving bass problems. With many measuring positions, however, it becomes more of a trade off. Trimming a bass peak here means losing a little bit there, etc... That is: Fix the bass response at the LP is a lot easier than: fix the bass response at the LP + fix these other 5 positions.

The right experiment might be: 1 full range tower, straight ahead of you as you sit at prime LP. You do Audyssey run #1 with 6 measurements straight ahead of the speaker, all at the prime LP. You do another run #2 with 6 measurements spread out as Audyssey recommends. Which one should do a better job when considering response *only* the prime LP? I contend the first one, you contend the second. It would be useful to know which one is correct.
 
A

avengineer

Banned
I'm sorry to differ, but this is incorrect. Audyssey does *not* try to optimize listening for the main LP. It sets distance based on the first measurement, but the end results are intended to minimize the root-mean-square deviation of frequency response at all seats in question. So "on average" one's listening environment may be better, but the prime LP may suffer to bring up that average.
Right, but read my previous post. You can optimize for a smaller area if you so choose.
 
fuzz092888

fuzz092888

Audioholic Warlord
Two reasons: I'm assuming only 1 subwoofer, so there is only 1 speaker emitting bass frequencies. Second, sounds above the room transfer frequency (200hz+) behave like more like rays, bouncing around and adding constructively/destructively so closely spaced that we don't really even perceive it. The peaks/nulls for bass frequencies are further spaced and so we perceive them more readily.

So if I measure only at the prime LP, something as simple as a global EQ can go a long ways towards solving bass problems. With many measuring positions, however, it becomes more of a trade off. Trimming a bass peak here means losing a little bit there, etc... That is: Fix the bass response at the LP is a lot easier than: fix the bass response at the LP + fix these other 5 positions.

The right experiment might be: 1 full range tower, straight ahead of you as you sit at prime LP. You do Audyssey run #1 with 6 measurements straight ahead of the speaker, all at the prime LP. You do another run #2 with 6 measurements spread out as Audyssey recommends. Which one should do a better job when considering response *only* the prime LP? I contend the first one, you contend the second. It would be useful to know which one is correct.
I don't see how your experiment is "right". The experiment should be as you would normally listen. If I wouldn't be listening to things in mono full range then why would my experiment be that way? Plus I'm not about to go dissembling my system for an experiment that won't tell me anything about how things will be when I actually sit down to listen to it. I'll run the experiment for the low frequencies, but I'll run it as it sits, which will be much more useful to me than the mono experiment.
 
slipperybidness

slipperybidness

Audioholic Warlord
I've been preaching the "Pure Direct Absolutely No Audyssey" sermon for years. :D

Some people like what they get from room correction EQ (Audyssey, ARC, etc), and some people don't. Some rooms may benefit, some rooms don't.

Not everyone likes Audyssey, ARC, or any other RC.

The important thing is to try it for yourself and use what sounds best to you.
hallalujer!
 
fuzz092888

fuzz092888

Audioholic Warlord
Colors are all the same. Yet again audyssey multi-position did a better job of maintaing a tighter tolerance. I'll let that be my final word on the subject. No smoothing.

 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Just one, the prime LP, where I sit 99% of the time. So I don't want a nice weighted average of many different seats, I want one seat to be as good as possible, let the others fall where they may.

I maybe should run 8 measurements all at that 1 physical location though, just to try and even out discrepancies with mic measurements.
It seems that many people think that but it is not the case. Audyssey just need the mic placed in more locations to collect acoustical information of the room around the listening area. With more information it can do a better job for the main listening position. This kind of questions have been asked many times, below is just an example of their response. I have emailed them this same specific question in the past and the respond I received was quite clear.

"The MultEQ algorithms require acoustical information from multiple locations within the listening area in order to create the appropriate room correction filters for each loudspeaker and subwoofer in the system. The first measurement is used to determine the distance and level of each speaker and it should be taken in the center-most position of the listening area. After that, it is recommended to take 6-8 more measurements throughout the listening area."
 
A

avengineer

Banned
Challenge accepted.

The green trace is no audyssey, the pink trace is with 6 measurements from the main LP and the blue trace is from 6 different positions within 2-3 ft around the main LP. It's pretty clear to see that audyssey does a much better job of smoothing out anomalies when the mic is moved around vs staying at a single position. 1/12 smoothing.
Just curious, are these and your other measurements done as single-position REW measurements with smoothing, or multiple REW measurements averaged and smoothed?
 
A

avengineer

Banned
How can bass room modes be considered a character of the system in all locations? What might be a peak on the left side of the couch could be a null on the right, a global EQ in the signal path can not solve both these issues. A global signal adjustment can attempt to solve a bass issue at one location, but not both. Or, it can attempt to address them both and try to minimize the RMS deviation in FR, which is what Audyssey does.

For my example, I have a bass peak on the left of the couch. How does knowledge of this peak help to improve Audyssey's performance at my main LP? Would it not be better for Audyssey to ignore this huge problem at a seating location I don't care about, and instead focus on the FR at the prime LP?
Obviously, in your example of a peak and null at the same frequency at different positions on the same couch, even Audyssey wouldn't try to sort that out. However, that's not an entirely realistic situation either. More often, you'll have somewhat different peaks and nulls in in different positions. If they vary that much in a small change of location, like seat to seat on a couch, they probably aren't extremely low in frequency, like perhaps 80Hz to 300Hz. In that case, taking measurements in different positions might actually help Audyssey make some meaningful adjustments for you. Remember that they system measures every speaker in every mic position, and from that data develops filters for every speaker. So those peaks and nulls may be partially compensated by individual speaker filter adjustments.

Audyssey isn't a miracle band-aid for every situation, and it's not that hard to find one that is beyond it's capability to fix. As an example, a severe null, deeper than 9dB won't be fixed because Audyssey has a maximum gain of any filter of 9dB to keep you out of power amp headroom issues. And if all the measurement positions general horribly erratic data there's not much that could be done to create a valid filter.

Keep in mind, however, that a single Audyssey measurement position is invalid, because it places complete focus on a microscopic point in space. Compensating for response at that point would simply be micro-managing the situation. You don't listen that way anyway, you have two ears spaced by a few inches, and will probably move your head a few inches as well. Audyssey's precision is in its ability to sort out severe, and unique anomalies, de-emphasize them, and create a filter based on similar anomalies over an area. You define the area by the choice of mic positions, but a single point measurement in an acoustic space is never really meaningful, not for Audyssey, REW, spacial/temporal-averaged RTA measurements, TEF, MLSSA or any other type of acoustic measurement system.
 
fuzz092888

fuzz092888

Audioholic Warlord
Just curious, are these and your other measurements done as single-position REW measurements with smoothing, or multiple REW measurements averaged and smoothed?
The 300-20Khz measurements were single position, multiple measurements (since there it was only for the front L/R) that were then averaged and smoothed. The bass measurements are single position, no smoothing, with all subwoofers and the front L/R playing together (since that would have been 6 individual measurements that I didn't have time for). I believe without audyssey I had the crossover in the receiver set for 80hz and both times when I ran audyssey it set the cross to 40hz. So from 15-80hz on the green trace are the subwoofers and from 15-40hz on the other two are the subwoofers. From 15-50 on the pink and blue trace, the multi-position (blue) trace is obviously better, although not by a huge margin when compared against each other. However, when you take into account the original as well, IMO it is clearly the winner.
 
J

JonnyFive23517

Audioholic
Based on this thread and other googling I've done since it began, I agree that I need to rethink my Audyssey measurement method. From now on I'll do a tightly packed area of 8 measurements in order to give Audyssey more information to work with. Thanks for the informative discussion. fuzz09288, I am very jealous of you FR graphs :)
 
fuzz092888

fuzz092888

Audioholic Warlord
Based on this thread and other googling I've done since it began, I agree that I need to rethink my Audyssey measurement method. From now on I'll do a tightly packed area of 8 measurements in order to give Audyssey more information to work with. Thanks for the informative discussion. fuzz09288, I am very jealous of you FR graphs :)
Thanks, but I should probably thank you as well. It's always a pain to set all the measurement equipment up, but since I had it out I spent about an hour and a half playing with the miniDSP and the big dual opposed. The bass response should be even better now now that I've gotten that thing to within +-5 db from 10-100hz. Someday I'll get around to redoing the other 3 subs as well and then I'll see how it all looks. FWIW here's what the DO looks like now, compared to the green line above. The other 3 might be causing the peak at around 47hz (on the green line) and the dip a little above 80 has something to do with the crossover that the receiver is doing. The rolloff below 10 on the graph below is a natural 24db/oct, there is not HPF.

 
J

JonnyFive23517

Audioholic
You appear to be flat down to about 10hz? Jeesh!!! :) Warning, I heard the "brown noise" is between 5-10hz, so be careful or you'll soil yourself.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Based on this thread and other googling I've done since it began, I agree that I need to rethink my Audyssey measurement method. From now on I'll do a tightly packed area of 8 measurements in order to give Audyssey more information to work with. Thanks for the informative discussion. fuzz09288, I am very jealous of you FR graphs :)
Don't forgot to read the instructions from the Audyssey website first, then follow every step and details, do it for all 8 positions; and you will be rewarded with better results.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Reluctantly Changing my tune

Just ran Audyssey today on AVP-A1 + KEF 201/2. Compared Audyssey Bypass vs Flat + DynEQ (vs no DynEQ), Audyssey + DynEQ (vs no DynEQ).

I can't believe I am saying this. I am embarrassed. But for the first time ever, I actually preferred Audyssey Flat + Dynamic EQ. :eek:

But not for the midrange or treble, which did not change at all IMO.

What changed dramatically was the BASS, which was very punchy and lively.

Audyssey seemed to "kill" the sound for me. It made the sound seemed "dead" and "compressed".

But Audyssey Flat was really good.

Both did not do well when Dynamic EQ was turned off, so I really liked Dynamic EQ.

 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top