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

[PENG]

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.

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.

It took me a long time before I believe in it too. My Audyssey flat graphs are even flatter than yours. In my HT room I really only do it for the bass as it does a much better job than me tuning the subs with tones. In my living room where the two R900's are, I ran my 7005's XT last week and found even the mid range has improved but the bass has been cut quite a bit as it took out the booms due to the room shapes and the fact that the speakers are only a few inches from the wall.

I think one reason why you don't like Audyssey is that you probably prefer to have the bass boosted 6 dB or so and when Audyssey levels it off for you the problem arises. Did you try Audyssey but increase the sub level by 6 dB? Another thing, Audyssey also told me in a smaller room, Audyssey flat would do better.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It took me a long time before I believe in it too. My Audyssey flat graphs are even flatter than yours. In my HT room I really only do it for the bass as it does a much better job than me tuning the subs with tones. In my living room where the two R900's are, I ran my 7005's XT last week and found even the mid range has improved but the bass has been cut quite a bit as it took out the booms due to the room shapes and the fact that the speakers are only a few inches from the wall.

I think one reason why you don't like Audyssey is that you probably prefer to have the bass boosted 6 dB or so and when Audyssey levels it off for you the problem arises. Did you try Audyssey but increase the sub level by 6 dB? Another thing, Audyssey also told me in a smaller room, Audyssey flat would do better.

I did. The bass seemed exactly the same w/ both Audyssey and Flat. The only difference was that Flat sounded clearer than Audyssey.

When I ran Audyssey yesterday, I was not 100% serious about it, so the mic positions were not placed throughout the seating positions and I was not being 100% quiet as there were noises being made.

So I want to be 100% serious today when I run Audyssey again. Of course, after I run Audyssey I have to manually adjust the channel levels and XO and set speakers to small again.

If only I had a bigger better room with only 5 Salon2 + Funk subs.

I will probably eventually one day sell my speakers and just do an all-Salon2/Funk18.0 system.

 

[JonnyFive23517]

The curves with Audyssey and Audyssey flat should be identical except for a couple db of high end roll of with Audyssey Flat. Beneath this they should produce identical results. Audyssey's logic is that the room reflects a lot of the high frequencies and they found listeners "prefer" a little bit of high end roll off. I agree with them, I typically go for Audyssey over the Audyssey flat setting.

Although, that high end sparkle helps for vocal intelligibility. So my plan with the pro-kit is to run everything with high end roll off *except* the center speaker.

 

[panteragstk]

It took me a long time before I believe in it too. My Audyssey flat graphs are even flatter than yours. In my HT room I really only do it for the bass as it does a much better job than me tuning the subs with tones. In my living room where the two R900's are, I ran my 7005's XT last week and found even the mid range has improved but the bass has been cut quite a bit as it took out the booms due to the room shapes and the fact that the speakers are only a few inches from the wall.

I think one reason why you don't like Audyssey is that you probably prefer to have the bass boosted 6 dB or so and when Audyssey levels it off for you the problem arises. Did you try Audyssey but increase the sub level by 6 dB? Another thing, Audyssey also told me in a smaller room, Audyssey flat would do better.

I generally like Audyssey, but never used flat. That could explain what I'm hearing in my room when it comes to music. It just sounds odd in plain stereo. I'll try setting it to flat and see what happens.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

When I used Audyssey/DynEQ, the bass is great, but the rest of the sound seemed a little compressed and not as dynamic. When I used Audyssey Flat/DynEQ, the bass is great, and the rest of the sound seemed more lifelike and lively and more dynamic.

I guess it's a matter of preference.

 

[JonnyFive23517]

When I used Audyssey/DynEQ, the bass is great, but the rest of the sound seemed a little compressed and not as dynamic. When I used Audyssey Flat/DynEQ, the bass is great, and the rest of the sound seemed more lifelike and lively and more dynamic.

It's that extra bit of high end giving some "life" I bet.

(Also on different Audyssey runs I've gotten different results. I wish it could save old measurements so you could roll back to your previous setting.)

 

[avliner]

... When I used Audyssey Flat/DynEQ, the bass is great, and the rest of the sound seemed more lifelike and lively and more dynamic...

That's the way I like the most in my system

 

[panteragstk]

When I used Audyssey/DynEQ, the bass is great, but the rest of the sound seemed a little compressed and not as dynamic. When I used Audyssey Flat/DynEQ, the bass is great, and the rest of the sound seemed more lifelike and lively and more dynamic.

I guess it's a matter of preference.

I turned Audyssey back on and set everything up per your recommendation and I must say I'm impressed. I think the rolloff at the top is what was making things sound "funny" to me. I've listened to much music and a few movies and everything sounds better. I tried to A/B PD vs Flat+DynEQ and there is quite a difference in the low end. Very nice.

 

[cpp]

When I used Audyssey Flat/DynEQ, the bass is great, and the rest of the sound seemed more lifelike and lively and more dynamic.

I guess it's a matter of preference.

That's way I use it (sometimes) and I took a lot of time with the mic positioning in the HT room....

 

[psbfan9]

The HF roll-off has to be the culprit. Gotta be. I am convinced.

Hindsight is 20/20. I have run Audyssey quite a few times. But for some rash ridiculous reasons, the first thing I probably did was turned off the "Dynamic EQ" because I probably thought that it was the same as "Dynamic Compression"!

Or perhaps the Dynamic Volume was turned on, which totally screwed up the SQ!

And the plain Audyssey w/ the high frequency roll-off made it worse for me.

But after a couple of days now (I ran Audyssey again with 8 listening positions spread around my main spot), I am very happy with Audsyssey Flat, Dynamic EQ ON, Dynamic Volume OFF, and all channel levels, XO, and Subwoofer setting manually changed to the way I had them before Audyssey.

I kept the distance setting along with the Audyssey Flat EQ and Dynamic EQ, but changed everything back manually to my previous settings.

Audyssey set my Funk Sub levels to -12.0 and KEF 201/2 levels to -3.0 ! No way! I set my 201/2 speaker levels to +6.0 and my sub levels to +3.0.

I want lively crystal clear sound, but at the same time, I want that kick drum to slam me in the gut and knock me out breathless!

I can't say enough about what Dynamic EQ does for the bass! My jaws dropped!

All this time I thought "EQ" was a bad word even though GranteedEV and Nathan Funk and a lot of people have tried to reason with me.

I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks after all. It might take a few years, though.

My subs are passive, so I guess Audyssey is doing 100% of the EQ for my speakers and subs.

Hey! get over here and discuss my getting a Denon 4520...

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/amps-pre-pros-receivers/86137-indecisive-denon-2.html#post977098

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Hey! get over here and discuss my getting a Denon 4520...

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/amps-pre-pros-receivers/86137-indecisive-denon-2.html#post977098

Man, I am all over creation on this Audyssey vs Pure Direct dilemma.

I just deleted that whole post you quoted after I read RichB's post about VOLUME MATCHING!

So I am getting my SPL meter out and measuring the volume levels.

Okay, I measured Audyssey vs Pure Direct SPL (master volume @ -25.0 for all SPL measurements).

Song: "6ft Under" by the Woods
Direct mode SPL Max: 81.5 dBA/ 100.0 dBC
Audyssey Flat + DynEQ SPL Max: 82.5 dBA/ 101.5 dBC

Song: "New Years Prayer" by Jeff Buckley
Direct mode: 78.5 dBA/ 91.0 dBC
Flat+DynEQ: 80.5 dBA/ 95.0 dBC

So it appears Audyssey Flat + Dynamic EQ is 1.0 - 4.0 dB louder than Pure Direct mode. That appears to be a very unfair comparison indeed!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

A cynical person would ask if you have volume matched
Dynamic Equalization is a fancy loudness control; They have always been seductive.

Are you using Audyssey with you Salon 2's?

- Rich

I used Audyssey Flat w/ Salon2 as well. But I think the difference or significance is much less w/ the Salon2, especially if I increased the volume on PD 2.1 mode to MATCH the volume of Audyssey.

 

[PENG]

I used Audyssey Flat w/ Salon2 as well. But I think the difference or significance is much less w/ the Salon2, especially if I increased the volume on PD 2.1 mode to MATCH the volume of Audyssey.

I was guessing before in my earlier post (#41) but by now I believe I have seen enough reasons why Audyssey failed to impress you and even now only impressed you in a restricted way in the last couple of days. That may even dissipate if you lower the level by a couple dB.

1) You like to have more bass than Audyssey would give you, I am guessing at least +6, probably more.
2) Your room is probably not small, but small enough for Audyssey flat to sound better (Audyssey tech support told me for a smaller room use flat).
3) Like me, you don't listen at reference level, that's why you need to have Dynamic EQ on, otherwise you would need to turn your sub level up by say 10 dB to match that of Pure Direct 2.1 with double bass on. At reference level, DEQ on/off should not make an audible difference.

I am just still guessing but I don't think I am too far off, that Audyssey has been turning you off by not giving you the extra bass you need. Again, part of your need is valid because you don't listen at reference level but the other part is that you like/need your bass hot for you to enjoy the music. Audyssey claims this: "Our technologies help your audio experience be as true as possible to the original studio recordings, movies and live performances." so in theory they are not there to EQ the system to your liking. It is like amps, do we want one that is transparent or one that is designed to have its own sound that we may prefer. It may sound crazy but if, and only if Audyssey is doing their job, then with Audyssey on you should be hearing what Pure Direct is suppose to sound as intended by the original studio recording, movies and live performances and Pure Direct should be giving you the sound of your system in your specific room, without any processing obviously.

By the way I think with the relatively high end subs you have, you may end up not using Audyssey at its best assuming you are leaving the sub's filter settings alone for 2.1/2.2. For Audyssey to do its best you need to bypass/diable all of the filters/settings.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I believe I have seen enough reasons why Audyssey failed to impress you until now and even now only impressed you in a restricted way in the last couple of days.

1) You like to have more bass than Audyssey would give you, I am guessing at least +6, probably more.
2) Your room is probably not small, but small enough for Audyssey flat to sound better (Audyssey tech support told me for a smaller room use flat).
3) Like me, you don't listen at reference level, that's why you need to have Dynamic EQ on, otherwise you would need to turn your sub level up by say 10 dB to match that of Pure Direct 2.1 with double bass on. At reference level, DEQ on/off should not make an audible difference.

I am just still guessing but I don't think I am too far off, that Audyssey has been turning you off by not giving you the extra bass you need. Again, part of your need is valid because you don't listen at reference level but the other part is that you like/need your bass hot for you to enjoy the music. Audyssey claims this: "Our technologies help your audio experience be as true as possible to the original studio recordings, movies and live performances." so in theory they are not there to EQ the system to your liking. It is like amps, do we want one that is transparent or one that is designed to have its own sound that we may prefer. It may sound crazy but if, and only if Audyssey is doing their job, then with Audyssey on you should be hearing what Pure Direct is suppose to sound as intended by the original studio recording, movies and live performances and Pure Direct should be giving you the sound of your system in your specific room, without any processing obviously.

By the way I think with the relatively high end subs you have, you may end up not using Audyssey at its best assuming you are leaving the sub's filter settings alone for 2.1/2.2. For Audyssey to do its best you need to bypass/diable all of the filters/settings.

Are they in the same room? In my almost perfectly rectangular HT room my veritas sound the same with or without Audyssey on, flat or not, except for the bass. In my living room the KEFs sound slightly different not only in bass but in the overall sound including imaging and soundstage. The different in bass is significant as it got rid of some boost by the wall but the rest is subtle though immediately and easily audible. So my own conclusion is Audyssey's effects does vary with the room acoustic characteristics, and that probably should not surprise anyone. It obvious would vary with speakers too, but that should go without saying.

I manually adjust all the channel levels, including subs, AFTER I applied Audyssey, so volume level is not the issue. IOW my subs are HOT w/ or w/o Audyssey.

I am conflicted because I just realized (thanks to RichB) that given the same master volume, same speaker channel levels, and same sub levels, Audyssey INCREASED the overall SPL level - in my 2 songs the volume increased by up to 4 dB !

So if Audyssey sounds better, is it ONLY because it is LOUDER by 4dB?

And if I then level match Audyssey and PD mode, will they sound about the same? In which case, I would rather use Pure Direct 2.1 mode if they really just sound the same w/ the same exact volume levels (90dB vs 90dB).

I will compare PD vs Audyssey w/ the KEF today after work, but this time level matched w/ SPL.

Yesterday w/ the Salon2 when I level matched w/ SPL, it sounded about the same. For example, the master volume for PD was -25.0 and the master volume for Audyssey was -29.0 to achieve the same SPL of 90dB, etc. In this case, I think they sounded about the same. So if they sound the same, why would I use Audyssey?

I sound like a yo-yo here.

 

[Alex2507]

So if Audyssey sounds better, is it ONLY because it is LOUDER by 4dB?

I doubt it. I think the Dynamic EQ changes the tonal balance or frequency response to make up for non linear hearing in humans ... that Fletcher-Munson curve thing. Short auditory memory might make it hard to compare one to the other but who cares? For me the whole thing is about how I 'feel'. My one experience with Dynamic EQ left me feeling like I be needin' me some o' dat.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I doubt it. I think the Dynamic EQ changes the tonal balance or frequency response to make up for non linear hearing in humans ... that Fletcher-Munson curve thing. Short auditory memory might make it hard to compare one to the other but who cares? For me the whole thing is about how I 'feel'. My one experience with Dynamic EQ left me feeling like I be needin' me some o' dat.

You're probably right. But a 4dB difference makes it harder to refute the opposing argument.

IOW, if Dynamic EQ and Pure Direct had the same exact SPL of 90dB and Dynamic EQ sounded better, then it would be an easy case.

Do we reduce the master volume by 4dB when we engage Audyssey + Dynamic EQ? How would it sound then?

It is all about "how we feel".

Theory aside, it all comes down to how we feel.

 

[avengineer]

I doubt it. I think the Dynamic EQ changes the tonal balance or frequency response to make up for non linear hearing in humans ... that Fletcher-Munson curve thing.

It would be great if people just took a second to Google instead of doing the "I think" thing...(Fletcher-Munson? Hardly.)
Dynamic EQ from Audyssey - Rich Sound at Any Volume | Audyssey

Short auditory memory might make it hard to compare one to the other but who cares? For me the whole thing is about how I 'feel'. My one experience with Dynamic EQ left me feeling like I be needin' me some o' dat.

This has been a long-standing issue with Audyssey, particularly without the Pro kit. It's very hard to compare because the transition between Audyssey and PD is so slow, and of course, hardly blind. The Pro kit software makes it a bit easier to do, and a little faster, but the transition always has a large gap between choices, so direct side-by-side comparison is not really possible. Somebody with a good programmable remote could build a macro to switch Audyssey on and off and do the gain comp in one quick move, but there will still be a dead gap during the transition. However, the differences are also not small, so you can at least still get an idea of what's going on.

The problem is, not being blind, this kind of comparison is riddled with bias. Just knowing you're going to something called "Pure-Direct"...yea, no bias in that nomenclature. It's impressive that someone would actually prefer anything over something called "Pure-Direct", ever.

Slap the blinders on, then give it a try.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It would be great if people just took a second to Google instead of doing the "I think" thing...(Fletcher-Munson? Hardly.)
Dynamic EQ from Audyssey - Rich Sound at Any Volume | Audyssey



This has been a long-standing issue with Audyssey, particularly without the Pro kit. It's very hard to compare because the transition between Audyssey and PD is so slow, and of course, hardly blind. The Pro kit software makes it a bit easier to do, and a little faster, but the transition always has a large gap between choices, so direct side-by-side comparison is not really possible. Somebody with a good programmable remote could build a macro to switch Audyssey on and off and do the gain comp in one quick move, but there will still be a dead gap during the transition. However, the differences are also not small, so you can at least still get an idea of what's going on.

The problem is, not being blind, this kind of comparison is riddled with bias. Just knowing you're going to something called "Pure-Direct"...yea, no bias in that nomenclature. It's impressive that someone would actually prefer anything over something called "Pure-Direct", ever.

Slap the blinders on, then give it a try.

Audyssey Dynamic EQ has changed the way I see room correction.

Whether I use it or how much and how often is case wide open.

You won't see me saying that PD is simply better anymore.

I do like the fact that I can hear the bass better even at low volume w/ Dynamic EQ.

Very personal and very grey.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I sound like a yo-yo here.

You should be so lucky, if you could play the cello like him.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

You should be so lucky, if you could play the cello like him.

I just knew someone was going to say that.

When I played album Yo-Yo Ma/ Ennio Morricone, especially at 90dB volume, the difference between Dynamic EQ vs PD seems diminutive to me.