Audyssey Editor App- With Screenshots!

[PENG]

You're right, I don't understand. You're acknowledging most won't like the sound of flat bass, but then say aiming for flat bass isn't a bad target. Remember, everybody with Audyssey is already starting out with flat bass (with DEQ off ). My post is about focusing on the next step.

You misunderstood my point, that is, "flat" isn't a bad target, in fact I would say a correct target for room EQ system such as Audyssey. Yes, once that's done, it is up to the individual user to move on the the "next step", that I thought you have made some great recommendations on. Hard to believe it is so hard to communicate between us.. Thanks for chiming in again though, so I have the chance to clarify..

Dirac Live, apparently would tilt the low frequency response target curve up towards the low end, for the obvious reason, but the user can of course edit the slope/shape. More or less the same difference, just different approach.

 

[Jon AA]

You misunderstood my point, that is, "flat" isn't a bad target, in fact I would say a correct target for room EQ system such as Audyssey. Yes, once that's done, it is up to the individual user to move on the the "next step", that I thought you have made some great recommendations on.

My point is this results in 99.9% of users being stuck there, never taking that "next step." When I describe how to do this most peoples' eyes glaze over. If 99.9% of users never reach the intended end goal, the tool isn't doing a good job of getting them there. A different target curve that could be selected instead of "Reference" would be a one-button fix that would allow those 99.9% to get much closer to optimum.

Dirac can come pre-loaded with any curve the manufacturer wants. NAD I believe uses some of their own curves (vaguely resembling the Harman curve) in some of their stuff. The new JBL 16 channel processors will come with the "latest version" of their curve pre-loaded in Dirac.

The higher level Synthesis stuff uses anechoic data of your speakers (if they're Harman) to predict what their room response should look like in a typical room and gives you a curve based upon that (which I feel is very important for the upper frequency range--where people can really mess things up with EQ).

I do think the original Harman curve was a more gradual/straight line. Here's a visual from Sean Olive (I think the red line--RR1 curve--is what they called the "Harman curve" years ago, but they've now modified it to be more like the changes in the App I describe (or more accurately, I got it from them--not the other way around).

 

[Pogre]

This is troublesome. The Mini is doing something. I took sweeps with it in the loop and completely disconnected. I cleared everything out I had previously so all the level adjustments were at zero.

 

[Jon AA]

The mini probably adds more processing delay, changing the phase relationship in the crossover region. I think your best bet is to pick having it in the system or not and stick with it. Figure out the sub distance that gives you the smoothest response in the crossover region. Then, start worrying about how best to EQ the sub.

 

[PENG]

For Dirac Live, I can't find the ones for the R900 and BMR, but found the 2.0 one for the LS50. Also can't find the ones for left and right individually.

Keep in mind, It was the Beta trial thing.

 

[Pogre]

The mini probably adds more processing delay, changing the phase relationship in the crossover region. I think your best bet is to pick having it in the system or not and stick with it. Figure out the sub distance that gives you the smoothest response in the crossover region. Then, start worrying about how best to EQ the sub.

I was just coming on to edit that into my post! I put it back in the loop and Audyssey pushed my subs back 5 more feet!

 

[PENG]

So what Dr. Toole has been doing the last 50 years or so isn't Science? Them is fightin' words!

Missed that earlier, no idea what you referred to though. I thought you and I have a different perception in some regards on the topic being discussed, some I believe are disagreement while others are likely just due to misunderstanding each other's point. I would never say what Dr. Toole has been doing isn't science, he is in fact a top scientist. I have high regard for his work and he is someone I respect a lot, though I do think because he's human he would have his own preference/taste and opinions too. Science are science, and facts are facts, but it does not mean even a top science would be stating scientific facts 100% of the time without sometimes expressing his own opinions and preferences, or conducting studies on other's preference and opinions as Sean Olive had apparently done a lot of..

I went digging through old measurements and have a couple of those. Here is Left (black), Right (brown) and both together (red) all with EQ and no sub. Yellow is both together with no EQ.

View attachment 33777

Here is another:

View attachment 33778

That's the left front with sub and EQ with the bass rise built into both curves. Crossovers of 60, 80, 90, 100 and 110 Hz (and one with the speaker large for reference).

As you can see, when both sub and main speaker are corrected to the same curve, changing the crossover does not change the overall tonal balance. The overall tonal balance in these curves remains exactly the same, with two deviations room and equipment related:

The speaker isn't quite big enough to pull off a 60 Hz crossover (black line) as you can see it dips a bit below the others. The second is a room null/suckout at about 125 Hz that mainly affects the sub. So the higher the crossover setting, the larger percentage of sound should be coming from the sub, the larger the suckout.

I haven't done a whole lot of measurements with all speakers. It is true that bass can tend to "build up" in small rooms when you add more sources, so if one likes listening in all channel stereo a lot he may want a more modest amount of rise in the bass.

Wow, that nice, and thanks. I have to look at them more carefully but on a quick glance I don't see one for 2.1, that is, using the same sweep with the mains left, right and subwoofers all playing together. Those were the ones I noticed the FR were drastically different between different crossover settings. I actually deleted my post because I know Audyssey set the filters for each speaker/channel independently; so to plot 2.1, up to 7.1 graphs are simply to satisfy my curiosity and inconsistency in FR for different crossovers should be expected. I hate to say it, but this sort of discussion is again going to be difficult, and would likely create confusion or be misunderstood.

 

[Pogre]

Okay, I put the Mini back in the chain and ran Audyssey setup again. They're close enough that I'm gonna leave it in the chain for the duration of my experimenting.

They're slightly different but they're 2 different runs with Audyssey and close enough for my comfort zone.

That said, I don't see me improving on the above very much without getting dirty with the Mini... I could probably fix that little dip at 20 hz with the app editor but it won't allow for notch adjustments.

*Edit: Yeah, there's some real ugly going on between 60 and 90 hz, and it's very audibly noticeable. I know I can eq that out with the Mini but we're getting back into raising up my crossover to compensate.

 

[PENG]

Okay, I put the Mini back in the chain and ran Audyssey setup again. They're close enough that I'm gonna leave it in the chain for the duration of my experimenting.

View attachment 33794

They're slightly different but they're 2 different runs with Audyssey and close enough for my comfort zone.

That said, I don't see me improving on the above very much without getting dirty with the Mini... I could probably fix that little dip at 20 hz with the app editor but it won't allow for notch adjustments.

*Edit: Yeah, there's some real ugly going on between 60 and 90 hz, and it's very audibly noticeable. I know I can eq that out with the Mini but we're getting back into raising up my crossover to compensate.

I highly doubt you can EQ them out with the mini or anything without using other means than DRC. You can see that I have some of those ugly things too and there isn't anything I can do, or willing to do..

 

[Pogre]

I highly doubt you can EQ them out with the mini or anything without using other means than DRC. You can see that I have some of those ugly things too and there isn't anything I can do, or willing to do..

You mean like a 9 dB bump at 73 hz?

It actually kinda worked... it's getting late now. I'll dig in again and won't fumble around so much. I had all day to get familiar with things again. Tomorrow I'm gonna do some sweeps with Audyssey off, have REW generate me some filters and apply them before running Audyssey this time. Counting the other 2 speaker sets I calibrated today I'm gonna have 5 or 6 different files saved in the App Editor, lol. Gonna have to stay on top of my labeling!

I'll do the sweeps you asked me to, too Peng. I have a clean, untouched Audyssey file I copied before I started tweaking with the app.

 

[PENG]

You mean like a 9 dB bump at 73 hz?

View attachment 33795View attachment 33796

It actually kinda worked... it's getting late now. I'll dig in again and won't fumble around so much. I had all day to get familiar with things again. Tomorrow I'm gonna do some sweeps with Audyssey off, have REW generate me some filters and apply them before running Audyssey this time. Counting the other 2 speaker sets I calibrated today I'm gonna have 5 or 6 different files saved in the App Editor, lol. Gonna have to stay on top of my labeling!

I'll do the sweeps you asked me to, too Peng. I have a clean, untouched Audyssey file I copied before I started tweaking with the app.

I think if it can be fixed like that Audyssey would have done it. By applying more boost manually with the editor may help slightly but may also create a new problem. You can try, and I would love to be wrong.

 

[Siciliano611]

I have a 5.1 system with a x3600 Denon and a HSU VTF3-MK5 sub. When I ran Audyssey through the app yesterday I had a terrible dip between 70-120 hz even after room correction. (First graph attached).

So I changed some of the positions to try to fix the sub graph/nulls. My first movement was keeping it in the front right but facing it into the wall ( 2nd pic attached), the next move was to the back right corner right behind the couch and facing the wall (3rd pic attached). It seems I lose a bit of the low end in behind the couch if you notice in the graph, but there’s less nulls than the front right corner. Which of these two positions based on these graphs would you all choose? Thx

 

[Pogre]

I think if it can be fixed like that Audyssey would have done it. By applying more boost manually with the editor may help slightly but may also create a new problem. You can try, and I would love to be wrong.

The blue line is after the big bump. Is that not an improvement?

 

[Pogre]

I have a 5.1 system with a x3600 Denon and a HSU VTF3-MK5 sub. When I ran Audyssey through the app yesterday I had a terrible dip between 70-120 hz even after room correction. (First graph attached).

So I changed some of the positions to try to fix the sub graph/nulls. My first movement was keeping it in the front right but facing it into the wall ( 2nd pic attached), the next move was to the back right corner right behind the couch and facing the wall (3rd pic attached). It seems I lose a bit of the low end in behind the couch if you notice in the graph, but there’s less nulls than the front right corner. Which of these two positions based on these graphs would you all choose? Thx

I'd pick the 2nd one and run a higher crossover.

 

[ryanosaur]

I have a 5.1 system with a x3600 Denon and a HSU VTF3-MK5 sub. When I ran Audyssey through the app yesterday I had a terrible dip between 70-120 hz even after room correction. (First graph attached).

So I changed some of the positions to try to fix the sub graph/nulls. My first movement was keeping it in the front right but facing it into the wall ( 2nd pic attached), the next move was to the back right corner right behind the couch and facing the wall (3rd pic attached). It seems I lose a bit of the low end in behind the couch if you notice in the graph, but there’s less nulls than the front right corner. Which of these two positions based on these graphs would you all choose? Thx

I would start with the subwoofer crawl and look for 2-3 spots in the room that will actually produce the best acoustic performance. Then measure, and make finite adjustments as needed afterwards.

 

[PENG]

I would start with the subwoofer crawl and look for 2-3 spots in the room that will actually produce the best acoustic performance. Then measure, and make finite adjustments as needed afterwards.

Moving them should make the most difference, you can always move the back anyway.

Below is from the Dirac blog:

The 4 Types of Distortion a Good Digital Room Correction System Should Address - Dirac

The two weakest components of a HiFi system are typically the loudspeaker and the room the music is playing in— the second of which is most often overlooked. Even if you’ve invested in a best-in-class HiFi system, the listening room can still have a tremendous effect on the overall sound...

www.dirac.com

"Room resonances and standing waves primarily affect the bass performance. You will hear that certain notes are severely pronounced and sound boomy due to the geometry of the room. Room correction systems need to be careful in compensating for nulls or suck-outs. If there is a signal cancellation, no amount of energy boost will compensate for that. "

From the Audioholics.com's interview with Dirac:

Dirac Room Correction Interview With Mathias Johansson

Room EQ: Today the Audioholics have a chat with Mathias Johansson to get the inside scoop on Dirac's room correction products. Click to learn all about Dirac Live and Unison.

www.audioholics.com

"Mathias Johansson: Normally, Dirac Live does not allow you to boost more than 10 dB. You can lower this by adjusting the target curve. However, narrow dips (nulls) are never compensated, as they are always position dependent in real acoustic space "

"Audioholics: How do your room correction products help to address the typical issues a room causes (resonances, modal peaks/nulls, etc.)? Does room correction largely negate the need for room treatments for consumers, or would you suggest using both room correction and physical treatments?

Mathias Johansson: No room correction system negates the need for room treatments."

From the Audioholics.com's interview with Audyssey:

Audyssey MultEQ Room Correction Interview With Chris Kyriakakis

The Audioholics interview Chris Kyriakakis in order to learn the ins and outs of Audyssey's MultEQ room correction / auto-calibration system. Bass management, calibration, EQ and more.

www.audioholics.com

"For practical considerations in AVR systems, the filters are set to +9 dB max boost and –20 dB max cut. "

"Audioholics: How do your room correction products help to address the typical issues a room causes (resonances, modal peaks/nulls, etc.)? Does room correction largely negate the need for room treatments for consumers, or would you suggest using both room correction and physical treatments?

Chris Kyriakakis: We strongly recommend starting with physical treatments whenever possible."

So if those huge dips are due to cancellations/room nulls, there really isn't much Audyssey can do, or it would have done it. You have the mini, so that may help a little, but be careful applying boost. Dirac limits boost the 10 dB max, Audyssey 9 dB and AARC 6 dB. And, as you know, 10 dB means the amp output will increase 10X so that may be too much for your speakers/subwoofers under certain conditions.

 

[KEW]

Moving them should make the most difference, you can always move the back anyway.

Below is from the Dirac blog:

The 4 Types of Distortion a Good Digital Room Correction System Should Address - Dirac

The two weakest components of a HiFi system are typically the loudspeaker and the room the music is playing in— the second of which is most often overlooked. Even if you’ve invested in a best-in-class HiFi system, the listening room can still have a tremendous effect on the overall sound...

www.dirac.com

"Room resonances and standing waves primarily affect the bass performance. You will hear that certain notes are severely pronounced and sound boomy due to the geometry of the room. Room correction systems need to be careful in compensating for nulls or suck-outs. If there is a signal cancellation, no amount of energy boost will compensate for that. "

From the Audioholics.com's interview with Dirac:

Dirac Room Correction Interview With Mathias Johansson

Room EQ: Today the Audioholics have a chat with Mathias Johansson to get the inside scoop on Dirac's room correction products. Click to learn all about Dirac Live and Unison.

www.audioholics.com

"Mathias Johansson: Normally, Dirac Live does not allow you to boost more than 10 dB. You can lower this by adjusting the target curve. However, narrow dips (nulls) are never compensated, as they are always position dependent in real acoustic space "

"Audioholics: How do your room correction products help to address the typical issues a room causes (resonances, modal peaks/nulls, etc.)? Does room correction largely negate the need for room treatments for consumers, or would you suggest using both room correction and physical treatments?

Mathias Johansson: No room correction system negates the need for room treatments."

From the Audioholics.com's interview with Audyssey:

Audyssey MultEQ Room Correction Interview With Chris Kyriakakis

The Audioholics interview Chris Kyriakakis in order to learn the ins and outs of Audyssey's MultEQ room correction / auto-calibration system. Bass management, calibration, EQ and more.

www.audioholics.com

"For practical considerations in AVR systems, the filters are set to +9 dB max boost and –20 dB max cut. "

"Audioholics: How do your room correction products help to address the typical issues a room causes (resonances, modal peaks/nulls, etc.)? Does room correction largely negate the need for room treatments for consumers, or would you suggest using both room correction and physical treatments?

Chris Kyriakakis: We strongly recommend starting with physical treatments whenever possible."

So if those huge dips are due to cancellations/room nulls, there really isn't much Audyssey can do, or it would have done it. You have the mini, so that may help a little, but be careful applying boost. Dirac limits boost the 10 dB max, Audyssey 9 dB and AARC 6 dB. And, as you know, 10 dB means the amp output will increase 10X so that may be too much for your speakers/subwoofers under certain conditions.

Thanks for taking the time to compile this all in one post.
I thought this was the case, but this post locks it in in a most absolute and definitive way!
Thank you sir!

 

[Pogre]

If you are to start the process again (it is tempting for me too..), please include the following before re-running Audyssey, unless you have made changes to the speakers/placements since your last run.

a) FL/FR only, Audyssey On vs Off

b) Same as a) but with Sub(s) on., do it for XO = 40,60,80,90,100 Hz.

If you have time:

c) All speakers including sub (using all channel stereo mode), Audyssey On vs Off

That last one is with the crossover set at 80 hz. It was starting to take too much time and I wanted my system back by the end of the day, lol. Clearly, 100 hz is the crossover that works best for me at this time.

I did some manual PEQ after doing those sweeps and got it dialed in closer, but was feeling a little rushed toward the end so I might hit it again next weekend. I'll post those results tomorrow when I get some time.

Every time I do this I get faster and make fewer mistakes that require me to start over... It's been over a year since I've had this stuff out tho and there are a crapload of little details to remember in order to get accurate measurements. That's part of what takes up my time. I had to scrap some stuff and start over a couple of times.

 

[PENG]

The blue line is after the big bump. Is that not an improvement?

It looks like a huge improvement but it also created a huge dip at around 84 Hz. Did you apply that 9 dB boost with the mini, if so, I wonder how it would look like with Audyssey turned off? If that boost worked, then in theory it likely is not a "null" but what could that be?

 

[PENG]

a) FL/FR only, Audyssey On vs Off
View attachment 33804
b) Same as a) but with Sub(s) on., do it for XO = 40,60,80,90,100 Hz.
View attachment 33805View attachment 33806

If you have time:

c) All speakers including sub (using all channel stereo mode), Audyssey On vs Off
View attachment 33807

That last one is with the crossover set at 80 hz. It was starting to take too much time and I wanted my system back by the end of the day, lol. Clearly, 100 hz is the crossover that works best for me at this time.

I did some manual PEQ after doing those sweeps and got it dialed in closer, but was feeling a little rushed toward the end so I might hit it again next weekend. I'll post those results tomorrow when I get some time.

Every time I do this I get faster and make fewer mistakes that require me to start over... It's been over a year since I've had this stuff out tho and there are a crapload of little details to remember in order to get accurate measurements. That's part of what takes up my time. I had to scrap some stuff and start over a couple of times.

If it was me I would stick with 80 Hz. Yes 100 Hz looks the best on paper but that's only if every channel is playing the same frequency at the same time, that is all channel "mono" in reality. I hope I am not confusing you.. For real world use, I suspect 80 Hz may work better for you.

The reason I asked to see all those curves for 40,60,80,90,100 Hz is to satisfy my curiosity/am obsessed.. (sorry for being selfish!) about whether Audyssey would make the comb filter effects worse. From your graphs, as well as my, if would appear Audyssey did improve the comb filter effects at any crossover setting, though it worked best for the higher settings such as 80, 90 and 100 Hz.

That is comforting for people like me who is obsessed with specs and measurements. Thanks again for taking the time to do such time consuming experiment.

By the way, in your case it fully demonstrate the good thing about the App, as you can now save what you have now as the "reference" so you can fall back to it without having to start from scratch. From here, you can follow @Jon AA 's suggestions to shape the low end away from the current "flat to the end.." to something like the "Harmon target curve", unless flat is what you prefer, that apparently not most people prefer. Without the App, I would say AARC and Dirac Live are clearly the much better choices.