Some more Audyssey help/interpretation please

[TechToys2]

Attached are the room correction results after running Audyssey on my 5.1 system. I note particularly the dip in the 3 front speakers from before and around 100-150 hz. This is all completely new to me and I guess I am trying to understand what these results mean, and what I can do for a flatter response. I was not particular happy with the sound no matter what I did and I decided to reset everything, not run Audyssey temporarily, set levels manually and adjust trims slightly by ear. View attachment 42532View attachment 42532It's not perfect, but it actually sounds better to me.

Anyway, I'm trying to learn, so any input about how people use their Audyssey results to better the sound and things I might try would be helpful.

 

[lovinthehd]

When did Audyssey implement an ability to read actual results? AFAIK it just gives you a representation of the intended correcgtion profile. I'm not sure what your Audyssey technique was let alone your other methods....describe more?

 

[TechToys2]

When did Audyssey implement an ability to read actual results? AFAIK it just gives you a representation of the intended correcgtion profile. I'm not sure what your Audyssey technique was let alone your other methods....describe more?

OK. So mistake #1. I guess I don't even know what I'm looking at. LOL. So what exactly is the "after" showing me?

I'm using the app, obviously. I simply followed the on screen information. I used a small tripod, attached the mic provided pointing up at ear hight in the main sitting location and then took 7 other readings for a total of 8 in positions within around a foot or so from the main listening position (slightly forward, to the side, etc.).

 

[lovinthehd]

OK. So mistake #1. I guess I don't even know what I'm looking at. LOL. So what exactly is the "after" showing me?

I'm using the app, obviously. I simply followed the on screen information. I used a small tripod, attached the mic provided pointing up at ear hight in the main sitting location and then took 7 other readings for a total of 8 in positions within around a foot or so from the main listening position (slightly forward, to the side, etc.).

AFAIK the second graph is just what it intends to apply to "correct" the response in the first. To get an actual result you'd need to measure appropriately, like with a measurement mic and appropriate software like REW/RoomEQ Wizard.

 

[Swerd]

I note particularly the dip in the 3 front speakers from before and around 100-150 hz.

That dip looks like a typical example of what's commonly called 'floor bounce'. These dips are usually accompanied by a peak, often at lower frequencies. Note, in the green trace, the broad peak at lower frequencies centered around 50-60 Hz.

Bass sound arrives at your ears coming both directly from the bass driver, and from reflections from the floor or ceiling. The paths are longer for the reflections, and therefore the arrival times are a fraction of a second slower than for the direct sound. Because sound is a wave, with peaks & valleys (similar to a sine wave) the delayed reflected sounds can arrive in phase with the driver's sound, partially adding to the amplitude. Or, it can arrive out of phase, partially subtracting from the sound. This can change as the frequency of the sound changes, or as you move the microphone position.

Usually, the floor reflection is stronger than the ceiling reflection, but not always.

You can move the microphone or the speaker's positions and change the patterns of peaks & valleys, but you cannot eliminate them, unless you remove the floor or ceiling. Carpets or rugs has little or no affect on long wavelength bass frequency reflections. Many people who have rooms with vaulted or cathedral ceilings worry about the negative effects. But they may not realize the possible improvement because the ceiling is no longer parallel to to the floor.

As you've noticed, these peaks & valleys look bad on measured frequency response curves. This is the main reason why those few commercial speaker makers who actually show frequency response curves for their products, avoid showing frequencies below about 200 Hz. It's caused by the room, not the speakers.

But, it is not at all clear whether listeners find it objectionable, or even notice it at all. We are all quite used to hearing sound indoors, with ceilings and floors parallel to each other, spaced about 8 or 9 feet apart. Our brains have adapted to those room effects, and consider them as normal.

My best advice is try to minimize the peaks & valleys with small changes in speaker or listening positions, but do not go to any heroic efforts to correct them. Results with automated room correction software, such as Audyssey, can vary widely. Don't be surprised if you like the sound better without Audyssey's correction.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Yeah, the red after graph is just a “calculated” response. This is what Audyssey will try to, and thinks it can achieve. As mentioned, the beat thing you can do is positional EQ, and then electronic EQ. The thing that sucks is the only way to know if the positional EQ worked is REW, or worse, rerun audyssey and look at the before graphs. The “after” is kinda useless in that it does really show you exactly what you’ve got. It’s likely close, but...

 

[TechToys2]

Thanks everyone for the helpful input.

After 20 years with a receiver that I really enjoyed I was still somehow expecting to be amazed by the improvement in sound with a more recent receiver equipped with well regarded room correction. Perhaps that was naive given the same speaker setup.

While I find it very helpful to have HDMI inputs and nice to have the most recent codecs, etc., in some respects I have found that the sound I am hearing is not quite as full for music or impactful for movies/TV compared to my old receiver. It is, however, great to have a quiet piece of equipment that doesn't add hum I continue to adjust settings to get things closer to my preferences.

 

[PENG]

Thanks everyone for the helpful input.

After 20 years with a receiver that I really enjoyed I was still somehow expecting to be amazed by the improvement in sound with a more recent receiver equipped with well regarded room correction. Perhaps that was naive given the same speaker setup.

While I find it very helpful to have HDMI inputs and nice to have the most recent codecs, etc., in some respects I have found that the sound I am hearing is not quite as full for music or impactful for movies/TV compared to my old receiver. It is, however, great to have a quiet piece of equipment that doesn't add hum I continue to adjust settings to get things closer to my preferences.

Depending on a number of things, Audyssey might or might not have done as good a job as it usually can do. Since you are using the App, you can try to limit the correction range to say 300 Hz and see if you like it better. You should also try increase the subwoofer's level trim by 3 to 5 dB. You may prefer it without Audyssey because you prefer the peaks in the 35 to 70 Hz range that Audyssey obviously levelled or attempted to level.

Also, if you have not disabled the MRC (mid range compensation), try disabling it. The graphs seemed to show that you did have it disabled, but just double check anyway.

 

[TechToys2]

Depending on a number of things, Audyssey might or might not have done as good a job as it usually can do. Since you are using the App, you can try to limit the correction range to say 300 Hz and see if you like it better. You should also try increase the subwoofer's level trim by 3 to 5 dB. You may prefer it without Audyssey because you prefer the peaks in the 35 to 70 Hz range that Audyssey obviously levelled or attempted to level.

Also, if you have not disabled the MRC (mid range compensation), try disabling it. The graphs seemed to show that you did have it disabled, but just double check anyway.

Thank you, Peng. I do have MRC off. I will try your other suggestions and compare it without Audyssey.

 

[Leemix]

A lot of people prefer without audyssey especially if its the same speakers and room because we are used to how it sounds.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[TechToys2]

When I ran Audyssey I set the subwoofer volume to 50% as indicated (which if I recall was a little lower than I originally had it set) and it still said my subwoofer was too loud and to turn it down, which I did. When I reset everything and only set levels, I left the sub where Audyssey had me set it figuring that perhaps the Audyssey mic was better than my Radio Shack level meter for setting subwoofer levels, as I had heard that the RS meter doesn't do well in lower frequencies.

Assuming I am not using Audyssey does it matter if I turn up the bass volume on the sub itself or through the trim/receiver?

 

[lovinthehd]

Using the avr's adjustment of level it's highly repeatable if you want to return to the calibrated level. Gain knobs on subs aren't generally as accurate/repeatable and harder to access than your avr's remote control, too. Many do after Audyssey bump up the sub trim level in the avr....raising sub level either using or not using Audyssey is just a matter of preference.

 

[TLS Guy]

What speakers are you using? The curves suggests to me that those speakers have inadequate or no Baffle Step compensation (BSC). At least not for that room or position. That downward slope in the lower mid and upper bass band is classic for that issue.

 

[TechToys2]

What speakers are you using? The curves suggests to me that those speakers have inadequate or no Baffle Step compensation (BSC). At least not for that room or position. That downward slope in the lower mid and upper bass band is classic for that issue.

Older B&W bookshelf speakers. L&R are CDM1NT and center is CC6S2. This is the left and right.

https://www.bowerswilkins.com/sites/default/files/2019-03/ENG_FP11762_CDM-1NT_info_sheet.pdf

 

[TLS Guy]

Older B&W bookshelf speakers. L&R are CDM1NT and center is CC6S2. This is the left and right.

https://www.bowerswilkins.com/sites/default/files/2019-03/ENG_FP11762_CDM-1NT_info_sheet.pdf

I know those speakers quite well, and they are one of B & W better designs and they have good measurements, very good in fact.

I can't imagine they need that sort of correction I'm seeing in what you posted.

I would give your system a good listen with Audyssey off and all their odd Eqs like Dynamic Eq etc off.

My experience with Audysssey is that it is really good at making first class speakers sound like poor ones.

I have always regarded those speakers as very accurate speakers in the monitor class. So I highly doubt they can be improved by anything Audyssey has to offer.
I don't often take a real liking to speakers, but I have always had them pegged as a really good small speaker.

So don't spoil them with spurious ideation poorly executed, and that is my honest opinion of Audyssey. Those speakers I can be certain will perform the best with all the electronics set dead flat.

 

[TechToys2]

I know those speakers quite well, and they are one of B & W better designs and they have good measurements, very good in fact.

I can't imagine they need that sort of correction I'm seeing in what you posted.

I would give your system a good listen with Audyssey off and all their odd Eqs like Dynamic Eq etc off.

My experience with Audysssey is that it is really good at making first class speakers sound like poor ones.

I have always regarded those speakers as very accurate speakers in the monitor class. So I highly doubt they can be improved by anything Audyssey has to offer.
I don't often take a real liking to speakers, but I have always had them pegged as a really good small speaker.

So don't spoil them with spurious ideation poorly executed, and that is my honest opinion of Audyssey. Those speakers I can be certain will perform the best with all the electronics set dead flat.

Thank you for the feedback. I don't have any prior experience with Audyssey, but as I mentioned in some prior posts, after resetting the receiver to factory and doing a manual level setup with a few adjustments to taste, the sound was better to my ears.

I know its not a popular thing around here to talk about sound as it relates to an amp or receiver, but I still feel like I am missing something in the mid/upper bass that filled out the sound and was present using my old Rotel receiver -- and it is bothering me a little.

 

[warnerwh]

With the app you can boost those lower frequencies a few db which makes quite a difference. Also as stated above don't go full range but limit the correction to 300-500hz. Look at what other's have done as far as boosting the lower part of the frequency range and that mid/upper bass can be made to sound any way you like.

 

[TLS Guy]

Thank you for the feedback. I don't have any prior experience with Audyssey, but as I mentioned in some prior posts, after resetting the receiver to factory and doing a manual level setup with a few adjustments to taste, the sound was better to my ears.

I know its not a popular thing around here to talk about sound as it relates to an amp or receiver, but I still feel like I am missing something in the mid/upper bass that filled out the sound and was present using my old Rotel receiver -- and it is bothering me a little.

Well, I guess the next question has to be, what receiver are you using?

Those speakers actually present quite a difficult load to an amp.

As you can see there is a phase angle of -52 degrees at 100 Hz where there is a lot of power. At 105 Hz the phase angle is around -40 degrees with an impedance of 6 ohms. So that requires very large current demands form the amplifier. I have no idea, why, but a disproportionate number of B & W designs present difficult loads. I have to say I try and avoid that in my designs. Now that does not make the speaker bad, it does not, but it does presuppose the use of robust amplification.
The trouble is that bench tests use resistive loads, and that gives a far from complete picture of how an amp will behave with complex loads. There is no doubt in my mind that the current crop of receivers, except may be the top of the line are not as good as in years past. There has been a rush to add channels and features and the power amps are were the funds are being saved. This is really a very bad decision. In my view the power amps have always been the weak link of receivers.
I really feel that the B & W engineers do not have receiver amps in mind when they design their speakers. So you are probably correct in that your speakers do not sound as good now as they did with the Rotel particularly in the upper bass.

If your receiver has pre outs, then my advice is to look at a robust power amps. Those speakers in my view are worth an amp with high current delivery into four ohm loads. You can assess that by looking at the power output into 8 ohm loads versus 4 ohm. If the power output increases by a factor of 75 to 100% you know you are on the right track. The modern crop of receivers generally do not even quote a 4 ohm power rating, which speaks volumes.

So yes, power amps do not all sound the same, especially when presented with complex loads requiring high current demands.
I can tell you there is a huge amount of denial about the generally poor performance of receiver amps round here. I personally do not power any of my speakers with receivers.

You can see your speakers have a very good frequency response.

 

[KEW]

To be certain you understand what people are suggesting, it is that you limit Audyssey to frequencies below 300Hz (or below 500Hz).
This way you are allowing it to primarily address room effects

 

[TechToys2]

Well, I guess the next question has to be, what receiver are you using?

Those speakers actually present quite a difficult load to an amp.

As you can see there is a phase angle of -52 degrees at 100 Hz where there is a lot of power. At 105 Hz the phase angle is around -40 degrees with an impedance of 6 ohms. So that requires very large current demands form the amplifier. I have no idea, why, but a disproportionate number of B & W designs present difficult loads. I have to say I try and avoid that in my designs. Now that does not make the speaker bad, it does not, but it does presuppose the use of robust amplification.
The trouble is that bench tests use resistive loads, and that gives a far from complete picture of how an amp will behave with complex loads. There is no doubt in my mind that the current crop of receivers, except may be the top of the line are not as good as in years past. There has been a rush to add channels and features and the power amps are were the funds are being saved. This is really a very bad decision. In my view the power amps have always been the weak link of receivers.
I really feel that the B & W engineers do not have receiver amps in mind when they design their speakers. So you are probably correct in that your speakers do not sound as good now as they did with the Rotel particularly in the upper bass.

If your receiver has pre outs, then my advice is to look at a robust power amps. Those speakers in my view are worth an amp with high current delivery into four ohm loads. You can assess that by looking at the power output into 8 ohm loads versus 4 ohm. If the power output increases by a factor of 75 to 100% you know you are on the right track. The modern crop of receivers generally do not even quote a 4 ohm power rating, which speaks volumes.

So yes, power amps do not all sound the same, especially when presented with complex loads requiring high current demands.
I can tell you there is a huge amount of denial about the generally poor performance of receiver amps round here. I personally do not power any of my speakers with receivers.

You can see your speakers have a very good frequency response.

The receiver is a mid-level Marantz - SR6014. I like the convenience of a receiver and everything on the higher end seemed like overkill for a 5.1 system, but I still have time to evaluate due to an extended return policy for the holidays.