2CH Room Correction Processors vs MCH

[AcuDefTechGuy]

1. Most audiophiles spend most of their budgets on their main front two towers (Revel Salon2, B&W 800D3, KEF Blade, RBH SVTRS, etc.).

Do most audiophiles consider their main front 2 channels salient?

If so, is this for both music and movies?


Personally I hate all Room Corrections. They do flatten the in-room frequency responses (as we can see from doing REW measurements), but I never liked the resulting subjective sounds of the room corrections.

Back when I was using the Denon AVP-A1HDCI, I would use Audyssey BYPASS L/R + DEQ because I wanted Dynamic EQ for my subs. If they had Audyssey BYPASS ALL CHANNELS + DEQ, I would have used that.

2. The reason I brought up this subject is because many audiophiles look to Dirac Live Room EQ these days. And many audiophiles are willing to spend their pretty pennies on Dirac Live EQ.

I noticed miniDSP makes standalone 2CH Dirac processors for around $1,000, which means anyone can just add this $1K solution to their existing system, if the main front 2CH is salient to them.

Why spend a lot more to EQ all the other speakers, especially all the surround speakers behind you and all the Atmos speakers above your head? Why not just EQ your main front Two Towers?

If room EQ is your thing.

 

[Pogre]

Pretty much what I do is eq my subs and 2 main speakers together. I go for flat then use DEQ and onboard sub tuning to implement a house curve.

 

[Trell]

In my small living all my speakers have bass issues so why should I EQ only the mains and the subwoofers?

I use Audyssey MultEQ XT32 in a 2015 model Denon so no app for adjusting the calibration, and I don't feel like laying out a lot of money to buy a new Denon just to test if restricting the frequency range for calibration sounds better or not.

 

[Pandaman617]

I use XT32 with the app limited to 300hz on all 11 channels but than use a MiniDSP HD after Audyssey does it’s thing for all 6 subs. In my room it’s a boomy nightmare without some sort of PEQ or Room EQ to tame the low end.

 

[flyboylr45]

I just let the Wavelet do it’s thing for my 2 main speakers and when watching movies I use L&R bypass on the Audyssey eq.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MalVeauX]

Eh, if I'm buying a digital processor, I want the correction suite so that I can choose to use it or not. Sometimes I use it, sometimes I don't. I think there are good rooms with good treatment that don't really need correction. There are other rooms that are awful and are even worse with poor speakers so maybe those benefit a lot more from correction. Bottom line though, it's probably better to have something and not need it, than to not have it and never have that option in the first place (I would think differently if it took up physical space, but in this case, it really doesn't, so it's not an issue really).

My true two channel systems don't have correction as none of the components are processors beyond the DAC (not using a receiver or pre-pro, etc) and don't even have remotes or anything. Just good old media -> DAC or Phono Stage -> Pre-amp -> Amp. Not a pure analog 2 channel, since I use a DAC and a lot of my media is digital. But I'm ok with no processing and no room correction on these.

You can also use miniDSPs and program one or more speakers depending on the module you get to have whatever frequency response curve, delay, etc and manually correct things to your whims.

And if your source is PC, you can apply correction and EQ generated from REW and implement it real time with Equalizer APO, completely free (other than the microphone) with tons of customization.

I think I have more fun with just a basic 2 channel system for music, no sub, just towers, no fancy stuff, just nice placement, well treated room, and it just sounds "good."

Very best,

 

[TLS Guy]

I will try and deal with the issues as best I can one at a time.

First off I have three systems. The theater is 7.2.4 effectively. There is not sub as generally understood, however the sub output and the LFE is fed to the four 10"drivers in the large lines in the main speakers, so to all intense and purposes they act as subs. In addition the upper two 10" drivers are fed an active baffle step compensation signal to off load the mids. This signal is variable and can be set by instrumentation and confirmed by ear. This is a critical part of the voicing of the speakers to the room.

The center also has variable BSC and is also voiced to the room. The surrounds have a the ability to adjust BSC, but not continuously variable. The rear backs are actively bi-amped, because of the frequency of the crossover, this gives major control of BSC, in addition these speakers are essentially full range with good output to 20 Hz.
I mention this as this probably helps to get even bass coverage. The ceiling speakers have no adjustment except for volume. They have a good FR profile. All of the other 7 speakers, are powerful with excellent frequency responses and all driven by more than adequate power. Total system power is 3,100 watts.

The other issue is that all speakers are far enough apart not to interfere with each other. In my former room, which was smaller there was some interspeaker interaction in the front three, and surrounds and rear backs. Speakers preferably need at least six feet spacing and preferably 7 to 8 feet spacing. In a lot of rooms this is hard to achieve with the front three, and part of the endless center channel problems. The center speaker is designed to have optimal dispersion and coverage to the seating area and cone off from the mains to minimize this problem. This is an issue we don't talk about enough, but an issue I have found to be important.

So this is the curve of the MLP, all speakers except the ceiling speakers driven.

The impulse response from all the speakers is arriving at the MLP at the same time. Obviously this can occur at only one point in the room. Subjectively the system sounds well balanced. The HF falls of a little at the MLP and the other seats as it should as the proportion of reflected sounds increases. There is a slight rise from 30 to 20 Hz, probably from the effect of the back wall. This is in no way unpleasant. There is not a trace of boom.

Now I find on this rig that I use the new Dolby upmixer the vast majority of the time, but do some 2 channel listening and just the center for mono sources.
Most of my sources are two channel with the up mixer engaged. Obviously I have multichannel discs, and there are streamed multichannel sources and cable TV.
I find the new up mixer incredibly good and do not use center spread. The reproduction is amazingly realistic.

The family room is two channel and a couple of subs. It is a system I really like. The speakers are marginally close, and the system does not require a center which would probably be a detriment. I like this system enough I have started the design of a new sub, to replace the current two, which are showing their age.

The in wall system in our main living area is 3.1. I only have the center engaged for true discrete multichannel sources like Dolby digital. The center gives marginal improvement for speech, and I stress marginal. I guess I wanted to design a three way center. However truthfully its benefit is marginal. For two channel sources I do not use the upmixer because of the proximity of the three speakers.

As far as auto correction is concerned all systems have Marantz pre/pros. Only the theater has the latest version.

However, engaging Audyssey really spoils all three systems. For one thing it adversely affects signal to noise. All three systems are inherently very quiet. Engaging Audyssey results in audible hiss at all listening positions. In addition nothings sounds right. Audyssey uses FIR filters, which are not linear phase. I have reason to suspect a lot of the deleterious effects of Audyssey is that is mucking up the careful time alignments inherent in the design of the speakers. Also the room responses are downgraded by Audyssey.

Dirac I have no experience of, however Dirac uses IIR filters which have a far superior phase response.

Since I have designed all my speakers, I am able to tweak them as desired.

So I do not like Audyssey at all, and suspect many of you, if not all, would be better off without it.

 

[lovinthehd]

Well, need isn't the word I'd use. How do you know if you like it/want it/need it unless you try it? I use it (Audyssey XT/XT32) in two systems, don't use it in two others. Depends. Don't have a newer unit that you can limit the frequency range of the correction/room setup program, that I'd like to try but don't see a need for a new avr to do so....maybe down the line for a change to 4k/Atmos stuff....then again some people get weird results, as with many things audio YMMV.

 

[Trell]

Well, need isn't the word I'd use. How do you know if you like it/want it/need it unless you try it? I use it (Audyssey XT/XT32) in two systems, don't use it in two others. Depends. Don't have a newer unit that you can limit the frequency range of the correction/room setup program, that I'd like to try but don't see a need for a new avr to do so....maybe down the line for a change to 4k/Atmos stuff....then again some people get weird results, as with many things audio YMMV.

In my small living room it sounds worse without Audyssey XT32 mainly due to bass issues, and like you I don't just now see the need for buying a new receiver.

The other room EQ system I'm using is Genelec GLM AutoCal and AutoPhase (subwoofer integration) in my small home office for my two Genelec monitors and Genelec subwoofer, and works pretty well. The Genelec room EQ only cuts and never boost any frequencies, and the adjustments are in lower mids and down.

 

[lovinthehd]

In my small living room it sounds worse without Audyssey XT32 mainly due to bass issues, and like you I don't just now see the need for buying a new receiver.

The other room EQ system I'm using is Genelec GLM AutoCal and AutoPhase (subwoofer integration) in my small home office for my two Genelec monitors and Genelec subwoofer, and works pretty well. The Genelec room EQ only cuts and never boost any frequencies, and the adjustments are in lower mids and down.

I'd love to play with your Genelec stuff! I've never even seen any in person....they do good work by most accounts!

 

[panteragstk]

I don't NEED any sort of RC at all, but I like having it and seeing what real word results it can actually produce. I think for the folks that don't really know much about calibrating their system on their own it can be a life saver or at least make a system sound good where otherwise it wouldn't.

For people with a specific goal RC is also very good as long as you know what you're doing. Some folks don't need it and that's fine. Tons of AVR and Pre/Pro are going to include it whether we use it or not, so why not give it an honest chance? I know many have and have not had stellar results and that's fine. It's not for you.

I voted the first option, but as I said, rather to have and not need, than to need and not have.

 

[Trell]

I don't NEED any sort of RC at all, but I like having it and seeing what real word results it can actually produce. I think for the folks that don't really know much about calibrating their system on their own it can be a life saver or at least make a system sound good where otherwise it wouldn't.

For people with a specific goal RC is also very good as long as you know what you're doing. Some folks don't need it and that's fine. Tons of AVR and Pre/Pro are going to include it whether we use it or not, so why not give it an honest chance? I know many have and have not had stellar results and that's fine. It's not for you.

I voted the first option, but as I said, rather to have and not need, than to need and not have.

At least the levels and distances can be set during automated RC calibration, and setting levels/distances this way is far easier for most than using a sound pressure measurer or a measurement microphone along with REW.

 

[panteragstk]

At least the levels and distances can be set during automated RC calibration, and setting levels/distances this way is far easier for most than using a sound pressure measurer or a measurement microphone along with REW.

Exactly what I'm talking about. Some stuff we all have done since before there was RC in AVRs is not really something random people are used to doing or even know to do.

 

[wgb113]

I believe it can help in 2ch setups once speaker and listener placement has been optimized, mainly for taming bass/room modes. It’s one of the reasons I chose the Anthem STR integrated.

Like Class D amplifiers my hope is that more manufacturers begin building this into their products.

Bill

 

[DJ7675]

So I do not like Audyssey at all, and suspect many of you, if not all, would be better off without it.

Have you used Audyssey XT32 with the app? I had a Denon 6200 (I believe) and used the default Audyssey reference curve. Spent lots of time trying to get it to sound right but never did. It was limited to the default curves and EQing full range. The app removes those 2 limitations. I now have an X8500 and with the app, I am limiting correction to around 500hz and and sound very good to me. Not sure your experience but the App has changed Audyssey from something not very good (IMO) to something that can work very well. I still expect Dirac to probably be better with full range correction but with the App it can work pretty well and is very flexible now.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I guess I am not surprised that some people like Room EQ and some don’t like it.

And within the group who do like certain room EQ‘s, I guess I am not surprised that some think that the EQ for the main front 2CH is salient while some people think every single speaker needs to be SQ, including their ceiling speakers.

Again, my point was that if 2CH EQ is more important than the rest of the speakers, people could just add a standalone Dirac EQ for about $1,000, instead of spending a lot more. But if EQ for even the ceiling speakers are just as important, then I guess not.

 

[lovinthehd]

Some people think Taco Bell is acceptable, too. Personally you'd have to force me.

 

[Trell]

I guess I am not surprised that some people like Room EQ and some don’t like it.

And within the group who do like certain room EQ‘s, I guess I am not surprised that some think that the EQ for the main front 2CH is salient while some people think every single speaker needs to be SQ, including their ceiling speakers.

Again, my point was that if 2CH EQ is more important than the rest of the speakers, people could just add a standalone Dirac EQ for about $1,000, instead of spending a lot more. But if EQ for even the ceiling speakers are just as important, then I guess not.

Why do you want ceiling speakers? With just the bed layer you could save a lot of $$.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Why do you want ceiling speakers? With just the bed layer you could save a lot of $$.

Auto Room EQ does absolutely nothing for me and many other people. All Auto Room EQ suck to me.

So this only pertains to people who feel that Auto EQ does something good for them.

As for ceiling speakers, Atmos sounds so cool in my room, can’t speak for anyone else. If they don’t sound cool to you, then it’s understandable you don’t want them.

Also, I don’t think I’ve seen measurements of Ceiling speakers with and without Auto EQ. But with the type of surround sound effects that come out of all the surround speakers and ceiling speakers, I just don’t see what Auto EQ will do for ambient sounds.

Most of the time, the surrounds and ceilings are just for cool ambient effects. Aircrafts, Thunder, birds, dragons, missiles, things upstairs, etc. They are very cool. But not exactly anywhere near as important as the front speakers and subwoofers.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Some people think Taco Bell is acceptable, too. Personally you'd have to force me.

Yeah my daughter and her friends and cousins eat at Taco Bell all the time. No way I’m eating there. If I’m eating fast food Mexican, it’s gotta be at least Taco Bueno.