audyssey dynamic eq vs Behringer eq

[lsiberian]

Can the DCX help you in the time domain....

Time and Frequency correction:

1. The time domain is where many of the problems reside. Parametric and graphic equalizers can only correct for the frequency response and do so in a very coarse manner because they have limited resolution (bands).
2. Further, whether they have fixed or adjustable bands it does not matter because bands cause phase problems that most people hear as "ringing" or "smearing." This is why, after thirty plus years of trying this method most people don't like the results and turn it off.

How does MultEQ address time and frequency problems?
MultEQ filters start in the time domain. They are not just a few parametric bands. Instead they use several hundred points to represent the room response in both the frequency and time domains. The trick is to use enough filter points to get the needed resolution, but not so many that it overwhelms the processor inside the audio component. So, we came up with a way to reduce the number of points without sacrificing accuracy and a way to provide more filter power at lower frequencies where it is needed the most. MultEQ can correct 8 channels by using only a fraction of a single DSP chip. This gives you the best of both worlds: time and frequency correction. Result--room correction that works for the first time ever.

I was unaware that you were involved in the development of MultiEQ.

I think it's a great system, especially the XT one.

 

[ParadigmDawg]

I sent my DCX back, I like tweaking a little but not enough to really learn the DCX. I am pretty happy just using 8 point AS and a SMS-1 for the sub.

 

[nibhaz]

Correcting for multiple positions isn't difficult.

One simple way to do it is to average all your readings from various listening positions. The more the better. Just depends on how nuts you are.

Use Excel not graph paper. You have a computer for crying out loud use it.

Compute the averages based off all your listening tests. The more you take the more you will converge to the mean of the listening area. Then apply your corrections to the mean.

FYI you can use both a DCX and AS together. In fact it might not be a bad idea to do so.

A DCX isn't required for a Kappa build as long as you use a 20hz high pass filter such as the fmod. You will still probably outperform whatever sub you are currently using. However it is best for integrating the subs. I'm not aware of an AS that can configure 2 subs. The High Pass Filter is a must.

DCX's are very versatile and can do much more than EQ. So if you still want to EQ with AS then by all means do so. Just use the DCX as a crossover and sub integrator.

I'm quite aware that I could simply average multiple readings, what I am really asking is what is the ideal method for an enveloping environment beyond a single position. Simple average, RMS, etc…

AS-EQ1 sub EQ , does two subs, and uses 32 sample points

AS is more than simple self automated EQ

 

[greggp2]

Are there any other options for EQ that are easier to use and cost effective? Please remember, I don't have an auto eq AVR and am really not looking to switch out the Arcam as I just bought it and really like how it sounds.. I'm concerned about the DCX being very difficult to calibrate and sub integration is really not my main concern. I only use the sub for HT and it only plays really low frequency under 40 for my fronts and under 80 for my Center and Rears...

 

[Warpdrv]

I was unaware that you were involved in the development of MultiEQ.

I think it's a great system, especially the XT one.

Not involved with Audyssey in any such way or form... In fact, I have sprung for a competitor... I guess we'll see how it pans out...

I took a leap of faith talking quite a bit with Kal Rubinson of Stereophile, he has spent a good amount of time with Audessey, and Anthems ARC, he splits hairs between both systems.

I ordered an Anthem D2v, still awaiting its arrival.

 

[Mika75]

While I think my ability to differentiate good sound from bad is good, I have trouble listening to something and saying, ok, the front left speaker needs more treble and the front right needs a little more bass...

In what way are u not happy with ur current sound ?

 

[greggp2]

In what way are u not happy with ur current sound ?

I'm really not unhappy at all with my current sound. I think it sounds very good in fact. I'm just always looking for possible ways to make it better...

 

[greggp2]

Not involved with Audyssey in any such way or form... In fact, I have sprung for a competitor... I guess we'll see how it pans out...

I took a leap of faith talking quite a bit with Kal Rubinson of Stereophile, he has spent a good amount of time with Audessey, and Anthems ARC, he splits hairs between both systems.

I ordered an Anthem D2v, still awaiting its arrival.

Warp, isn't this a $7,500 processor? Did you buy this new or pre-owned? Congrats either way. You'll have to let us know how it works out.. Anthem makes some killer gear.

 

[lsiberian]

A DCX is far cheaper than any AS XT available. Though I did have an XT receiver and it was amazing.

 

[nibhaz]

I'm really not unhappy at all with my current sound. I think it sounds very good in fact. I'm just always looking for possible ways to make it better...

Have you considered acoustical room treatments, rather than an EQ?

DIY panels probably represent the best ROI, if you’re already fairly satisfied with the way your system sounds. That would be my first step, and then pursue an EQ option. You’ll get more out of the EQ in a treated room vs. an untreated room.

 

[Warpdrv]

Warp, isn't this a $7,500 processor? Did you buy this new or pre-owned? Congrats either way. You'll have to let us know how it works out.. Anthem makes some killer gear.

Thanks greggp2....

I bought it new..... I got a really fantastic deal from my dealer.

I have been waiting for going on 3 years for a preamp to come out that meets my needs, and I think Anthem finally has that in their lineup.

I guess I was just tired of waiting, and Anthem has a very good upgrade path... I just didn't want to buy another closed box for it to go to the junk pile when I was tired of it...

 

[greggp2]

Have you considered acoustical room treatments, rather than an EQ?

DIY panels probably represent the best ROI, if you’re already fairly satisfied with the way your system sounds. That would be my first step, and then pursue an EQ option. You’ll get more out of the EQ in a treated room vs. an untreated room.

Yes Nibhaz,

I am also looking at acoustical treatments as well. I'm limited though on what I can put into my room due to how the kitchen opens to the Family Room and some very large windows and doors. I also am very limited on where I can put my speakers and how far into the room I am able to put them.. That's why an EQ is something that I think will help me.

 

[greggp2]

Thanks greggp2....

I bought it new..... I got a really fantastic deal from my dealer.

I have been waiting for going on 3 years for a preamp to come out that meets my needs, and I think Anthem finally has that in their lineup.

I guess I was just tired of waiting, and Anthem has a very good upgrade path... I just didn't want to buy another closed box for it to go to the junk pile when I was tired of it...

I hear you. That's one of the reasons I went with the Arcam unit, however the newer Arcam would have been better, but I just didn't want to drop $5000 on a unit right now. So... I'm having to use multi-channel connections for HD audio and would like some type of EQ system that will help me work out Room acoustics. Question is, will an EQ really help with 2 channel stereo as well, or more so with 5.1 channel sound.

 

[WmAx]

Can the DCX help you in the time domain....

Time and Frequency correction:

1. The time domain is where many of the problems reside. Parametric and graphic equalizers can only correct for the frequency response and do so in a very coarse manner because they have limited resolution (bands).
2. Further, whether they have fixed or adjustable bands it does not matter because bands cause phase problems that most people hear as "ringing" or "smearing." This is why, after thirty plus years of trying this method most people don't like the results and turn it off.

How does MultEQ address time and frequency problems?
MultEQ filters start in the time domain. They are not just a few parametric bands. Instead they use several hundred points to represent the room response in both the frequency and time domains. The trick is to use enough filter points to get the needed resolution, but not so many that it overwhelms the processor inside the audio component. So, we came up with a way to reduce the number of points without sacrificing accuracy and a way to provide more filter power at lower frequencies where it is needed the most. MultEQ can correct 8 channels by using only a fraction of a single DSP chip. This gives you the best of both worlds: time and frequency correction. Result--room correction that works for the first time ever.

A lot of the above is what I would refer to as 'slightly exaggerated'. That is, after all, ad/marketing copy I believe you have copied and pasted. The single main strength of the Audessey EQ appears to be the multiple point averaging algorithm.

The answer to the first question, about if the DCX helps in the time domain, is of course 'YES'. The LF range that a sub operates in average size rooms, is a minimum phase (or mostly so) band. The correction of the room response automatically results in correction of the time domain, if you match the room error very closely with very accurate inverse correction filters.

As for time domain above the LF band, I will say right off hand this is best addressed with some physical acoustical corrections. To allow for any correction of room resonances that are not minimum phase, would require complex convolution filters. This works by recording the impulse response of the room at a fixed position, then using an inversed form of this to correct/cancel the room acoustic(s). However, these are most certainly 'head in a vice' corrections. Extremely sensitive to small changes in movement. At least, every piece of literature I have read in regards to this method of correction has admitted eventually to this problem regarding this method of correction. It would appear that the best use for an EQ above the LF range is for simple tonal balance corrections, not attempts to make huge corrections to account for horrible room acoustics. One should be using some level of acoustical treatment to get proper mid-treble behavior in the room. I do recommend use of an EQ for mid-treble use; but only in the capacity that I recommended previously: over-all tonal correction; not attempting to correct for gross room errors in this non minimum phase band.

The DCX is not necessarily limited to single point seating correction. This depends entirely on the software and methodology that you use to set up the DCX. If your software allows for multi-point sampling/measuring and averaging corrections, then this data can be entered into the DCX to account for over-all room correction at multiple points. Remember, the DCX is a manual device. It merely responds to the setting you program into the unit. Most people simply use single point measurements/corrections. I use a single point correction myself, as I only have a single listening position in my dedicated listening room.

-Chris

 

[greggp2]

this sounds to me that I would best be suited trying to treat my room and not worrying much about an EQ. I have averaged my delay already for the 3 main listening positions I sit in and also done the same sound level. I had to set my AVR up for Meters in order to get a more precise set up, as feet only allows for 1 foot adjustments. I don't really have a way to measure it with time, but if I did, that would likely be the most accurate..

As far as 2 channel stereo, it sounds like the DCX will do very little for me, as I listen to most music this way and don't use my Sub... I only use my sub for surround sound, which is for movies and television viewing. I've never really been unhappy having my LFE bypass my main speakers at 40 hz and the center and surrounds at 80. I could likely have my center handle 60 hz, but don't think it would make much difference.

I understand also that introducing pro gear into my system can open up the door to humming and would need a clean box to counter act that.

The above is merely ad/marketing copy.

The answer to the first question, about if the DCX helps in the time domain, is of course 'YES'. The LF range that a sub operates in average size rooms, is a minimum phase (or mostly so) band. The correction of the room response automatically results in correction of the time domain, if you match the room error very closely with very accurate inverse correction filters.

As for time domain above the LF band, I will say right off hand this is best addressed with some physical acoustical corrections. To allow for any correction of room resonances that are not minimum phase, would require complex convolution filters. This works by recording the impulse response of the room at a fixed position, then using an inversed form of this to correct/cancel the room acoustic(s). However, these are most certainly 'head in a vice' corrections. Extremely sensitive to small changes in movement. At least, every piece of literature I have read in regards to this method of correction has admitted eventually to this problem regarding this method of correction. It would appear that the best use for an EQ above the LF range is for simple tonal balance corrections, not attempts to make huge corrections to account for horrible room acoustics. One should be using some level of acoustical treatment to get proper mid-treble behavior in the room. I do recommend use of an EQ for mid-treble use; but only in the capacity that I recommended previously: over-all tonal correction; not attempting to correct for gross room errors in this non minimum phase band.

The DCX is not necessarily limited to single point seating correction. This depends entirely on the software and methodology that you use to set up the DCX. If your software allows for multi-point sampling/measuring and averaging corrections, then this data can be entered into the DCX to account for over-all room correction at multiple points. Remember, the DCX is a manual device. It merely responds to the setting you program into the unit. Most people simply use single point measurements/corrections. I use a single point correction myself, as I only have a single listening position in my dedicated listening room.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

As far as 2 channel stereo, it sounds like the DCX will do very little for me, as I listen to most music this way and don't use my Sub... I only use my sub for surround sound, which is for movies and television viewing. I've never really been unhappy having my LFE bypass my main speakers at 40 hz and the center and surrounds at 80. I could likely have my center handle 60 hz, but don't think it would make much difference.

Actually, the tonal corrections I mentioned will make huge differences in sound quality/realism if used as I specify, even when you have all of the physical room corrections. People do not often realize the large tonal imbalances present in most speakers, especially in case of the baffle step correction level and over-all treble shelf balance. And if you ever wanted to use subwoofers with mains as a seamless addition for music, that enhances SQ, then something like the DCX must be used. Otherwise, a subwoofer can often cause problems. I always recommend at least dual high quality subs of course. The DCX can not only make the transition from main to subs seamless, it can also allow you to dial in the 'tightness' of the sub with specific filter settings. You can make a high quality ported sub for example sound exactly like a low Q sealed sub, but with much higher SPL and lower distortion that a ported sub provides.

I understand also that introducing pro gear into my system can open up the door to humming and would need a clean box to counter act that.

If using a DCX, no ART is needed or recommended by me. At the very most, you might need a passive ground loop isolator. But this is typically not needed. Now, you of course need separate amps if you use a DCX and if they are typical consumer amps with only RCA inputs, you will need to use some Harrison Labs 12dB attenuation adapters that are available from partsexpress.com.

-Chris

 

[nibhaz]

Teach me DCX jedi master

Actually, the tonal corrections I mentioned will make huge differences in sound quality/realism if used as I specify, even when you have all of the physical room corrections. People do not often realize the large tonal imbalances present in most speakers, especially in case of the baffle step correction level and over-all treble shelf balance. And if you ever wanted to use subwoofers with mains as a seamless addition for music, that enhances SQ, then something like the DCX must be used. Otherwise, a subwoofer can often cause problems. I always recommend at least dual high quality subs of course. The DCX can not only make the transition from main to subs seamless, it can also allow you to dial in the 'tightness' of the sub with specific filter settings. You can make a high quality ported sub for example sound exactly like a low Q sealed sub, but with much higher SPL and lower distortion that a ported sub provides.



If using a DCX, no ART is needed or recommended by me. At the very most, you might need a passive ground loop isolator. But this is typically not needed. Now, you of course need separate amps if you use a DCX and if they are typical consumer amps with only RCA inputs, you will need to use some Harrison Labs 12dB attenuation adapters that are available from partsexpress.com.

-Chris

I have no doubt that the DCX in your hands, is an absolutely fabulous and indispensable piece of equipment. But how useful would it be in my hands, the enthusiasts, how much must I teach myself, before it becomes useful to me beyond the LF range? I googled baffle step correction level and while I feel that I have gotten the basic concept, how do I use the DCX to make the correction, without taking a college level math class? I found this equation for baffle step equalization:
f3 = 115 / WB (where WB is the baffle width in meters) here.

An example then follows for a speaker that has a 300mm baffle resulting in a frequency of 383Hz. What is done with this information regards to the DCX’s use? Does it have a script, setting, or software interface that takes this info and applies the appropriate correction, or do I, the enthusiasts, need to do more?

How much of the DCX’s capabilities can harnessed, while just using external software like ETF and True Audio, with the users knowledge being limited to just taking measurement?

 

[jostenmeat]

Have you considered acoustical room treatments, rather than an EQ?

DIY panels probably represent the best ROI, if you’re already fairly satisfied with the way your system sounds. That would be my first step, and then pursue an EQ option. You’ll get more out of the EQ in a treated room vs. an untreated room.

+1 & QFT . . .

 

[greggp2]

+1 & QFT . . .

What is QFT ?

 

[bandphan]

+1 & QFT . . .

Fwiw im still expecting a late summer release of a real time stand alone unit for under 1k. I like the dcx but it took some time for me to use REW, which imo for freeware, is awesome compared to whats out here.