Audyssey MultEQ Pro Sound Equalizer Review

[plhart]

Why can't be done on the correction level. All you would have to do is incorporate the software that allows for it. I'm not sure if the physical design of the Pro allows for mixing and designation of channels, but if it does a software program could handle all crossovers and mixing for more user control over those parameters.

If the Audyssey Sound Equalizer were also a complete pre-pro this funneling of information would of course be all done on the "correction" internal-to-the-software level. Other modifications might of course have to be made input switching-wise to such a pre-pro to accommodate this simpler-for-an-installer calculation. The bottom line here is why try to design a unit for all possible configurations? That would just increase the cost of the unit. Note: Audyssey is in the business of getting its revolutionary technology out to widest audience possible through licensing, not through competing with its licensees by making their own pre-pros.

I don’t believe Audyssey has yet announced how MultEQ Pro will be implemented in the Denon, Crestron and NAD pieces. I have been told by Mike Thuresson that (internally) Audyssey is still strategizing on the best way to explain the differences between their flagship Audyssey Sound Equalizer and the MultEQ Pro implementation in the units of their licensees. That info, Mike says will be available at CES in Las Vegas in a couple of weeks.

 

[Sleestack]

The bottom line here is why try to design a unit for all possible configurations? That would just increase the cost of the unit. Note: Audyssey is in the business of getting its revolutionary technology out to widest audience possible through licensing, not through competing with its licensees by making their own pre-pros.

I don’t believe Audyssey has yet announced how MultEQ Pro will be implemented in the Denon, Crestron and NAD pieces. I have been told by Mike Thuresson that (internally) Audyssey is still strategizing on the best way to explain the differences between their flagship Audyssey Sound Equalizer and the MultEQ Pro implementation in the units of their licensees. That info, Mike says will be available at CES in Las Vegas in a couple of weeks.

There's no reason a product like the Audyssey Sound Equalizer has to be limited in functionality. It could do crossovers and bass signal routing without getting in the way of their licensees. It would add to the control of that system and would only require appropriate software. Of course, ideally, this increased control would be available at the preamp.

As for their product integrated into other manufacturer's pieces, I think that's great. I'm sure the benefits are tremendous for most and I am very interested in their standalone technology. Nevertheless, I was hoping to see their system in an audio focused pre/pro that has more versatility, including things like discrete digital outs, AES inputs/ouputs and increased control over correction parameters and verification of correction through visual software. Increased versatility only allows for more choices in setup. I would love to see their technology in product similar to the RCS 2.2.XP. I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't, including Audyssey.

 

[Sleestack]

In the case of the "target curve" and from my 35+ years of speaker design I believe that the Audyssey curve (which has never been exactly defined as it it part of their muli-patented system) is very, very similar to screen shot you show from your Tact system. The difference is the Audyssey guys can continue to "tweak" their curve for better performance based on information gleaned from feed back from installers.

I'm not sure why he would say this. It would be completely incorrect. This can be done visually on any scale with the TACT software. You get instant feedback and visual confirmation of corrections. You can design curves to account for minor or major dips at a very detailed level. You SHOULD design different curves for various volumes. If you aren't comfortable designing your own curves, you could send your files to TACT, but who wants to do that? You learn so much by being able to see your curves, make minor adjustments and hear the results. While the underlying technology is complicated, the application definitely isn't if provided the right tools. They could implement an advanced user software based option in addition to their current interface.

 

[plhart]

I'd suggest reading everything you can including Audyssey's White Paper and perhaps all the JAES, IEEE and JAS papers on the subject. The Audyssey system is a completed product which takes all sub-to-satellite crossover functions, "the splice", frequency and phase response, at the listening positions(the listening bubble) into account. It's software then takes the psychoacoustics of human hearing vs. frequency and phase also into account and crunches numbers working on hundreds of "what-if's" for every position (at 180 readings per position) for every frequency. It is a totally automatic system designed to take lack of human acoustical knowledge out of its use.

Installers need a system which is as easy to use as cutting out sheetrock. Note though that both cutting out sheetrock and running a piece of test equipment have the same caveat for use. That is, you need to have some idea of what to expect as a result and take steps beforehand so that you don't screw up someones wall which just might happen to have a vent pipe or electrical conduit right behind where you want to cut. It takes years to learn how to think and evaluate like this in the acoustic and psychoacoustic realm.

I consider Tact a development system sold to consumers whose results are determinate on the user's experience with test gear both in anechoic and non-anechoic environments. Most people who get their hands on this type of gear quickly learn to use smoothing to make the graph look readable. That's because they're so eager to prove to themselves how smart they are they don't realize how much information the smoothing may or may not have thrown away.

Any piece of equipment can give you a graph, but do you know what the graph is saying? Do you know for instance what part of the frequency response graph you're reading is directly from the speakers and how much of that response contains reflections? And how does the software distinquish? It's not an anechoic environment. Tact IMHO is a system for tweakers. Keep playing with the basic measurement tools if it floats your boat. They are good for learning. And figuring out this highly complex and heretofore "unsolveable" problem, that of distinguishing between direct and reflected sound within a room is but one of the technologies incorporated into the Audyssey system.

 

[Sleestack]

I'd suggest reading everything you can including Audyssey's White Paper and perhaps all the JAES, IEEE and JAS papers on the subject. The Audyssey system is a completed product which takes all sub-to-satellite crossover functions, "the splice", frequency and phase response, at the listening positions(the listening bubble) into account. It's software then takes the psychoacoustics of human hearing vs. frequency and phase also into account and crunches numbers working on hundreds of "what-if's" for every position (at 180 readings per position) for every frequency. It is a totally automatic system designed to take lack of human acoustical knowledge out of its use.

Any piece of equipment can give you a graph, but do you know what the graph is saying? Do you know for instance what part of the frequency response graph you're reading is directly from the speakers and how much of that response contains reflections? And how does the software distinquish? It's not an anechoic environment. Tact IMHO is a system for tweakers. Keep playing with the basic measurement tools if it floats your boat. They are good for learning. And figuring out this highly complex and heretofore "unsolveable" problem, that of distinguishing between direct and reflected sound within a room is but one of the technologies incorporated into the Audyssey system.

I suggest you get more experience with various room correction systems in order to make informed comments.

Have you ever used a TACT system? I know you say you have, but you don't seem to know anything about the software, which tells me you didn't know how to use the system. I have had TACT, DEQx and the Audyssey on the 5805 in my system. Have you? The Audyssey system does not allow for the kind of crossover control I'm talking about. If you used the TACT system you would know that. If you like your bottle fed to you that's just fine, but unless you have experience with each system, I don't think you're in any position to be talking about what the system can and can't achieve. The TACT sytems allow more user control and IMO compared to the system in the 5805, yields better results. I will form a judgment on the Sound Equalizer after I have had the time to use it.

If you want automatic correction TACT's new products have that too... or did you not realize that? There's no reason an Audyssey system can't have an automatic and software based option as well.

You are making assumptions about the TACT sytem and software. I hope those assumptions are based on something other than conjecture and second hand information. For me, I'd rather have perfection at one spot, than compromised correction at multiple spots. That's what I heard using the Audyssey system in the 5805, but my experience with their systems is limited. I'm not sure they or anyone understands psychoacoustics enough to accurately deisgn for it in a system. Also, do you really believe you can have perfect imaging in more than one spot? Explain to me how that would work.

 

[Sleestack]

Installers need a system which is as easy to use as cutting out sheetrock. Note though that both cutting out sheetrock and running a piece of test equipment have the same caveat for use. That is, you need to have some idea of what to expect as a result and take steps beforehand so that you don't screw up someones wall which just might happen to have a vent pipe or electrical conduit right behind where you want to cut. It takes years to learn how to think and evaluate like this in the acoustic and psychoacoustic realm.

.

There are plenty of installers who are very adept at using the TACT systems and install them in many homes. Maybe you should just use an installer with more DRC experience. Room correction has been out there for more than 10 years. Just because some users/installers are late to the game doesn't mean everyone needs their hand held.

 

[Sleestack]

Please let me know where you’ve found Audyssey “marketing that they are the first company to deal with time alignment”.

The term “time alignment” has always been used in reference to the horizontal (x-axis) difference in the vertical (y-axis) alignment between various transducers on the baffle (or baffles) of a speaker system. Since the Audyssey MultEQ technologies are technologies and not speaker systems I’m quite interested in where your claims of “false advertising” and “dealing with time alignment” emanate.

Time domain not time alignment. Read what you quoted.

Time "alignment" as the term is used by correction companies is not what you are talking about. Look into that as well.

From their website:

"There are two types of systems out there today:

1) Those that attempt to correct for only one seat in the room. This typically makes other seats in the room sound worse because a single measurement does not provide an accurate representation of the problems of the entire room.
...
In either case, these systems only attempt to correct frequency response problems and not time domain problems and this leaves a big part of the problem unsolved."

Just not true.

 

[Sleestack]

Most people who get their hands on this type of gear quickly learn to use smoothing to make the graph look readable. That's because they're so eager to prove to themselves how smart they are they don't realize how much information the smoothing may or may not have thrown away.

You say this based on what? Do you spend time on TACT user forums? I guess you have talked to a majority of TACT users. It's a rather ignorant generalization and completely unprofessional.

Any piece of equipment can give you a graph, but do you know what the graph is saying? Do you know for instance what part of the frequency response graph you're reading is directly from the speakers and how much of that response contains reflections? And how does the software distinquish? .

You do realize there is a separate impulse response screen?

Graphs... I guess those tiny smoothed out graphs you posted in your review tell you a whole lot.

 

[Audioholics]

If ya'll would stop being condescending to each other and presumptive this could be a pretty interesting discussion.

 

[Sleestack]

If ya'll would stop being condescending to each other and presumptive this could be a pretty interesting discussion.

Hey, he's your guy. What exactly have I presumed? I have clearly stated that I am looking forward to trying the Sound Equalizer and support Audyssey's efforts to bring DRC to every audio enthusiast. I have used room correction technology for several years and simply found the 5805's correction system lacking in certain areas. Don't you think my experience with DRC might offer some valid user input? I'm just looking for the most effective and versatile system and hope Audyssey can deliver that in their standalone system.

He's obviously just out to support the Audyssey system, which is fine, but is also making many remarks that make it clear he doesn't have any real experience with the TACT systems, even though he talks like he does. I'm just stating opinions and trying to provide accurate information where he hasn't, which is in several cases. Aren't we trying to "discover the truth?"

 

[plhart]

See why I seldom deign to participate on these forums Clint? Angry people resorting to personal attacks based on accusations they have no way of substantiating. Please let your other readers know that for the record I bought one of the very first Tact systems ever produced, to be used for speaker development, when I was at Senior Loudspeaker Engineer for Alesis Studio Electronics.

At Alesis I was able to compare the Tact with LMS, Sys ID and MLSSA all at the same time since we had all systems available to us. I stayed in fairly constant contact with Tact’s two main designers because they wanted feedback from professionals on how their system could be improved versus their competition.

I realize that the Tact system has had new designers and that changes have been added since when I had the system 10 years ago. That’s why I made it a point to speak with the current designer at the last CES, so I could understand exactly how he has programmed the system to differentiate direct sounds versus reflected sounds when testing within a room environment. From the answers the gentleman who claimed to be the system’s current designer gave (and IMHO) the Tact system of today may actually be less accurate than before.

On a modus operandi note: To test any new system’s measurement accuracy, under any given condition, I’ll always cross-check and correlate the frequency response graph, with several other graphs including phase, impedance, 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion and group delay. There are other measures that can be investigated too but back to the main point. These are measurement systems. Period. They take knowledgable engineers to set-up and run. It's tough to sell something so complex to the few who know how to translate the results to something useful for a customer. Customers hate paying for someone's time. That's why a simple to use and non-time consuming truly comprehensive and easily repeatable in its effectiveness solution is far more preferable to far more people, installers and their customers alike.

See ya later, Clint. I had thought this was a forum for information exchange, and friendly, helpful advice. I’ve never seen this kind of disrespectful ranting and personal attacks when professionals get together for an AES meeting. Nor have I heard it from retail store owners whose sound rooms I’ve designed from scratch for great sound. Go figure.

 

[Sleestack]

See why I seldom deign to participate on these forums Clint? Angry people resorting to personal attacks based on accusations they have no way of substantiating. Please let your other readers know that for the record I bought one of the very first Tact systems ever produced, to be used for speaker development, when I was at Senior Loudspeaker Engineer for Alesis Studio Electronics.

I realize that the Tact system has had new designers and that changes have been added since when I had the system 10 years ago. That’s why I made it a point to speak with the current designer at the last CES, so I could understand exactly how he has programmed the system to differentiate direct sounds versus reflected sounds when testing within a room environment. From the answers the gentleman who claimed to be the system’s current designer gave (and IMHO) the Tact system of today may actually be less accurate than before.

Who's the angry one? Pleading to Clint to help you? Please don't play the victim unless you think people can't read.

LOL. So you had experience with TACT ten years ago? Four generations of products ago? And you know nothing about their current product except something you heard from someone you think is the current designer? How can you not know who Boz is? Anyone in the DRC game knows who he is. You must know Peter Lyngdorf personally too?

Based on this conversation you had with someone who most definitely should have been Boz, you have concluded that the new correction system may be worse than the one from ten years ago? What was it exactly that made you conclude that? Details please. I think you should make sure it was Boz b/c there is no reason anyone should be claiming to be the engineer except Boz.

So everything you have said about the TACT systems in this thread is based on an experience you had 10 years ago and a conversation with, possibly, Boz? You have no hands on experience with their products since then and you have nothing to say about all your misinformation? You clearly don't know or remember anything about their software.

Do I even really need to say anything else? Whatever your current credentials may be, why would anything you have said about the TACT systems be considered credible or relevant?

On top of it all, and very importantly, the fact that you were a reviewer of the Audyssey system on this site makes it, once again, highly unprofessional.

 

[oliverlim]

I'm not sure they or anyone understands psychoacoustics enough to accurately deisgn for it in a system. Also, do you really believe you can have perfect imaging in more than one spot? Explain to me how that would work.

I have this system for about 2 weeks now. I also do not understand how it does it. But everyone who has heard the before and after on my system is amazed. I have measured the before and after using Room EQ Wizard with my Berhinger Mic. The system can actually EQ all the positions in a area better at the same time. At 1/24, 1/12 or 1/6 or 1/3 it makes no difference. It obviously improves the area over my whole 3 seater sofa. Oh ya, and I could do away with my 2 units of SMS-1 as it integrated my 5.2 system fantastically better then my tweaking with phase and crossover.

Yes I also wish they could have implemented a more tweakable unit. Even one which does not rely on your pre/processor for delays and crossovers. It does seem that maybe the soon to be available 580X denon unit which is also base on the Pro version might actually be more tweakable then this unit. We will see how Audyssey actually manages to keep this unit as their flagship unit when new Denon recievers comes out.

Please note that this unit is still going to be much cheaper then a TACT unit. Yes you still need a processor. But a unit like the Rotel 1068 or any of the recievers that has preout and amp in can also be used. It would still be much cheaper then the TACT 7.1 channel model. All I am saying both TACT and Audyssey have their market. The Audyssey has improved both my Stereo and HT system by leaps and bounds. The panning and surrounds and integration in my 5.1 system now is so much better then before. Everything sounds seamless, even though my front 3 and surrounds are using different brands of speakers.

Oliver

 

[Sleestack]

I don't doubt that it has made huge improvements for you. I am always happy to hear about someone who has discovered the benefits of DRC. Everyone should be amazed at what a corrected system can do for you, and I have also had many people listen to my uncorrected and corrected system who were shocked by the difference. I heard major improvements with the 5805, but I just wasn't overly impressed. I have said in the past, that may be due to lack of user control. You are totally correct about the 2 companies having different markets and business strategies, but they re in the pro/high-end market now w/ their Sound Equalizer. I support Audyssey's efforts to make correction affordable to everyone, but I had just hoped their professional model would give me the verstility I need. Even paired with high end separates, I can't get the versatility in configuration that I want, especially as it relates to crossovers.

My point about pyschoacoustics was simply that the area of human perception is hardly completely understood so I'm not sure how it can be precisely accounted for in a system. Some theories and models may be applied (and TACT does some of that too), but I'd like to hear anyone tell me they fully understand human perception as it relates to sound, and can precisely account for differences between various people. That isn't to say it doesn't help to try. My comment about imaging was simply that while you might expand or average out the sweet spot for certain things, there is no way you can get the same imaging from 3 different locations at the same time. Try it. My ears don't allow for it.

Lastly, I just wanted to clarify some misinformation given by plhart with respect to TACT, and Audyssey's claim about being the first company to incorporate time domain correction, which is completely incorrect. The fact that plhart reviewed the Audyssey system for this site, that this site is obviously promoting the system and has yet to examine and review any other legitimate DRC system, makes it very irresponsible for plhart to be providing blatant misinformation and making disparaging remarks about a competing system and its users. It is a disservice to members and certainly professionally disrespectful to TACT, a company that has been in the DRC game for 10 years and might know a thing or two about DRC. While my tone may have been combative (as was his), I think you will see that I only offered opinions, and didn't have to rely on misinformation and credentials just to support a tenuous point.

I have this system for about 2 weeks now. I also do not understand how it does it. But everyone who has heard the before and after on my system is amazed. I have measured the before and after using Room EQ Wizard with my Berhinger Mic. The system can actually EQ all the positions in a area better at the same time. At 1/24, 1/12 or 1/6 or 1/3 it makes no difference. It obviously improves the area over my whole 3 seater sofa. Oh ya, and I could do away with my 2 units of SMS-1 as it integrated my 5.2 system fantastically better then my tweaking with phase and crossover.

Yes I also wish they could have implemented a more tweakable unit. Even one which does not rely on your pre/processor for delays and crossovers. It does seem that maybe the soon to be available 580X denon unit which is also base on the Pro version might actually be more tweakable then this unit. We will see how Audyssey actually manages to keep this unit as their flagship unit when new Denon recievers comes out.

Please note that this unit is still going to be much cheaper then a TACT unit. Yes you still need a processor. But a unit like the Rotel 1068 or any of the recievers that has preout and amp in can also be used. It would still be much cheaper then the TACT 7.1 channel model. All I am saying both TACT and Audyssey have their market. The Audyssey has improved both my Stereo and HT system by leaps and bounds. The panning and surrounds and integration in my 5.1 system now is so much better then before. Everything sounds seamless, even though my front 3 and surrounds are using different brands of speakers.

Oliver

 

[Audioholics]

As I mentioned, you're both at fault and seem incapable of having a reasonable discussion. I don't need pleading for sympathy, and I don't need to be accused of having particular interests based on which products I am able to schedule for review.

Ridiculous. Thread closed.