Audyssey MultEQ Test Report for Denon AVR-3806

gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=2><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><A href="http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/AudysseyMultEQDenonAVR3806.php"><IMG style="WIDTH: 125px; HEIGHT: 26px" alt=[aud] hspace=10 src="http://www.audioholics.com/news/thumbs/aud_th.gif" align=left border=0></A>Audyssey’s MultEQ is a sound equalization system that’s finding its way into more and more home theater A/V related products.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>We put the Denon AVR-3806 Audyssey enabled A/V receiver up to the test to determine if it could deliver the sonic goods.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>What we found was a very modest system tonal shift, but a widening of the sweet-spot with enhanced clarity, imaging and localization across the now seamless 3-D soundstage.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Read our test report to get all of the details.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=2><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">[</FONT><A href="http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/AudysseyMultEQDenonAVR3806.php"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Denon AVR-3806 Audyssey Test Report</FONT></A><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">]</FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
 
S

Smackrabbit

Enthusiast
Since I didn't notice it in the review (though I might have missed it), what is Audyssey's reason for the roll-off at the higher end of the frequency spectrum, and why would the recommendation for that be different for movies than music (as you mention using the Flat mode for music instead of Audyssey mode). I'm just waiting for a Denon receiver with HDMI 1.3 next year and then I'll upgrade and hopefully the AudysseyEQ will be even better then.
 
A

audyssey

Enthusiast
The reason for having a high frequency roll-off is the following: at lower frequencies the woofer is nearly omnidirectional and so low frequencies arrive at the microphone from all directions. At higher frequencies, the tweeter is highly directional and sound arrives at the mic from a much more limited range of angles. In fact, at high frequencies the signal at the mic is dominated by the direct path from the tweeter.

What all this means is that the "balance" across the frequency range changes from having nearly equal direct and room sound to having mostly direct sound. The microphone used is omnidirectional and it doesn't "know" about this balance. The high frequency roll-off applied in the Audyssey curve is designed to preserve the direct and room balance.

In a THX receiver, the re-equalization component applies a different type of high frequency roll-off. It is intended to translate the mix made for a large dry room (movie theater or dubbing stage) to a small reverberant room (home theater). When THX is engaged, we recommend using the MultEQ Flat setting so that the re-eq can operate as intended.

In the music industry there are no standards in place for mixing as there are in the film industry where all mixes are made to the X curve. So a good starting point for music is Flat, but depending on the mix, the Audyssey curve may be needed.

Best regards,
Chris
 
S

Smackrabbit

Enthusiast
OK, thanks. So if I have no THX processing, I should use Audyssey mode, and if I do have THX processing, I'll go with Flat mode.
 
krabapple

krabapple

Banned
Nice review. I wasn't clear on two things

1) why were the subs placed directly under the mains?

2) were the speakers all in fact 'large', and if not, what would the result be if they were manually corrected to be 'small'?

Also, would Audioholics consider a 'shoot out' of sorts, comparing the room correction of a high-end Pioneer (Advanced MCACC), Denon (Audyssey), Yamaha (YPAO), and Harman-Kardon (I forget what their system is called), *in the same system/room*?
 
J

joekoz

Audiophyte
Mic position for more than one row.

Chris-
I have a 12" riser for a second row in my theatre. Could you share with me your opinion on mic placement for a 6 seat 2 row theater? Do you think that placing the mic on a tripod, and measuring 3 positions on the riser is a no-no?

Thanks
Joe Koz
 
S

Sleestack

Senior Audioholic
Even in the TACT and DEQx systems, you will see that they use rolloff on the high and low end. Generally, at reference levels, in addition ot other factors, fletcher-munson bbased acoustic principles call for a slight rolloff of those frequencies to achieve the proper tonal balance.

I think it is great that the Audyssey system is being incorporated into Denon products and believe that it is a much needed step in the right direction. Nevertheless, I was a bit disappointed and underwhelmed with the results I heard compared to the TACT and DEQx systems I have tested and use in my setups. It seems that the Audyssey system really only addresses frequency response issues, which limits its impact, especially in a multichannel system.

While I understand that more complex room correction technology requires more processing power and that existing products are out of the price range for normal consumer products, I would think that the reviewers at Audioholics would spend more time studying and learning about those products. They have a dramatic benefical effect on the way a system can sound and really should paint the path for the future of audio. If sound is what you care about, there is no reason not to be looking at and understanding the technology now. It has been out for quite some time and really deserves more attention.

Again though, it is great seeing some form of correction beng incorporated into consumer products, as the Audyssey system certainly improves things, and at the very least, will make more people aware of the concept of room correction.
 
Last edited:
S

Sleestack

Senior Audioholic
krabapple said:
Also, would Audioholics consider a 'shoot out' of sorts, comparing the room correction of a high-end Pioneer (Advanced MCACC), Denon (Audyssey), Yamaha (YPAO), and Harman-Kardon (I forget what their system is called), *in the same system/room*?
A useful comparison that needs to be made would also include the more advanced room correction systems offered by DEQx, TACT and Lyngdorf. It would provide a nice overview of the various approaches to room correction and compare systems that primarily address frequency response issues using sweep tones, to those that do more advanced corrections using data from impulse response measurements.
 
Last edited:
S

Sleestack

Senior Audioholic
Clint DeBoer said:
Maybe when TACT offers a consumer or otherwise more affordable model.
You guys havd reviewed plenty of other gear that is equally, if not more expensive. Also, their 2 channel products really aren't that expensive.
 
A

audyssey

Enthusiast
:p
Sleestack said:
A useful comparison that needs to be made would also include the more advanced room correction systems offered by DEQx, TACT and Lyngdorf. It would provide a nice overview of the various approaches to room correction and compare systems that primarily address frequency response issues using sweep tones, to those that do more advanced corrections using data from impulse response measurements.
Just to clarify: Audyssey is entirely based on impulse response measurements. I can point people to a list of our published technical papers and recent book that "gives away" all the math if anyone is interested. The basis of our correction is to look at frequency and time domains simultaneously using a special implementation of FIR filters. In addition, we have had to develop novel ways of getting these types of filters to fit in a fraction of a DSP chip that is found in consumer gear.

Regards,
Chris
 
A

audyssey

Enthusiast
joekoz said:
Chris-
I have a 12" riser for a second row in my theatre. Could you share with me your opinion on mic placement for a 6 seat 2 row theater? Do you think that placing the mic on a tripod, and measuring 3 positions on the riser is a no-no?

Thanks
Joe Koz
I replied to this on the AVS thread, but I wanted to paste the response here as well.

Hi Joe,

It's very likely that your riser has the same issue that we found in the Audioholics room. The riser is a "cavity" and it has a resonance frequency. Putting the mic stand on the riser transfers low frequency vibrations through the stand to the mic. MultEQ interprets them as low frequency boost and tries to compensate.

Calibrating in 2 rows is standard procedure and highly recommended. However, in the case of a riser I would also highly suggest that the mic is placed on a swing-arm type stand so that the base of the stand is not on the riser. The swing arm can be placed over the riser and the measurements can be taken that way.

Regards,
Chris
 
S

Sleestack

Senior Audioholic
Thanks for the information. I guess I'm just used to hearing the 3 blips rather than the sweeps. Defintely peaks my interest, as at this point, processing power seems to be the biggest barrier for other sytems to be incorporated into consumer products.

Tha being said, I am a bit curious as to the the results I was hearing in my setup with the 5805 v. the TACT and DEQx systems. Admittedly, the owner of the 5805 was doing most of the work, but I am certain he knew what he was doing. I also did not have control of the DEQx setup. I really felt that the results of the Audyssey system were somewhat negligible compared to the TACT and DEQx setups. While the Audyssey did seem to widen the sweet spot as it relates to achieving a balanced frequency response, it seemed to do little to bring the instant coherence to imaging, soundstage and bass response (in addition to frequency response) that the TACT and DEQx setups achieve in a multichannel system.

I really believe room correction is the single most important step for audio and love seeing systems like Audyssey make it to the mainstream. The user interface of systems like TACT and DEQx defintely aren't friendly enough for most people. Nevertheless, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the audible and technical differences between the Audyssey system in the Denon and systems offered by TACT or DEQx. The audible gap seemed pretty wide to me, but I'm wondering if that is just a result of less use control over the correction parameters.

Also, do you think you will ever incorporate the kind of 2nd level fletcher-munson based correction that TACT uses in its new correction system? I have found it extremely useful in my 2.2 system and expect it to be equally beneficial in a multichannel setup. It would seem to be fairly simple to incorporate in any room correction system.

audyssey said:
:p

Just to clarify: Audyssey is entirely based on impulse response measurements. I can point people to a list of our published technical papers and recent book that "gives away" all the math if anyone is interested. The basis of our correction is to look at frequency and time domains simultaneously using a special implementation of FIR filters. In addition, we have had to develop novel ways of getting these types of filters to fit in a fraction of a DSP chip that is found in consumer gear.

Regards,
Chris
 
Last edited:
N

Nick250

Audioholic Samurai
krabapple said:
Nice review. I wasn't clear on two things

1) why were the subs placed directly under the mains?

2) were the speakers all in fact 'large', and if not, what would the result be if they were manually corrected to be 'small'?

Also, would Audioholics consider a 'shoot out' of sorts, comparing the room correction of a high-end Pioneer (Advanced MCACC), Denon (Audyssey), Yamaha (YPAO), and Harman-Kardon (I forget what their system is called), *in the same system/room*?
On my system (below in sig) Audyssey sets everything to large and a 60Hz crossover on mains and 80Hz on the surrounds. Not good. After fiddling with it and many pms with Chris and being involved long threads at AVS, my conclusion is that for most, after running Auto EQ, one should go into settings and change all speakers back to small and all crossovers to 80Hz. No question this is best for my setup. Chris wrote a FAQ that is a big help. It's post 145 I think.

Nick

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7969145#post7969145
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
Nice review. I wasn't clear on two things

1) why were the subs placed directly under the mains?

2) were the speakers all in fact 'large', and if not, what would the result be if they were manually corrected to be 'small'?
1) Mark placed the subs in those positions to over emphasize a dominant room mode and show that Audyssey did actually correct the mode while also NOT trying to boost a problematic room node too.

2) this depends on how the speakers + subwoofer system integrate and if the speakers can handle being set large. You really need a good measurement system to determine this, in conjunction with listening tests. In the case for Mark's Klipsch THX Ultra2 system, its probably best to set all speakers to small and Xover at 80Hz since that was the intent of the system design.

Also, would Audioholics consider a 'shoot out' of sorts, comparing the room correction of a high-end Pioneer (Advanced MCACC), Denon (Audyssey), Yamaha (YPAO), and Harman-Kardon (I forget what their system is called), *in the same system/room*?
Those other systems are single point solutions and really don't have all of the advanced DSP processing, spatial averaging, etc that Audyssey has. I'd rather compare Audyssey to more worthy contenders such as DEQX, TACT and others mentioned in this forum.
 
A

AdrianMills

Full Audioholic
Nice article.

I haven't finished playing with the setup of my 4306 but so far I like what Audyssey does in my room.

Didn't one of the guys here just buy 30 ~cough~ thousand dollars worth of TACT equipment? I mean, seriously, even stupid people like me that throw their disposable incomes around on stuff they don't really need find that sort of money a little extreme for electronics.

But, however fun talking about this stuff is I have another pressing question that is unfortunately totally off topic - what floor plan software was used in the article? I've been trying a few trail versions here and there and they are mostly junk and certainly not worth the asking price. :)
 
S

Sleestack

Senior Audioholic
AdrianMills said:
Nice article.

I haven't finished playing with the setup of my 4306 but so far I like what Audyssey does in my room.

Didn't one of the guys here just buy 30 ~cough~ thousand dollars worth of TACT equipment? I mean, seriously, even stupid people like me that throw their disposable incomes around on stuff they don't really need find that sort of money a little extreme for electronics.

. :)
I think you are a little off base... although I can understand why $30K may seem excessive. I use the exact same setup that guy just bought. A TCSMKII and BOZ216/2200 setup w/ 10 channels of amplification. First, TACT's room correction works much better than the Audyssey system right now and has far greater degree of user control over correction measurements and target curves. It may be that the level of control is the reason for difference in audible reusults. Nevertheless, while the Audyssey system might eventually be developed into the robust system that TACT or DEQx offers, for now, it simply doesn't offer anything close to what people who have been using DEQx or TACt would expect from an advanced room correction system. Second, the BOZ 216/2200amps are unique in their programmability. For people who do external crossovers for each of their speakers and want the ability to change setups on the fly, no other amp fits the bill. They also accept a digital signal from the TCS MKII and route those signals accordingly, which other amps can't do.
 
Last edited:
N

ned

Full Audioholic
Anything else that is available in between the audessy and DEQx or TACt price range?
 
A

AdrianMills

Full Audioholic
Sleestack said:
I think you are a little off base... although I can understand why $30K may seem excessive. I use the exact same setup that guy just bought. A TCSMKII and BOZ216/2200 setup w/ 10 channels of amplification. First, TACT's room correction works much better than the Audyssey system right now and has far greater degree of user control over correction measurements and target curves. It may be that the level of control is the reason for difference in audible reusults. Nevertheless, while the Audyssey system might eventually be developed into the robust system that TACT or DEQx offers, for now, it simply doesn't offer anything close to what people who have been using DEQx or TACt would expect from an advanced room correction system. Second, the BOZ 216/2200amps are unique in their programmability. For people who do external crossovers for each of their speakers and want the ability to change setups on the fly, no other amp fits the bill. They also accept a digital signal from the TCS MKII and route those signals accordingly, which other amps can't do.
Well... given that I only have your word that DEQx and TACt are "better" than Audyssey at room correction I'm not sure if my comment was "a little off base". You see, Audyssey is available in one neat relatively inexpensive package that's simple to use and is "robust" if it's used correctly as far as I can tell.

And yes, $30k worth of kit may be more flexible than a $2K receiver but I would certainly hope so for that kind of money. Having said that, how many HT/HiFi enthusiasts actually need that level of flexibility? 0.1%? 0.01%? 0.001%? Actually, it's probably even less than that, right?
 
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
For the general information here in relation to TACT vs. other equipment, for example:TACT uses convolution for correction of amplitude/phase response, as opposed to coarse[in comparison] equalization bands at discrete points that almost all other correction systems utilize. This allows the TACT system, in effect, to have an infinite number of bands for correction, as opposed to a system based on a parametric system(with a limited number of bands available that must be distributed). For those who do not want to invest in a TACT(I don't know if the DEQx has the same correction method), the same thing can be accomplished on a computer as the playback/control system. Foobar(freeware music play software) has a convolution plug-in available for which you can load and use the appropriate correction impulse. However, the TACT makes this procedure simple. Doing so on the computer at this time takes substantially more effort, and the knowledge of how to create/prepare an appropriate impulse file for correction.

-Chris
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top