Audyssey vs SPL Meter

[engtaz]

I have been hearing a few people complain about Audyssey Multi EQ setup problems and they recommend using SPL Meter for better results. Is there truth to this?

Thanks

 

[jostenmeat]

I have been hearing a few people complain about Audyssey Multi EQ setup problems and they recommend using SPL Meter for better results. Is there truth to this?

Thanks

Well, that's a complex question. You only use the MEQ mic for running MEQ. For an SPL meter, depending on which one too (some are much better than others), it all depends on the method.

If you are running REW or some other software, with multiple positions, correlating all of the data, laptop, etc, I can see people preferring what they do (but sometimes they don't, and still prefer MEQ).

If OTOH, you are simply talking about one position, just using simple receiver db trims, then no I don't think the SPL meter is better.

Danley folks were really talking crap about the RS meter, but they probably use very expensive things, and they probably think the MEQ meter is crap too for all I know. I do know that the MEQ mic is actually more accurate in the bass than the RS meters.

MEQ also accounts for delay too (combination of physical + electrical).

Anyways, it all depends on the method.

 

[Tubamark]

Well, that's a complex question. You only use the MEQ mic for running MEQ. For an SPL meter, depending on which one too (some are much better than others), it all depends on the method.

If you are running REW or some other software, with multiple positions, correlating all of the data, laptop, etc, I can see people preferring what they do (but sometimes they don't, and still prefer MEQ).

If OTOH, you are simply talking about one position, just using simple receiver db trims, then no I don't think the SPL meter is better.

Danley folks were really talking crap about the RS meter, but they probably use very expensive things, and they probably think the MEQ meter is crap too for all I know. I do know that the MEQ mic is actually more accurate in the bass than the RS meters.

MEQ also accounts for delay too (combination of physical + electrical).

Anyways, it all depends on the method.

The Audyssey Mic is likely no 'better' than the RS meter. The difference is that MEQ is a complete system that compensates for the microphone's natural response.

Most software packages enable you to put a mic calibration file in that compensates for the mic's response, but your results will ultimately only be as accurate as the data you put in.

Nearly any omni mic can be used for measurement purposes, if all of its response deviations are accounted for. Obviously starting with a flat mic response in the first place is always preferable.

In the end, the mic placement and understanding how to interpret data is as, and often more, important than mic quality.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Danley folks were really talking crap about the RS meter, but they probably use very expensive things, and they probably think the MEQ meter is crap too for all I know. I do know that the MEQ mic is actually more accurate in the bass than the RS meters.

+1
I seen measurements done with several different RS SPL meters and none of them really any useful below 40hz or above about 16khz. Using mic calibration file helps a bit but imo YMMV and to get true highly precise results you do need much more expensive mic. I think Danley folks have good reasons to ***** about these cheap units since their equipment can surely perform well above the limitations of RS meters... just my 2c

Now regarding the MEQ Mic included with your AVR - well, I don't think it could too precise probably due to overall budget of AVR. Probably this mic cost to manufactures is well below dollar - The question is how good could it be...

 

[digicidal]

Now regarding the MEQ Mic included with your AVR - well, I don't think it could too precise probably due to overall budget of AVR. Probably this mic cost to manufactures is well below dollar - The question is how good could it be...

That's logical - I guess a secondary question would be: would using a much better mic with the Audyssey implementation in the AVR make any improvements at all or merely reflect the different characteristics of new mic over the 'expected' cheap one? (i.e. since the cheap mic is assumedly the one for which the Audyssey implemenation is calibrated in firmware - would having more range at the mic even be useful to the algorithms?). I'm guessing not in the case of the AVR - and definitely in the case of the pro version running on a laptop with calibration capabilities.

It might even sound WORSE to use a better mic with the AVR's version I would guess.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

That's logical - I guess a secondary question would be: would using a much better mic with the Audyssey implementation in the AVR make any improvements at all or merely reflect the different characteristics of new mic over the 'expected' cheap one? (i.e. since the cheap mic is assumedly the one for which the Audyssey implemenation is calibrated in firmware - would having more range at the mic even be useful to the algorithms?). I'm guessing not in the case of the AVR - and definitely in the case of the pro version running on a laptop with calibration capabilities.

It might even sound WORSE to use a better mic with the AVR's version I would guess.

It's been mentioned several times before - You can't mix and match your AVR measurement microphone as your AVR calibrates results based on specific mic profile and calibration data they have built in. Replacing this mic will throw off automatically measured data.