Auto Room EQ Good or Bad?

[Suphawut]

well be it Audyssey or without as long as everyone is ok with the setup, i don't see any point debating to prove i'm wrong or right as we don't own the company. LOL... everyday I still get to play with different makes if avr, cables etc. not diff for me. back home for my hifi..
uhmm ya...Anthem will be always the 1 outshine. straight forward user friendly... to add on their higher end models 24/192. ohh thats a bad ass...lots of money needed for a poor guy like me playing mrx 500 & 700 max... damn my life.

 

[Thunder240]

Most down-sample 96/24 or above to 48/24 due to the limitations of their DSP chips.
The top-of-the line Anthem's can process up to 96/24.

- Rich

Yeah, I had a feeling something like that was the case.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lsiberian]

Most down-sample 96/24 or above to 48/24 due to the limitations of their DSP chips.
The top-of-the line Anthem's can process up to 96/24.

Digital stream handling varies from processor to processor. Some think nothing can go wrong in the digital domain, I am not one of them I expect there are implementations where there are no issues.

Don't believe me? USB DAC users try fiddling with the driver choices, Direct Sound, WASAPI, Kernel Streaming. I wish these were indistinguishable

- Rich

Why does the ability to process unnecessary data make a processor better than another.

 

[RichB]

Why does the ability to process unnecessary data make a processor better than another.

If folks are buying music on HDTracks at 96/24 they may be interested in preserving that resolution while adding room correction.
That means they buy a processor that can handle it, so it may matter to sales.

- Rich

 

[lsiberian]

If folks are buying music on HDTracks at 96/24 they may be interested in preserving that resolution while adding room correction.
That means they buy a processor that can handle it, so it may matter to sales.

- Rich

Is this for dog and cat owners?

 

[RichB]

Is this for dog and cat owners?

Only those with money.

I am not going to defend the HD music industry because I don't understand the need for ultra-sonics.
The only thing that sounds rational to me is pushing the filtering further out might be an advantage for some products and an affinity for a particular data-stream that is design specific.
It seems possible that a particular processor could introduce variations in clocking as it passes through 4 DSP's on its way to the DAC.

I had an AV8801 connected to a BDP-105D via 7.1 analog (no DSP processing available), XLR, COAX, TosLink, and HDMI.
My remote was programmed to switch on the fly and each one sounded quite different playing LPCM sources with the AV8801 in Pure Direct mode. HDMI was not my preference. I wish products did not perform this way.

I buy HD recordings for the promise of a better master. If possible, proven by DR database ratings.
Down-sampling to 48K does necessarily have a deleterious effect, however, the opportunity exists.

- Rich

 

[tcarcio]

I have used Mcacc and Audyssey and I prefer Audyssey. Mcacc doesn't touch the sub. I get a much better overall sound with my Onkyo now.

 

[agular]

From Home Theater High Fidelity Bryston Sp3 Review explanation why they do not use "Room Correction" by the way the new Lexicon MC-14 does not use or have "Room correction".

James Tanner, Bryston’s VP of sales and marketing, offers this explanation:

“The problem I see with Digital room correction through ‘EQ’ is that it totally screws up the direct sound vs. the reflected sound coming from the speaker.

When you listen to a speaker in a room you are listening to what we call the ‘power response’ and you hear all the direct sound as well as the reflected sound mixed together. So the listening experience is a combination of all the direct and reflected sound waves in a given room with a given speaker. When you alter the ‘direct sound’ at the speaker using ‘EQ’ it totally changes the relationship between the direct and reflected sound and is a disaster when it comes to ‘time smear’. So the speaker designer has spent years attempting to get flat frequency and phase response from his speaker and we come along and force the speaker to do anything but accurate signal transfer. Also if you are going to use ‘EQ’ try and only ‘reduce’ the ‘peaks’ in the room and not ‘amplify’ the troughs. Amplifying the troughs can play havoc with your speaker drivers’ power handling.

A lot of these newer types of ‘EQ’ products try and average a group of curves taken from many different locations in the room as they are attempting to reduce the negative effects of the single listening chair dilemma. Having a single spot in the room which measures flat but everywhere else in the room measures like crap is not a good result in my opinion. I think you are much better off adjusting the speaker location and using proper room treatments. If all else fails maybe some ‘EQ’ can be used but I would recommend keeping the correction only for the very low bass frequencies and stay away from upper bass, mids and higher frequency ‘EQ’ where room affects are not an issue due to the shorter wavelengths involved. I am hopeful that we will see many more Subwoofers with built in room ‘EQ’ which would be the better solution in my opinion if you are forced to use room correction.

 

[PENG]

From Home Theater High Fidelity Bryston Sp3 Review explanation why they do not use "Room Correction" by the way the new Lexicon MC-14 does not use or have "Room correction".

James Tanner, Bryston’s VP of sales and marketing, offers this explanation:

“The problem I see with Digital room correction through ‘EQ’ is that it totally screws up the direct sound vs. the reflected sound coming from the speaker.

When you listen to a speaker in a room you are listening to what we call the ‘power response’ and you hear all the direct sound as well as the reflected sound mixed together. So the listening experience is a combination of all the direct and reflected sound waves in a given room with a given speaker. When you alter the ‘direct sound’ at the speaker using ‘EQ’ it totally changes the relationship between the direct and reflected sound and is a disaster when it comes to ‘time smear’. So the speaker designer has spent years attempting to get flat frequency and phase response from his speaker and we come along and force the speaker to do anything but accurate signal transfer. Also if you are going to use ‘EQ’ try and only ‘reduce’ the ‘peaks’ in the room and not ‘amplify’ the troughs. Amplifying the troughs can play havoc with your speaker drivers’ power handling.

A lot of these newer types of ‘EQ’ products try and average a group of curves taken from many different locations in the room as they are attempting to reduce the negative effects of the single listening chair dilemma. Having a single spot in the room which measures flat but everywhere else in the room measures like crap is not a good result in my opinion. I think you are much better off adjusting the speaker location and using proper room treatments. If all else fails maybe some ‘EQ’ can be used but I would recommend keeping the correction only for the very low bass frequencies and stay away from upper bass, mids and higher frequency ‘EQ’ where room affects are not an issue due to the shorter wavelengths involved. I am hopeful that we will see many more Subwoofers with built in room ‘EQ’ which would be the better solution in my opinion if you are forced to use room correction.

I have more faith in university research by people who hold relevant PhD than someone from Bryston marketing. I believe some of the current EQ systems are too complicated for marketing people to understand the fundamental concepts. For example, they tend to mix up fuzzy logic, Fourier transform etc., with simple mathematical averaging. I don't doubt Bryston has very in depth knowledge in electronics design but they probably should leave EQ alone to knowledgeable in that field and not making seemingly (not sure if he really has in depth understanding of what he talked about) generic comments.

 

[little wing]

My older receiver uses YPAO that only EQs down to about 62Hz or so, so in addition to using the room correction, I also use the 7.1 analog outs of my Oppo 105 to the multichannel inputs on the receiver. This bypasses ALL processing, and sounds better on some sources. The multi-channal inputs sound a lot cleaner and hence better, with a lot of music. When I switch back and forth between an analog input using room correction and the multi-channal, it's easy to hear the difference in sound. When I get a new reciever, it will probably be the Anthem 710. Although it doesn't have 7.1 inputs, the ARC has a feature that will tell the room correction to only EQ frequencies below say 300Hz and leave the mids and highs alone.

 

[Jeepers]

I think you are much better off adjusting the speaker location and using proper room treatments.

That is not always easy or beneficial in a living room.

 

[PENG]

I wonder when will purist realize the obvious fact that there is no such thing as truly hifi sound. Even if you listen "live" it is still going to depend to certain extent where you sit. It is time to embrace the latest sound processing technologies to just try and get the best possible fidelity, now that accuracy offered by the electronic side of things is no longer a major issue.

 

[lsiberian]

From Home Theater High Fidelity Bryston Sp3 Review explanation why they do not use "Room Correction" by the way the new Lexicon MC-14 does not use or have "Room correction".

James Tanner, Bryston’s VP of sales and marketing, offers this explanation:

“The problem I see with Digital room correction through ‘EQ’ is that it totally screws up the direct sound vs. the reflected sound coming from the speaker."

Auto EQ systems exist because of room reflections it's the exact problem they are designed to address. I see this line as straw man profiteering. We already EQ live performances, singers, instruments and other things why wouldn't we correct the speakers as well.

 

[RichB]

Auto EQ systems exist because of room reflections it's the exact problem they are designed to address. I see this line as straw man profiteering. We already EQ live performances, singers, instruments and other things why wouldn't we correct the speakers as well.

Auto EQ systems also correct bass response.
For companies that include REQ, it is indispensable.
For companies that do not, it is superfluous.

When measuring response in my room the OmniMic2 has consistent measurements for bass response but the upper frequencies can vary wildly with small movements of the mic.
Multi-point measurements should reduce the corrections made to the upper frequencies to avoid over correction for one location.
So in the end, it may be produce a similar result to a system that concentrated on the low frequencies to begin with.

If your room sounds like a bathroom, get some rugs, REQ cannot fix that problem.
But if you like karaoke, your all set.

- Rich

 

[lsiberian]

Auto EQ systems also correct bass response.
For companies that include REQ, it is indispensable.
For companies that do not, it is superfluous.

When measuring response in my room the OmniMic2 has consistent measurements for bass response but the upper frequencies can vary wildly with small movements of the mic.
Multi-point measurements should reduce the corrections made to the upper frequencies to avoid over correction for one location.
So in the end, it may be produce a similar result to a system that concentrated on the low frequencies to begin with.

If your room sounds like a bathroom, get some rugs, REQ cannot fix that problem.
But if you like karaoke, your all set.

- Rich

gotta EQ for the cat you know. I sound amazing in the shower.

 

[RichB]

There was an excellent thread and initial post by SyntheticShrimp (AVSForum) that is worth reading.

"Should we be recommending Audyssey so much?"

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1508694-should-we-recommending-audyssey-so-much.html

Cliff notes:
•Midrange compensation may be robbing your speakers of the natural timbre that your speaker designers worked so hard for.
•The target curve that Audyssey uses is probably making your speakers sound thin.
•Above the transition frequency you are equalizing the loudspeaker. If this is done based on in-room measurements it could do more harm than good.

The concept is normal speaker measurements of a flat speaker will produce a downward slope in-room.
Humans can hear direct and reflected sound in a way that is not captured by a monophonic mic.
As a result, equalizing flat in-room can result in perceived sound that is thin and bright.

This matches my experience thus far with Audyssey XT32.

- Rich

 

[PENG]

The concept is normal speaker measurements of a flat speaker will produce a downward slope in-room.
Humans can hear direct and reflected sound in a way that is not captured by a monophonic mic.
As a result, equalizing flat in-room can result in perceived sound that is thin and bright.

This matches my experience thus far with Audyssey XT32.

- Rich

It does not match mine at all. XT32 sounds fine in my room, even XT did. Be honest, most of us don't have the knowledge to understand how some sophisticated EQ systems (ARC, Dirac, Audyssey et.) work, other than the basic concepts, probably not even the concepts at least not completely. I like the way Audyssey quoted, ....years of research.... I won't ditch them just yet simply because someone else personal/subjective experience. As they say, YMMV and I fully respect that..

 

[RichB]

It does not match mine at all. XT32 sounds fine in my room, even XT did. Be honest, most of us don't have the knowledge to understand how some sophisticated EQ systems (ARC, Dirac, Audyssey et.) work, other than the basic concepts, probably not even the concepts at least not completely. I like the way Audyssey quoted, ....years of research.... I won't ditch them just yet simply because someone else personal/subjective experience. As they say, YMMV and I fully respect that..

Me too. I have heard and measured Audyssey performing well on a friends AVP XT32 and Focal 1038be's. I am not sure which settings he used but a large hump at 100hz was flattened out.

I should have said, that matches my experience with my system

- Rich

 

[TLS Guy]

It does not match mine at all. XT32 sounds fine in my room, even XT did. Be honest, most of us don't have the knowledge to understand how some sophisticated EQ systems (ARC, Dirac, Audyssey et.) work, other than the basic concepts, probably not even the concepts at least not completely. I like the way Audyssey quoted, ....years of research.... I won't ditch them just yet simply because someone else personal/subjective experience. As they say, YMMV and I fully respect that..

I agree with Rich. Audyssey room correction really mucks my systems up. They sound bright and edgy with any of their algorithms.

It wants to boost the HF which is not appropriate. I design and build very flat speakers. I don't personally believe the algorithms are that sophisticated. I can tell you it boosts HF in proportion to the distance of the mic from the speaker. I have verified that numerous times. That is just plain wrong. HF falls with distance and it should. This is because the proportion of indirect sound to direct sound increases with distance. So obviously HF will fall at the testing microphone with increasing distance form the source. It is just wrong and undesirable to correct for this. To me it sounds very unpleasant. I suppose some might like it, and so be it. But to me these frequency correction programs in the HF arena are just a total nonsense. Treating nuisance room modes might have some merit, but I don't use them as my listening room sounds just fine. I totally agree with Bryston on this.

 

[PENG]

I agree with Rich. Audyssey room correction really mucks my systems up. They sound bright and edgy with any of their algorithms.

I agree with him too as there is nothing to disagree about when someone posts his own experience. I just wanted it clear that he was reporting his own subjective (just the "thin" part, unless back with measurements) experience in his own set up, not stating it as a matter of proven facts. He has since clarified that and I really appreciate it.

It wants to boost the HF which is not appropriate. I design and build very flat speakers. I don't personally believe the algorithms are that sophisticated. I can tell you it boosts HF in proportion to the distance of the mic from the speaker. I have verified that numerous times. That is just plain wrong. HF falls with distance and it should. This is because the proportion of indirect sound to direct sound increases with distance. So obviously HF will fall at the testing microphone with increasing distance form the source. It is just wrong and undesirable to correct for this. To me it sounds very unpleasant. I suppose some might like it, and so be it. But to me these frequency correction programs in the HF arena are just a total nonsense. Treating nuisance room modes might have some merit, but I don't use them as my listening room sounds just fine. I totally agree with Bryston on this.

May be there is something else wrong causing your issues with your Audyssey setup as it does not do that in my system. I have plotted many before/after comparison graphs after reading about other's negative experiences and found that my XT32 runs are quite consistent. It consistently flattened the response at my sitting positions, but to a much lesser degree in the higher frequency range.

I suggest you report your findings to some of the Audyssey founders such as Prof. Kyriakakis, following are from Wiki with links.

" Audyssey was created in 2002 as a spin-off from the USC Integrated Media Systems Center, the National Science Foundation engineering research center at the University of Southern California.[1] It was founded by Prof.Chris Kyriakakis from the USC Viterbi School of Engineering and Prof.Tomlinson Holman from the USC School of Cinematic Arts along with two former USC students and researchers, Dr. Sunil Bharitkar and Philip Hilmes."

I have asked Prof. Chris questions at the Audyssey website before and he used to answer questions himself but apparently not any more. I assume you can still reach him via email directly. http://ee.usc.edu/faculty_staff/faculty_directory/kyriakakis.htm)
By the way, in my setup it does not seem to touch the mids and highs in the flat mode. I posted a couple of before and after frequency response graphs in another thread.