Do we really need Audyssey MultEQ xt32? Smart decision??? What I hear ...

[avengineer]

Omni Mic has a calibration file available. The format is a bit different than what REW wants, but it should be convertible.

Just a couple of other comments, though:
Hand-holding a mic during a sweep test will yield results that will be somewhat random, especially at the top end, regardless of software used. A stand of some sort is necessary.
Making any sort of judgement of a single mic position measurement would be misleading. With sweeps in REW, you need to average several from somewhat different mic positions, or you'll be fretting about a single-point anomaly. Smoothing is not the same as averaging multiple measurements.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The Revel Salons are excellent full-range loudspeakers, we have known Mark the chief Revel engineer for many years.
My concern would be the accuracy of the Omni Microphone...
As you know the Audyssey Pro kit is 10x higher in cost. It would be informative to see a frequency response for the Omni Mic itself taken in an open field or anchoeic chamber. But in reviewing their website (Omni Mic) we failed to find this information. I like the various options in their software but its accuracy really starts with the microphone..

Just my $0.02...

If I upgrade the Denon AVP-A1HDCI to Audyssey XT32 ($1099 cost) they say it includes Audyssey Pro. Does that mean it includes the actual Audyssey Pro Kit that you are talking about?

 

[Irvrobinson]

Omni Mic has a calibration file available. The format is a bit different than what REW wants, but it should be convertible.

Just a couple of other comments, though:
Hand-holding a mic during a sweep test will yield results that will be somewhat random, especially at the top end, regardless of software used. A stand of some sort is necessary.
Making any sort of judgement of a single mic position measurement would be misleading. With sweeps in REW, you need to average several from somewhat different mic positions, or you'll be fretting about a single-point anomaly. Smoothing is not the same as averaging multiple measurements.

Yup, OmniMic includes calibration files.

Regarding single-point measurements, agreed, but focusing on one's primary listening position gives you a more accurate indication of what you'll hear, warts and all. I think averaging gives people more of a feel-good curve than a good representation of what they hear. Everyone wants to see a nice, smooth +/-5db plot, but reality is often a lot messier, especially in small rooms.

 

[JonnyFive23517]

I do like the fact that I can hear the bass better even at low volume w/ Dynamic EQ.

This is a major reason why I like DEQ, I can listen at low volumes and still enjoy solid bass hits in movies.

 

[JonnyFive23517]

If I upgrade the Denon AVP-A1HDCI to Audyssey XT32 ($1099 cost) they say it includes Audyssey Pro. Does that mean it includes the actual Audyssey Pro Kit that you are talking about?

No, you have to buy the kit and license separately. I think it's about $550 for the kit + $150 for the license.

 

[avengineer]

Yup, OmniMic includes calibration files.

Regarding single-point measurements, agreed, but focusing on one's primary listening position gives you a more accurate indication of what you'll hear, warts and all. I think averaging gives people more of a feel-good curve than a good representation of what they hear. Everyone wants to see a nice, smooth +/-5db plot, but reality is often a lot messier, especially in small rooms.

You are correct, but missing the point. A single point measurement doesn't represent what we hear in the listening position for several reasons. First, we hear with two ears, and the mic position most often used won't even be in the position of one ear. Second, spacial hearing includes mechanisms that are able to discriminate sounds both spacially, temporally, with an acoustic receptor system that is nothing like an omnidirectional mic in an acoustics space. To even approximate that, along with the imprecision of head position (you don't lock your head in a vise), we have to have more measurement points, even if they are clustered closely in the listening position. It's not so much wanting to see a smooth plot, but rather ignoring single position anomalies that aren't audible or repeatable.

All precision measurement methods involve more than one mic position. Commercial theater alignment has done this for many years, with some systems utilizing multiple mics and a multiplexer to save alignment time. THX insists on multiple measurement positions during calibration of home and theaters. Audyssey recommends using multiple mic positions, though their method of measurement combining isn't an average, but something more complex.

All of this is especially true in a small room, because variations between mic position results are usually more significant than the variations you'd get from similarly spaced mic positions in a large space. I'm not suggesting averaging mic positions 10' apart in a small room, but rather averaging several mic positions around your favorite seat, if that's what you want to optimize. Otherwise you end up with lots of detail, warts and all, but that's not what you hear, so there's no point to it.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

This is a major reason why I like DEQ, I can listen at low volumes and still enjoy solid bass hits in movies.

Amen to DEQ.

 

[RichB]

Amen to DEQ.

I suppose it makes sense that with high quality speakers the freedom from compression and consistent frequency response should respond well to dynamically adjusting the bass.

I unpacked my MIC stand and the OmniMic V2 measurements are more stable.
As expected, the Salon's rear tweeters mostly affects above 10K.
I can get this range pretty flat, but it adds alot of sizzle to the sound.
For the time being, I will leave them on.

Here is the latest trace taked from my listening position.
There was some change moving the mic around but it was not huge.

View attachment 12222

- Rich

 

[Irvrobinson]

Rich, what smoothing are you using? I like 1/12db. 1/6db is the minimum I'd recommend. That curve looks too good to be true, now that I think about it.

 

[RichB]

Rich, what smoothing are you using? I like 1/12db. 1/6db is the minimum I'd recommend. That curve looks too good to be true, now that I think about it.

I was using 1/6th but I will try 1/12'th when I get a chance.

- Rich

 

[PENG]

Regarding single-point measurements, agreed, but focusing on one's primary listening position gives you a more accurate indication of what you'll hear, warts and all. I think averaging gives people more of a feel-good curve than a good representation of what they hear. Everyone wants to see a nice, smooth +/-5db plot, but reality is often a lot messier, especially in small rooms.

Agree, but as avengineer said Audyssey does not do the averaging thing in the multi mic position scheme. Below is from the Audyssey website, somewhere in the FAQs.

<dt>"What makes MultEQ work when so many others have tried to solve this problem for decades?</dt><dd>MultEQ is different from the many systems in the past because of two differentiators:

1. The way it measures your room
2. By correcting both time and frequency problems

In terms of calibration measurement methods, 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.
2. Some EQ systems do try to correct for multiple positions. They simply average the measurement results that they gather. Averaging tends to smooth-out common acoustical problems without really fixing them. For example if there's a peak at 200 Hz in one seat and a dip at 200 Hz in another seat (typical room), then the two measurements average each other out and there's no correction made.

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.
</dd><dt>How does MultEQ measure your room differently?</dt><dd>

MultEQ looks at patterns in the time domain responses and classifies them into clusters based on the similarities in those patterns, typically in 3-5 groups. A representative response is created from each cluster, and a final response is then created from grouping the representatives. That response is then used to create the EQ filter. It is a complicated process based on the complex mathematics of pattern recognition and fuzzy logic. But there's nothing fuzzy about the results. If you want to know more, we offer copies of selected publications we've written for technical conferences."



This article is hard to find as it is burried somewhere in their fag, so here's the link for those interested to read the whole thing:
Technology FAQ | Audyssey

</dd>

 

[fuzz092888]

As I showed through my mini-experiment to help prove avengineer's point, audyssey does a better job using the multi-mic positioning than it does if you take multiple measurements from one position. As PENG showed from the FAQ's, it is not simply an averaging software. Frankly I don't see why anyone or any company would shell out money for it, if it was.

Don't get me wrong, Audyssey is far from perfect, but if you want to get the most out of it you've got to follow their directions. I sure hope they know how to use their software better than us

Agree, but as avengineer said Audyssey does not do the averaging thing in the multi mic position scheme. Below is from the Audyssey website, somewhere in the FAQs.

<dt>"What makes MultEQ work when so many others have tried to solve this problem for decades?</dt><dd>MultEQ is different from the many systems in the past because of two differentiators:

1. The way it measures your room
2. By correcting both time and frequency problems

In terms of calibration measurement methods, 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.
2. Some EQ systems do try to correct for multiple positions. They simply average the measurement results that they gather. Averaging tends to smooth-out common acoustical problems without really fixing them. For example if there's a peak at 200 Hz in one seat and a dip at 200 Hz in another seat (typical room), then the two measurements average each other out and there's no correction made.

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.
</dd><dt>How does MultEQ measure your room differently?</dt><dd>

MultEQ looks at patterns in the time domain responses and classifies them into clusters based on the similarities in those patterns, typically in 3-5 groups. A representative response is created from each cluster, and a final response is then created from grouping the representatives. That response is then used to create the EQ filter. It is a complicated process based on the complex mathematics of pattern recognition and fuzzy logic. But there's nothing fuzzy about the results. If you want to know more, we offer copies of selected publications we've written for technical conferences."



This article is hard to find as it is burried somewhere in their fag, so here's the link for those interested to read the whole thing:
Technology FAQ | Audyssey

</dd>

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I reiterate that just Audyssey or Audyssey Flat alone really does nothing for me if I turn off Dynamic EQ.

But Audyssey Flat + DEQ? Oh, yeah, baby, come to papa.

 

[Irvrobinson]

You are correct, but missing the point. A single point measurement doesn't represent what we hear in the listening position for several reasons. First, we hear with two ears, and the mic position most often used won't even be in the position of one ear. Second, spacial hearing includes mechanisms that are able to discriminate sounds both spacially, temporally, with an acoustic receptor system that is nothing like an omnidirectional mic in an acoustics space. To even approximate that, along with the imprecision of head position (you don't lock your head in a vise), we have to have more measurement points, even if they are clustered closely in the listening position. It's not so much wanting to see a smooth plot, but rather ignoring single position anomalies that aren't audible or repeatable.

All precision measurement methods involve more than one mic position. Commercial theater alignment has done this for many years, with some systems utilizing multiple mics and a multiplexer to save alignment time. THX insists on multiple measurement positions during calibration of home and theaters. Audyssey recommends using multiple mic positions, though their method of measurement combining isn't an average, but something more complex.

All of this is especially true in a small room, because variations between mic position results are usually more significant than the variations you'd get from similarly spaced mic positions in a large space. I'm not suggesting averaging mic positions 10' apart in a small room, but rather averaging several mic positions around your favorite seat, if that's what you want to optimize. Otherwise you end up with lots of detail, warts and all, but that's not what you hear, so there's no point to it.

I said I focused on the primary listening position, I didn't say I took only one measurement. I'm aware that my ears are in different positions.

 

[RichB]

Here is a short-sweep response trace taken at 1/12'th Octive.

View attachment 12223

Not quite as pretty as the 1/6'th octive

- Rich

 

[Irvrobinson]

Here is a short-sweep response trace taken at 1/12'th Octive.

View attachment 12223

Not quite as pretty as the 1/6'th octive

- Rich

That is still a *very* good plot. I've measured a few peoples' systems now, and yours would probably be at the top. You might try inching the Salons around a bit to mitigate that dip at about 110Hz. You'd be surprised at how much a little suckout or hump at that frequency affects the sound.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Looks great to me, Rich.

 

[RichB]

That is still a *very* good plot. I've measured a few peoples' systems now, and yours would probably be at the top. You might try inching the Salons around a bit to mitigate that dip at about 110Hz. You'd be surprised at how much a little suckout or hump at that frequency affects the sound.

Great. I will try that.
I am going on vacation on Friday and my house is full of grandparents.
I do not think they can handle the stress of listening to my short-sweeps for an hour

Thanks,

Rich

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I watched "The Bourne Legacy" BD last night. I did not plan to actually watch it, but rather to just "check out the sound".

But after experiencing the superlative SQ w/ Audyssey Flat DEQ, I was so utterly captivated and just had to watch the entire movie.

Man, I cannot believe I missed out on DEQ all these years! Now I will have to rematch all my favorite franchise movies like all the Bourne, Matrix, LOTR, Underworld, etc.

 

[Adam]

I watched "The Bourne Legacy" BD last night.

So did I! I'd never seen it before. Decent flick.

But after experiencing the superlative SQ w/ Audyssey Flat DEQ, I was so utterly captivated and just had to watch the entire movie.

I also thought that the sound was excellent and stood out...on my MCACC-running system. It's just a great audio track.