Incorporating MiniDSP With Audyssey XT32

[Pogre]

Phase 0 should sound better since it doesn't have that large dip from 90-110hz.

That large dip, all I did was change the vertical axis and it smoothed away...

 

[Pogre]

Oh I've seen it with no smoothing. No thank you! If I try to make that flat I'll go insane.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

That large dip, all I did was change the vertical axis and it smoothed away...

Do a sweep from 10-200, reset the limits and no smoothing. Then see what you think.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Oh I've seen it with no smoothing. No thank you! If I try to make that flat I'll go insane.

Actually lol right now!

 

[Pogre]

Actually lol right now!

I'm doing some 10 - 200hz sweeps right now. I'll have them up in a few minutes.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I'm doing some 10 - 200hz sweeps right now. I'll have them up in a few minutes.

Nice! Since we're talking about 10-200, I have a question. Since I've always wanted a minidsp, and I'd like to get rid of my BFD. The non HD version has an output of .9v and I've seen guys complain about that saying they didn't have enough gain. My avr manual says 200mv. I believe that is .2v correct? In that case I think I'd be fine, but I'm scratching my head. PE was surprisingly not helpful. I might pm atlaudio...

 

[Pogre]

I realized all I have to do is change the horizontal axis... duh. Couldn't remove smoothing tho.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I realized all I have to do is change the horizontal axis... duh. Couldn't remove smoothing tho.

View attachment 21976

I think it's in the "graph" tab.

 

[Pogre]

That looks better than what I had the other night and I think it translates audibly too. Moving my towers out from the wall some more definitely helped with the boomy bass I was getting from the towers in direct.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Still....looks nice! That bump at 50 probably gives a little extra weight to kicks and bass guitars. 50 is where the "bass" knob is centered on many avr's. Damn XT32 is good.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

That looks better than what I had the other night and I think it translates audibly too. Moving my towers out from the wall some more definitely helped with the boomy bass I was getting from the towers in direct.

Out in the room is almost always better.

 

[Pogre]

Out in the room is almost always better.

I'm gonna take some measurements in direct mode now and overlay them with the ones I got from the other night before I moved them. I know it had to tame it down. I can absolutely hear the difference.

 

[KEW]

On scaling, I am of the mind that you would want the highest resolution (narrowest range) that is practical.
I would use 50dB to 90dB (however, not sure where your chart label would end up, you might need a little more space on top to keep it off of your graph). You could feasibly use 55-85, but I like to leave a little room in case your next trial gets a little wonky. As long as you are making comparisons, it makes sense to be consistent (however, since you are overlaying the graphs, that becomes a moot point).
Manufacturers will expand the range to get a curve that appears flatter. People that don't really know how to interpret your graph might say it looks crappy because it is not as smooth as the compressed ones, but I can think of no reason for any scale to be any bigger than your data needs it to be!

 

[PENG]

I do believe that was the case, but afaik deq is only gain compensation with no effect on phase etc. no?

I thought you mentioned a wide trough between 50-90 Hz, i.e. being many dB lower. That would be the effect of DEQ. You may be right about the phase thing, but that's a different issue.

 

[PENG]

Okay! This overlay is accurate. I had everything right for all previous measurements. It was just that last chart.

View attachment 21975

I'll say again that I think phase 0 sounds better. @William Lemmerhirt, I changed the vertical axis to what you suggested, I think? Is that right? It sure looks prettier that way...

Going by the look, it obviously should.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I thought you mentioned a wide trough between 50-90 Hz, i.e. being many dB lower. That would be the effect of DEQ. You may be right about the phase thing, but that's a different issue.

Hi peng. I was referring to the trough being many db lower. Curious about deq making that trough. Are you meaning that if the trough is room induced(modal), deq will make it look worse by raising the levels on either side, but not being able to raise the trough itself?

Maybe I can drag my ol forum friend @WaynePflughaupt in here, he can share some genius. Particularly about scaling, and smoothing, but maybe about pogres progress in general.

 

[PENG]

Hi peng. I was referring to the trough being many db lower. Curious about deq making that trough. Are you meaning that if the trough is room induced(modal), deq will make it look worse by raising the levels on either side, but not being able to raise the trough itself?

Maybe I can drag my ol forum friend @WaynePflughaupt in here, he can share some genius. Particularly about scaling, and smoothing, but maybe about pogres progress in general.

DEQ boost the low frequencies differently to match our hearing characteristics. Basically the lower the frequency the bigger the boost.

I just thought the apparent dip or downward trend between 50 and 70-80 hz may be partially due to DEQ boost tapering off.

Audyssey used to have some demo graphs of DEQ on vs Off at different volume/level but those web pages are long gone for whatever reasons. Below is one that I took 3 years ago. You can see a similar tapering off, also apear to be more pronounced from 50 Hz and between 50.

As the term Dynamic EQ implies, it is a dynamic process, that compensates dynamically as frequency and loudness (volume) changes. If I plot those graphs with volume dialed down by say 5 dB, the boost would have been greater, relative to the one DEQ off.

 

[panteragstk]

Nice results. Can't wait to go through it all in my room.

I wonder if the minidsp could help with 50hz and the 80-95hz range? I bet you wanna try it. Don't you?

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

DEQ boost the low frequencies differently to match our hearing characteristics. Basically the lower the frequency the bigger the boost.

I just thought the apparent dip or downward trend between 50 and 70-80 hz may be partially due to DEQ boost tapering off.

I still feel it's a phase thing, but now I'm wondering at what point deq rolls off. I would guess it's shelved somewhere. 20hz on the low side? Maybe lower? His old deq graph had deeper extension.

 

[PENG]

I still feel it's a phase thing, but now I'm wondering at what point deq rolls off. I would guess it's shelved somewhere. 20hz on the low side? Maybe lower? His old deq graph had deeper extension.

Again, I am not saying the problem is not a phase thing, it probably is, but I am saying with DEQ on, especially if plotted at low spl level, you will see a steeper slope (but not a trough) because the DEQ boost varies inversely with frequency and volume. They did it that way to match human hearing characteristics, that we are less sensitive to the lower frequencies at low spl. That's what make DEQ so much better than the simple "loudness" button in the old days.

Put it this way, a slope down towards the higher bass frequencies would be at least partially attributable to DEQ, Pogre can prove it simply by overlaying the DEQ on Vs off as I did in August 2014. If there is a trough, then it could well be a phase issue. The two things are not mutually exclusive, though the DEQ effect is normal and good, the phase effect, if resulted in a trough, is not good and can be fixed.