Room EQ systems for AVP/AVR users thread

[RichB]

How big is your room?

Did you occupy the nulled spaces to experience what it actually sounded like ?

Like tinnitus without bass
A mic and some software are useful, if you have options for speaker placement.

Real ones cannot be fixed by EQ but fake ones can be much improved.

I lucked out because the response in my seating position is good.
How can you tell the difference?

- Rich

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Like tinnitus without bass

What? You hear ringing sounds in the null areas?

I thought it was just a lack of bass in the null?

 

[RichB]

What? You hear ringing sounds in the null areas?

I thought it was just a lack of bass in the null?

Joking.

Just a lack of bass. You should try it sometime with a 40 Hz tone. It is an interesting experience.

As far as RC is concerned, moving the MIC around very small movement of the MIC changes the measurements pretty dramatically.
This may account for many multi-position RC making modest changes in the higher frequencies.

- Rich

 

[PENG]

Yes, I noticed that the only thing DEQ changed was the bass - it made the bass sound much better. But it did not do anything to the rest of the sound. The result was mellifluous at all volume level - crystal clear and detailed sound with full punchy "musical" bass. Otherwise, I would not have like DEQ so much.

It is supposed to elevate the surround channel levels too, to compensate for our decreased sensitivity to low frequencies and surround channel contents at lower SPL.

 

[PENG]

I wonder what the un-smooth graphs look like.

Like this, note DEQ compensates less and less as frequency increases.

 

[RichB]

Like this, note DEQ compensates less and less as frequency increases.

View attachment 13832

The volume levels vary between 10 to 20 DB.
Were those taken at the same volume level?

Rich

 

[agarwalro]

I have found the Holy Grail!

This Russian article exhaustively compared different flavors of Auto Room EQ, Audyssey 2EQ, MultiEQ XT32, Yamaha YAPO RSC and Pioneer Advanced MCACC. Then the author even compares the best auto EQ results to manual EQ using a FBQ2496. As is that wasn't enough, the author makes this a tour de force by comparing XT32 with Advanced Room Correction 2 (computer based software PEQ). The full list,

1. Audyssey 2EQ (summary based on the old measurement receiver Onkyo TX-N717)
2. Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 in the receiver Onkyo TX-NR818
3. Advanced MCACC in the receiver Pioneer SC-LX56
4. YPAO RSC in the receiver Yamaha RX-A2010
5. Manual editing of the subwoofer using the Behringer FBQ2496
6. Manual editing of the front speakers using the Behringer FBQ2496
7. Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 program ARC2 (Advanced Room Correction 2)

Break out the popcorn machine and enjoy...

http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/acoustics-correction.shtml

English translation link,

https://translate.google.com/transl...xbt.com/multimedia/acoustics-correction.shtml

 

[PENG]

The volume levels vary between 10 to 20 DB.
Were those taken at the same volume level?

Rich

Yes, same volume same everything.

 

[3db]

I use single point YPAO from my RX-V1800 and I'm happy with it.

 

[RichB]

Like this, note DEQ compensates less and less as frequency increases.

View attachment 13832

The volume levels vary between 10 to 20 DB.
Were those taken at the same volume level?

Yes, same volume same everything.

That would certainly explain why folks like it with a baseline increase of 5 DB louder.
It makes it difficult to compare the DEQ On/Off.

When I ran Audyssey on the AV8801 it adjusted to surrounds 3 DB too high.
I sense a pattern here

- Rich

 

[PENG]

The volume levels vary between 10 to 20 DB.
Were those taken at the same volume level?



That would certainly explain why folks like it with a baseline increase of 5 DB louder.
It makes it difficult to compare the DEQ On/Off.

When I ran Audyssey on the AV8801 it adjusted to surrounds 3 DB too high.
I sense a pattern here

- Rich

It is dynamic so the lower the volume level the higher the boost, relatively speaking. It also boosts the surround effect but I have not tried to measure that yet.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I have found the Holy Grail!

This Russian article exhaustively compared different flavors of Auto Room EQ, Audyssey 2EQ, MultiEQ XT32, Yamaha YAPO RSC and Pioneer Advanced MCACC. Then the author even compares the best auto EQ results to manual EQ using a FBQ2496. As is that wasn't enough, the author makes this a tour de force by comparing XT32 with Advanced Room Correction 2 (computer based software PEQ). The full list,

https://translate.google.com/transl...xbt.com/multimedia/acoustics-correction.shtml

Naturally, Audyssey XT32 is the smoothest and best.

Audyssey Pro would be the ultimate.

There is a great reason IMAX & DARTs use Audyssey Pro, instead of the other software.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The volume levels vary between 10 to 20 DB.
Were those taken at the same volume level?



That would certainly explain why folks like it with a baseline increase of 5 DB louder.
It makes it difficult to compare the DEQ On/Off.

When I ran Audyssey on the AV8801 it adjusted to surrounds 3 DB too high.
I sense a pattern here

- Rich

The salient point is, even when you decrease the master volume by 5dB or whatever is comfortable, the sound is still better and fuller with DEQ than without DEQ.

For example, normally my master volume is set to -20.0 when DEQ is off.

When I turn DEQ on, the master volume is then set to -25.0. But now the sound is fuller, bass is punchier, tighter, more musical - it is now more DYNAMIC. But the SPL is the same.

My peak volume is still 94dBC with or without DEQ. With DEQ on, I turn the master volume down to maintain the comfortable volume level.

So it's not like we listen to 90dB without DEQ, and then all of the sudden listen to 100dB with DEQ. We do know how to turn down the volume.

Bottom line, no matter what is on, we do NOT EXCEED the comfortable/ safe volume level.

 

[RichB]

The salient point is, even when you decrease the master volume by 5dB or whatever is comfortable, the sound is still better and fuller with DEQ than without DEQ.

For example, normally my master volume is set to -20.0 when DEQ is off.

When I turn DEQ on, the master volume is then set to -25.0. But now the sound is fuller, bass is punchier, tighter, more musical - it is now more DYNAMIC. But the SPL is the same.

My peak volume is still 94dBC with or without DEQ. With DEQ on, I turn the master volume down to maintain the comfortable volume level.

So it's not like we listen to 90dB without DEQ, and then all of the sudden listen to 100dB with DEQ. We do know how to turn down the volume.

Bottom line, no matter what is on, we do NOT EXCEED the comfortable/ safe volume level.

I am cool with that.

I would prefer that it not provide an overall boost.
However, were I engineering it, I would likely do the same to assure a positive response.

- Rich

 

[PENG]

I am cool with that.

I would prefer that it not provide an overall boost.

- Rich

In fact it does not provide an overall boost, just moment by moment (hence "dynamic") bass and sourround level. At 0 dB master volume DEQ does not do anything.

Helpful links for those interested:

Dynamic EQ | Audyssey

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/20992326-Dynamic-EQ-Questions

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/73283-Dynamic-EQ-and-Reference-Level

 

[PENG]

Naturally, Audyssey XT32 is the smoothest and best.

Audyssey Pro would be the ultimate.

There is a great reason IMAX & DARTs use Audyssey Pro, instead of the other software.

It certainly looks that way, but too bad the guy did not include Anthem ARC. Did you notice that Pure Direct (red) didn't look that good at all?

 

[rnatalli]

It certainly looks that way, but too bad the guy did not include Anthem ARC. Did you notice that Pure Direct (red) didn't look that good at all?

ARC and XT32 are very close in my experience, but it would have been nice if ARC, Trinnov, and Dirac were in there as well. Still a great website

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It certainly looks that way, but too bad the guy did not include Anthem ARC. Did you notice that Pure Direct (red) didn't look that good at all?

Yeah.

There goes the theory about how "pure" and "shortest path" are the "best". Pure Direct dose NOT look very pure at all.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It certainly looks that way, but too bad the guy did not include Anthem ARC. Did you notice that Pure Direct (red) didn't look that good at all?

ARC and XT32 are very close in my experience, but it would have been nice if ARC, Trinnov, and Dirac were in there as well. Still a great website

We sure ask for a lot, don't we?

That is the best comparison I've seen to date. It is already a fantastic comparison. It could only be surpassed by the inclusion of ARC, Trinnov, Dirac, and other RC like Lyngdorf RoomPerfect (used in McIntosh MX151).

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I am cool with that.

I would prefer that it not provide an overall boost.
However, were I engineering it, I would likely do the same to assure a positive response.

- Rich

As PENG says, it's an adaptive smart DYNAMIC boost, not an overall boost to every single frequency and every single level. It's not dynamic VOLUME.

But my POV is, it doesn't matter to me that a room correction software can make the frequency response ruler flat to +/- 0.00dB if it does NOT sound GREAT.

Audyssey XT32 & Pro are there to make the frequency flat and smooth.

But Dynamic EQ is there to make the sound GREAT.