The Audyssey MultEQ Editor app users thread (with facts and tips)

T

Triplefun

Audiophyte
I have just received a new 3700h running a current 5.1 setup in full preamp - about to move to 5.1.2. I ran audyssey from the 3700H and was disappointed with the bright sound. I then ran audyssey using android multeq with no success. The first run I got to position 7 when the 3700h dropped off the wired network. Subsequent attempts all likewise failed at different positions. It now fails within the first 3 positions.

The 3700 firmware has been updated to the latest version. As per some of the recommendations I tried saving the 3700 config to USB and did a reset. I then reran multieq with still no success.

The network is wired with static ip address to the 3700h. I have no trouble finding the 3700. None of my other devices have network issues. Is this an issue with the app or my amp? It takes several minutes after each position run to upload the data. I'm running the app using a huawei p30 Pro on android 11. Would my android 10 tablet fare any better?
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I have just received a new 3700h running a current 5.1 setup in full preamp - about to move to 5.1.2. I ran audyssey from the 3700H and was disappointed with the bright sound. I then ran audyssey using android multeq with no success. The first run I got to position 7 when the 3700h dropped off the wired network. Subsequent attempts all likewise failed at different positions. It now fails within the first 3 positions.

The 3700 firmware has been updated to the latest version. As per some of the recommendations I tried saving the 3700 config to USB and did a reset. I then reran multieq with still no success.

The network is wired with static ip address to the 3700h. I have no trouble finding the 3700. None of my other devices have network issues. Is this an issue with the app or my amp? It takes several minutes after each position run to upload the data. I'm running the app using a huawei p30 Pro on android 11. Would my android 10 tablet fare any better?
It could be your device, i.e. the P30, if it is not listed as an compatible device. It does not mean if it is not listed then it won't work, but if it is listed, then it should work.

Once you get it working, you definitely should be able to get rid of the "bright sound" assuming the perceived "bright sound" is not due to the source content itself. Remember, the recording/mastering quality of the source content is mostly responsible for the so called bright, dull, warm, musical, harsh, impactful etc sound.
 
T

Triplefun

Audiophyte
It could be your device, i.e. the P30, if it is not listed as an compatible device. It does not mean if it is not listed then it won't work, but if it is listed, then it should work.

Once you get it working, you definitely should be able to get rid of the "bright sound" assuming the perceived "bright sound" is not due to the source content itself. Remember, the recording/mastering quality of the source content is mostly responsible for the so called bright, dull, warm, musical, harsh, impactful etc sound.
Thanks. Fixed it by using an Anroid 8 tablet. I thought the problem may have been with the 3700h. Looks like the app needs fine tuning in the network stability.
 
T

Triplefun

Audiophyte
I have just received a new 3700h running a current 5.1 setup in full preamp - about to move to 5.1.2. I ran audyssey from the 3700H and was disappointed with the bright sound. I then ran audyssey using android multeq with no success. The first run I got to position 7 when the 3700h dropped off the wired network. Subsequent attempts all likewise failed at different positions. It now fails within the first 3 positions.

The 3700 firmware has been updated to the latest version. As per some of the recommendations I tried saving the 3700 config to USB and did a reset. I then reran multieq with still no success.

The network is wired with static ip address to the 3700h. I have no trouble finding the 3700. None of my other devices have network issues. Is this an issue with the app or my amp? It takes several minutes after each position run to upload the data. I'm running the app using a huawei p30 Pro on android 11. Would my android 10 tablet fare any better?
Fixed it by using an Anroid 8 tablet. I thought the problem may have been with the 3700h. Looks like the app needs fine tuning in the network stability.
 
R

Rick330

Junior Audioholic
Sup guys, I was trying to calibrate with the editor app and for some reason it won't detect my second PB 1000 Pro.It gets stuck after testing the 1st sub and I have to close the app and restart. Calibration works fine using the x3600h without the app. Anyone else have this issue?
Yes I have the same AVR and it happened to me.
 
R

Rick330

Junior Audioholic
I picked up the 3600h on sale back in Feb. I‘ve never used Audyssey before, let alone the App (only used Onkyo’s AccuEq Advance). I’ll admit, the Standing Wave EQ w/ the AccuEQ did good in my particular setup. However, using the MultiEQ App did a noticably better job. I like the adjustments you are able make (and how the sub outs on the 3600h are discrete). After watching the youtube video(s) on Room EQ per Gene and Matt, I limited the filter range to 500hz and 350hz (depending on the “Before” FR per channel measured by Audyssey) and turned off the midrange compensation for all channels. Bass is much improved now :).
Gene also said flat is better which negates any filter range adjustments but it keeps the midrange compensation off at least with flat also. Just any other curve adjustments are pointless since he recommends flat. As do I.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Gene also said flat is better which negates any filter range adjustments but it keeps the midrange compensation off at least with flat also. Just any other curve adjustments are pointless since he recommends flat. As do I.
I am not clear what exactly Gene was trying to say but it is a fact that if you select flat, you will have the filter set that EQ full range and apparently many people don't like the effects. Some may like it because it will typically sound "brighter", you can see what it would do to the high frequencies if you use software such as REW to plot your in room FR. The reference curve would put a gentle roll of in the highs because that's what most rooms would do to the FR at the main listening position.

You can read about it from the horse's mouth:
MultEQ Target Curves – Ask Audyssey (zendesk.com)

As you obviously know, any customized target curve using the App, or limiting the range to be EQ'ed will only have effects if you select the reference curve so you are absolutely right, that if you prefer the "flat" curve then it is pointless to make any adjustment to the curve. Funny some people don't realize that yet still "can" hear their customized curve, that would be a solid proof of how powerful/convincing Placebo, bias can be.
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
Funny some people don't realize that yet still "can" hear their customized curve, that would be a solid proof of how powerful/convincing Placebo, bias can be.
Also funny how some people couldn't detect any difference at all after making adjustments because they didn't realize it doesn't affect the flat setting then demanded their money back from Audyssey. Only to discover later down the road that adjustments only affect the reference setting so they repurchase the app and love it...

Yup... this guy... :oops: :p
 
R

Rick330

Junior Audioholic
I am not clear what exactly Gene was trying to say but it is a fact that if you select flat, you will have the filter set that EQ full range and apparently many people don't like the effects. Some may like it because it will typically sound "brighter", you can see what it would do to the high frequencies if you use software such as REW to plot your in room FR. The reference curve would put a gentle roll of in the highs because that's what most rooms would do to the FR at the main listening position.

You can read about it from the horse's mouth:
MultEQ Target Curves – Ask Audyssey (zendesk.com)

As you obviously know, any customized target curve using the App, or limiting the range to be EQ'ed will only have effects if you select the reference curve so you are absolutely right, that if you prefer the "flat" curve then it is pointless to make any adjustment to the curve. Funny some people don't realize that yet still "can" hear their customized curve, that would be a solid proof of how powerful/convincing Placebo, bias can be.
Yeah I'm a big gamer so I like the brighter sound so I can hear more sound effects. It's weird even if I cut off the curve at a lower frequency on the app it still rolls off the highs and isn't bright like flat.
 
Last edited:
C

curlyjive

Audioholic Intern
Can someone confirm that if using the app, if you have a run of Audyssey already loaded to the AVR and you do another run, that new run does not overwrite the existing one unless/until you actually send it?

so if my existing run was one I liked but I ran audyssey again and completed the new run but never sent it to the AVR my original run is still intact?
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Ninja
Can someone confirm that if using the app, if you have a run of Audyssey already loaded to the AVR and you do another run, that new run does not overwrite the existing one unless/until you actually send it?

so if my existing run was one I liked but I ran audyssey again and completed the new run but never sent it to the AVR my original run is still intact?
If you ran a new Audyssey calibration, then your previous app calibration is automatically deleted. You will have to resend the calibration which you previously did with app if you kept it on file.
 
C

curlyjive

Audioholic Intern
If you ran a new Audyssey calibration, then your previous app calibration is automatically deleted. You will have to resend the calibration which you previously did with app if you kept it on file.
Just to clarify, the new calibration was also done in the app. After checking, the distances match the first calibration not the second which leads me to think it did not overwrite the one one the AVR. Which kind of makes sense since the app does not automatically send a calibration to the AVR. You must send it as a separate step.
Are you thinking i kicked off a new calibration from the AVR directly?
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Just to clarify, the new calibration was also done in the app. After checking, the distances match the first calibration not the second which leads me to think it did not overwrite the one one the AVR. Which kind of makes sense since the app does not automatically send a calibration to the AVR. You must send it as a separate step.
Are you thinking i kicked off a new calibration from the AVR directly?
You are correct. I think Verdinut understood you are using the App, but he probably missed the part "....but never sent..."

Just a cautionary note, you are doing the right thing checking everything after a "send", to make sure the "send" is completely successful. It happened a few times to me that after sending a new file, the "flat" disappeared and it was there after a "re-send".
 
C

curlyjive

Audioholic Intern
You are correct. I think Verdinut understood you are using the App, but he probably missed the part "....but never sent..."

Just a cautionary note, you are doing the right thing checking everything after a "send", to make sure the "send" is completely successful. It happened a few times to me that after sending a new file, the "flat" disappeared and it was there after a "re-send".
Gotcha,

Yeah I liked the run I was using but ran another just to compare the sub distances in the app. I never sent it and the distances in the AVR remained the same so I figured the original calibration stays in place even after a new app run until you actually send it.
 
H

harmonicthd

Audiophyte
Hi, I am brand new to the forum and I was very much intrigued by the subject discussed here so I went ahead and started to dive into it. However, I still have a few question of understanding, so if you would be so kind to help me across the few hurdles: Mainly about using Ratbuddessy and choosing the EQ Level.

System:
X3700H into two Neurochrome686 Power Amps (20db gain) into two KEF R700
(Speaker Measurements: KEF R700 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com )
Room: TV area, untreated (very undampend)
5.6x4.2x2.6m (L,W,H), MLP Symmetric at 62% from front wall.
Speakers 0.85m from sidewall, 1.35m front wall (60deg and ca.2.6m away from MLP).

What I did so far:
a) REW measurements of L, R, L&R in Pure Direct calibrated with REW "Check Levels" to 75dB SPL, UMIK-1 at 80%.
b) Audyssey 8 point measurements within 30cm of MLP, DEQ off, Reference curve, Mid Comp.: off with MultEQ App.
c) REW measurements of L, R, L&R with Audyssey on, Music Stereo, again leveled to 75dB SPL.

L, Green with Audyssey On, Music Stereo (1/12 smoothing)
1636274703403.png


L&R, Yellow with Audyssey, Music Stereo (1/12 smoothing)
1636274614027.png


My conclusion so far (please correct, if I am wrong).
Lots of room modes due to the untreated room and SBIR, but Audyssey does flatten the FR somewhat below 300Hz (ca. 250Hz is estimated Schroedinger-Freq.). Individual channel is actually better than the L&R combined response. Spectrogram shows 800ms at 30Hz decay time btw (undamped room).

Please add to it if you see any improvements I could make, short of room treatment (might come to that later).


Ratbuddyssey (from LaserGuru - thanks btw., latest Vers. 0.3.0.3):
So I fired up ratbuddyssey and followed the steps outlined by @PENG in post 59.

....
Cheat steps:
1. Use the REW FR graph using the "Reference" target curve, and set up an Excel (or any) spread sheet.
2. Enter the point by point SPL for the 20 to 120 Hz range, ymmv based on your curve, mine is 13-103 Hz.
3. Set a target SPL, based on my visual inspection, I selected 68 dB, so as to end up mostly cuts are needed.
4. Enter the formula to calculate the adjustment for each point on the ref curve to hit the targeted 68 dB.
5. Use Ratbuddyssey to enter the manual adjustment required.
...
Questions:
to step 1): Am I right to assume one uses the Audyssey On FR response to base the ratbuddyssey corrections on?
to step2): Given the above L FR example (Audyssey On, green line), there is e.g. a peak at 31.4Hz, 75.74dB. Is that the one to pick for example?
top step3to5): Which target SPL to pick? 73dB maybe? If yes would the correction than be at 31.4Hz, 73-75.74 = -2.74db to entered into ratbuddyseey? Here I am really unsure.

Generally: Do you try to optimize the individual L, R channel or the L&R joint FR?
Some thoughts: As one can see the joint L&R response is worse than the individual response. For example, I am assuming when looking at the pre-Audyessy data, that Audyessy reduced one channel at around 53Hz in order to flatten the response of that one (right channel), however as the left channel has a node here one could try by boosting the right channel back up to compensate for the node of the left channel at that frequency. Especially in the range where one can not locate the sound (below ca. 100Hz). Of course this would unflatten the right channel but the joint L&R resonse would be flatter? Or am I overthinking this, as we are usually to stereo and not mono?

1636275732935.png


Sorry for the lengthy first time post, but I thought I post as much background as I have momentarily. Again, I would be very happy to follow any advise / input you might have.

Thx.
S
 
Last edited:
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
System:
X3700H into two Neurochrome686 Power Amps (20db gain) into two KEF R700
(Speaker Measurements: KEF R700 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com )
Room: TV area, untreated (very undampend)
5.6x4.2x2.6m (L,W,H), MLP Symmetric at 62% from front wall.
Speakers 0.85m from sidewall, 1.35m front wall (60deg and ca.2.6m away from MLP).
I read about the 686 and noticed that the gain is adjustable. Just curious about why you adjusted it to 20 dB. I would think 26 dB, or at least 23 dB should be better for the Denon AVR even if you use preamp mode only. The decrease in noise at the minimum gain is not likely going to be audible.

Questions:
to step 1): Am I right to assume one uses the Audyssey On FR response to base the ratbuddyssey corrections on?
to step2): Given the above L FR example (Audyssey On, green line), there is e.g. a peak at 31.4Hz, 75.74dB. Is that the one to pick for example?
top step3to5): Which target SPL to pick? 73dB maybe? If yes would the correction than be at 31.4Hz, 73-75.74 = -2.74db to entered into ratbuddyseey? Here I am really unsure.
First of all, 1/12 smoothing is fine to show the results but for determining the cuts/boosts for use with the Rat/App, I would use no smoothing for the 10 to 300 Hz range and may be 1/24, even 1/48 for the higher frequencies.

In my opinion, it is best to use the Audyssey reference curve to base the Rat "corrections on". I put that in quote because I want to be clear that Rat does not correct, it is just an UI to make it easier to make manual adjustments than to draw the so called custom curve by fingers of stylus pens. Audyssey is always responsible for calculating and creating the filters.

I think by entering the cuts using Rat (or use fingers with the App without Rat), I would basically be providing feedback to Audyssey that would enable to it to make corrections, sort of like how amplifier's negative feedback scheme work. The difference is, amps use negative feedback to lower distortions in the output voltage whereas Audysssey might use it this way to lower FR distortions. I have had some lengthy discussions with Audyssey recently, and the person who I discussed with did not agree or disagree with my reasoning, but did not/obviously could not as I showed the results either; and he/she suggested I do certain tests for him/her but I have yet to time to do it.

So if I am right about the "my reasoning" of why/how doing it with the manual adjustments to the reference curve would work/or improve (depending on the goal), the customized curve is simply a way for Audyssey to improve on the effectiveness of filter set based on the feedback in the form of the manual adjustments, i.e. cuts and boosts entered via the app.

I feel that there is no point to go back to the REW curve with Audyssey off but start with the Audyssey corrected curve, that is, the reference curve. That is, for the first trial, or any further subsequent trials, I would always go back to the original reference curve. For example, if after applying a cut to 100 Hz by 2 dB and the resulting REW curve shows you should apply another 1 dB at the same or nearby frequency, say 105 Hz, then I would not try to manually apply 1 dB at 105 Hz but instead of keep chasing a moving target, I would simply apply another 1 dB cut to 100 Hz. That is, use Rat to change the 2 dB cut I made in the first trial to 3 dB cut instead. To keep chasing, that is, use the new REW graph to base the new manual adjustments via the App/Rat will be extremely time consuming and hard to keep track. I am not sure if it would do a better job, but I am sure doing it my way is easier, quicker and has done a good enough job for me. Now, if after the first trial you noticed a new peak/dip appeared at frequency points a little far away from any of the anchor points used, then yes I would apply cuts/boosts to those new frequency points, but for the magnitude of the cuts/boosts, I would still reference back to the original reference curve. For example, if you did not see the need to apply 3 dB cut to 300 Hz on the original reference curve, but after the first trial you see the need at 300 Hz, then I would entered - dB at 300 Hz and see what happens first.

Generally: Do you try to optimize the individual L, R channel or the L&R joint FR?
Yes I have tried L, R, L+R, L+S, R+S and L+R+S. They all would work but obviously L+R+S (I found 80 Hz XO was always best for my setup) is the easiest and quickest way to do. If the result is good, and it was for me, then I would not have bothered doing anything else. Unfortunately, I did not know that until I had tried them all. So I ended up spending hours and hours on trying all combinations.

My suggestion is, try and focus on optimizing L+R+S first. If you can get good results such as +/- 3 dB peak to peak 20 to 200 Hz, then just leave it alone and enjoy the music. I am quite confident that if your REW curve for L+R+S is that good, then L, R, L+R (set to large) will also look good, may not be best but will still be very good.

Some thoughts: As one can see the joint L&R response is worse than the individual response. For example, I am assuming when looking at the pre-Audyessy data, that Audyessy reduced one channel at around 53Hz in order to flatten the response of that one (right channel), however as the left channel has a node here one could try by boosting the right channel back up to compensate for the node of the left channel at that frequency. Especially in the range where one can not locate the sound (below ca. 100Hz). Of course this would unflatten the right channel but the joint L&R resonse would be flatter? Or am I overthinking this, as we are usually to stereo and not mono?
It would be easy to say yes you are overthinking, but I don't think it is because I only realized I might have been overthinking after the fact, that I have spent so much time and plotted numerous curves, to the point I thought I was going to need to buy another Umik-1 mic soon before it fails. As I mentioned earlier, I would not keep chasing the new "anchor points" for the manually entered cuts/boosts, just stick to those identified in the original reference curve. If you have time and are as crazy as I am, then go ahead and try it once or twice to see if it would improve anything, but you have to know when to stop chasing eventually.. Remember, we are humans, a couple dB peaks and dips here and there will likely have no audible effects especially if the peaks and dips are narrow.

Sorry for the lengthy first time post, but I thought I post as much background as I have momentarily. Again, I would be very happy to follow any advise / input you might have.
Any time, I do have one suggestion, as soon as you get the result that meet you target, try plotting curves away from the mlp, and or aiming the mic at different angles to the speakers, and do it again for Audyssey off vs ref.

I have tried up to 9 positions, mlp, +/- 10 to 12 inches to the left, right, above and below so that I can compare off to ref for each of the positions, and for the average curves (also off vs ref).[/QUOTE]
 
H

harmonicthd

Audiophyte
Hi Peng, thank you so much for your detailed answer.

To Neurochrome: Yes one can solder some additional resistors onto the board, so it is not readily adjustable and since I also drive it with my Auralic Altair at 4Vrms in, I chose the 20dB at the time for the noise benefit. 26dB for AVR would indeed be better but is ok as it is as I dont need to drive it to its limit.

To smoothing: Got it. Will do.

To using Reference Curve: Just to be double sure - you mean by Reference curve, the REW measurement FR curve with Audyssey On and set to Reference (instead of Flat) - correct?

To RAT: Is it correct, that I just enter the adjustments (negative "feedback" as you called it) into RAT for the points I want to adjust and can dispense with drawing the curve by hand in the MultiEQ app?

Here is my first attempt - still in Excel - so tranfering this table into RAT, saving it, transfering back to MultiEQ and uploading to the AVR, would be all what is needed - correct?
1636312025655.png


To L, R, L&R optimization: Ah ok, good to know and thanks for the pre-work. Yes I imaging it was a lot of work. So you looked at the L&R REW FR and for example if you identified a peak of let´s say 2db in the L&R REW FR, how did you map it back to the individual channels in RAT? Did you adjust/cut both L and R separately down by 1dB?

To chasing anchor points: :) Yes I am crazy... I built two 686 and two 268 Neurochromes :). I know, it is not audible :) but as you wrote - it is a hobby and it satisfies my compulsions :)

To mic positions: Good to know, will do. It is already 8pm here (UTC+1) and I will be traveling most of the week, I will probably need until next weekend to get the new measurements.

Again, thanks a lot for your extensive advice - really appreciate it.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Hi Peng, thank you so much for your detailed answer.
My pleasure, and to be clear, my suggestions are based on my own experience. I hope it will work well for you too but I could be wrong.

To Neurochrome: Yes one can solder some additional resistors onto the board, so it is not readily adjustable and since I also drive it with my Auralic Altair at 4Vrms in, I chose the 20dB at the time for the noise benefit. 26dB for AVR would indeed be better but is ok as it is as I dont need to drive it to its limit.
Of course, if you figure you won't need more than 2 to 2.5 V pre out voltage during the highest peaks, 20 dB gain is great.

To using Reference Curve: Just to be double sure - you mean by Reference curve, the REW measurement FR curve with Audyssey On and set to Reference (instead of Flat) - correct?
Yes that is correct.

To RAT: Is it correct, that I just enter the adjustments (negative "feedback" as you called it) into RAT for the points I want to adjust and can dispense with drawing the curve by hand in the MultiEQ app?
Correct, Rat provides a table for you to enter the cuts and boosts, much better than drawing it by finger.

Here is my first attempt - still in Excel - so tranfering this table into RAT, saving it, transfering back to MultiEQ and uploading to the AVR, would be all what is needed - correct?
Yes, just enter the data in the Excel table to the Rat table, save it with a file name you can recognize. You should be able to copy that file from your PC to the MultEQ Editor app folder if the device you used runs Android. If it is an IOS device., then I guess it won't work like this and you will have to follow instructions provided by the MultEQ App for IOS. It should still be quite easy to do.

Based on those numbers, I think you probably should target 73 dB, in order to keep boosts to the minimum. At the end of the exercise you can simply increase the Sub1and Sub2 level by 2 dB and the L/R by 2 dB for the 20-200 Hz range to restore overall balance. If that works better/flatter than what you have now, then you can call it a day, but before that you may want to implement the so called "harman curve" as the last step.

Did you adjust/cut both L and R separately down by 1dB?
I am not sure what you meant by "by 1 dB", but yes I did apply the cuts/boosts to L and R separately for the range from about 100 to 6000 Hz (approx., going by memory..). For the 15 to 120 Hz range I believe I just did it for the subwoofer channel.

To mic positions: Good to know, will do. It is already 8pm here (UTC+1) and I will be traveling most of the week, I will probably need until next weekend to get the new measurements.
You can probably do all the prep work on the plane, or in the hotel lol.. One thing I suggest you don't do, that is, don't bother trying to run Audyssey again, as what you have now even without doing anything with the App and Rat is very good already. That tells me your room is actually pretty good, and you did a good job running Audyssey, doing all the right things I assume..
 
H

harmonicthd

Audiophyte
My pleasure, and to be clear, my suggestions are based on my own experience. I hope it will work well for you too but I could be wrong.



Of course, if you figure you won't need more than 2 to 2.5 V pre out voltage during the highest peaks, 20 dB gain is great.



Yes that is correct.



Correct, Rat provides a table for you to enter the cuts and boosts, much better than drawing it by finger.



Yes, just enter the data in the Excel table to the Rat table, save it with a file name you can recognize. You should be able to copy that file from your PC to the MultEQ Editor app folder if the device you used runs Android. If it is an IOS device., then I guess it won't work like this and you will have to follow instructions provided by the MultEQ App for IOS. It should still be quite easy to do.



Based on those numbers, I think you probably should target 73 dB, in order to keep boosts to the minimum. At the end of the exercise you can simply increase the Sub1and Sub2 level by 2 dB and the L/R by 2 dB for the 20-200 Hz range to restore overall balance. If that works better/flatter than what you have now, then you can call it a day, but before that you may want to implement the so called "harman curve" as the last step.



I am not sure what you meant by "by 1 dB", but yes I did apply the cuts/boosts to L and R separately for the range from about 100 to 6000 Hz (approx., going by memory..). For the 15 to 120 Hz range I believe I just did it for the subwoofer channel.



You can probably do all the prep work on the plane, or in the hotel lol.. One thing I suggest you don't do, that is, don't bother trying to run Audyssey again, as what you have now even without doing anything with the App and Rat is very good already. That tells me your room is actually pretty good, and you did a good job running Audyssey, doing all the right things I assume..
Thanks Peng appreciate the confirmation to the reference curve, RAT and Excel questions.
Actually I am on IOS and luckily it’s a breeze exchanging the ady files via the NAS (Synology) from the PC to the MultEQ app. So at least one problem avoided ;-).

Will definitely experiment with the 73dB target. The boosts shown in the Excel are currently only set at frequencies where I knew from the Audyssey Off REW FR that Audyssey had cut off a bit too much, so I would avoid boosting already boosted frequencies. Does that make sense or am I on the wrong path here?

In order to clarify what I meant by the L&R 1dB adjustment example I need to come back to you tomorrow so I can properly word and illustrate the question I had.

Thanks for the comment on the room setup. I am also a bit surprised as it is a modern and sparsely furnished room with concrete walls and even a ca 8x8ft floor to ceiling glass door. However as opposed to the simplified description above the right rear quarter of the room is open to a three times as large dining and kitchen area, which however isn’t much better dampened ;-).
So I guess keeping the KEFs as much away from the wall and the MLP choice helped a bit after all. Wall panels will be difficult but I might consider some for the ceiling and maybe a thicker carpet. Also, as I currently don’t run a subwoofer just the KEFs full range, would adding one or even two help for even better low frequency/mode control? What do you think?
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Will definitely experiment with the 73dB target. The boosts shown in the Excel are currently only set at frequencies where I knew from the Audyssey Off REW FR that Audyssey had cut off a bit too much, so I would avoid boosting already boosted frequencies. Does that make sense or am I on the wrong path here?
Yes it makes sense to me too but it is still better to avoid any boosts. I would also avoid boosting the sharp dips but I found that it was possible to improve those somewhat just by boosting the nearby dips that are much wider as it would seem that in doing so, it helped lifting up the sharp dip as well. It likely was a hit and miss kind of thing though.

So I guess keeping the KEFs as much away from the wall and the MLP choice helped a bit after all. Wall panels will be difficult but I might consider some for the ceiling and maybe a thicker carpet. Also, as I currently don’t run a subwoofer just the KEFs full range, would adding one or even two help for even better low frequency/mode control? What do you think?
A couple of subs, even just one, will help a lot for sure especially if you have flexibility in moving the sub(s) to their sweet spots. Without subs, the best you can do is to try the port(s) opening/closing and settle on the best combinations guided by REW.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top