What first? Audyssey or bass eq?

[KEW]

This is for SMS-1 and MultEQ.
Would it be the same for SVS-EQ1?
Thanks!

 

[jostenmeat]

This is for SMS-1 and MultEQ.
Would it be the same for SVS-EQ1?
Thanks!

You will want to do the MultEQ first. Same no matter the ASEQ1, or any other version of the MultEQ family. This will help correct for decay and time issues throughout a large part of the room.

Then you use the SMS1 as intended, for a particular LP. Tailor to taste. If you ran the SMS1 first, then Audyssey, then tweaked the SMS1 again . . . what's the point in touching it the first time?

However, and I haven't read any scientific backing to this, some people have claimed to get superior results when taming the most offensive one or two frequencies with the SMS1 (or other EQ), then applying Audyssey (with or without further SMS1 tweaking afterwards). The logic (or perhaps more specifically speculation) behind this is that Audyssey (or perhaps more specifically the limited processing power of the receiver/MultEQ device) can be relieved of a couple of massive issues. For instance, the DIY Danley DTS10 was not EQd out of the box (as it would be prebuilt, like most any decent consumer sub), with a big broad peak at 54hz, and so some folks found better results by first attacking this resonant peak, and then continuing on with the rest of the calibration(s).

 

[ParadigmDawg]

You will want to do the MultEQ first. Same no matter the ASEQ1, or any other version of the MultEQ family. This will help correct for decay and time issues throughout a large part of the room.

Then you use the SMS1 as intended, for a particular LP. Tailor to taste. If you ran the SMS1 first, then Audyssey, then tweaked the SMS1 again . . . what's the point in touching it the first time?

However, and I haven't read any scientific backing to this, some people have claimed to get superior results when taming the most offensive one or two frequencies with the SMS1 (or other EQ), then applying Audyssey (with or without further SMS1 tweaking afterwards). The logic (or perhaps more specifically speculation) behind this is that Audyssey (or perhaps more specifically the limited processing power of the receiver/MultEQ device) can be relieved of a couple of massive issues. For instance, the DIY Danley DTS10 was not EQd out of the box (as it would be prebuilt, like most any decent consumer sub), with a big broad peak at 54hz, and so some folks found better results by first attacking this resonant peak, and then continuing on with the rest of the calibration(s).

Respectfully disagree.

EQ first follwed by Audyessy.

 

[jostenmeat]

Respectfully disagree.

EQ first follwed by Audyessy.

Depending on your reasoning, it may not disagree with my post. I am going to go with, "just sounds better to you"?

Were there a couple of very problematic frequencies you dialed with the SMS1 first, or was it already pretty decent with fine tweaking all over the place?

 

[KEW]

That makes sense - if there are some major nulls, bass management first, otherwise Audyssey first, if I follow.

 

[jostenmeat]

KEW, I want to go watch some WS in a bit, but I guess I can attempt a dilution of what I was saying.

Audyssey will try to hit its target curve (whichever you select), and it has no idea what has been done in front of it. No matter if SMS1, or 10 diff devices in front of it, it will always try to go for the same curve that is selected, arguably negating any kind of adjustment done beforehand.

The only way I can speculate a benefit with doing the SMS1 first are for two reasons that I can see:

- Audyssey has a "hardwired" limitation in max db cut/boost, and so with a very bad issue, front loading eq might help.

- If the greater the EQ adjustment that is applied for any given frequency implicates a need for greater processor power, then well you can follow my previous logic . . .

Honestly, sometimes I don't have as much motivation to learn about Audyssey (slightly true, and a slight laziness) because I think a lot of it is kept secret for proprietary reasons.

Ok, as I preview post, I see you've replied.

That makes sense - if there are some major nulls, bass management first, otherwise Audyssey first, if I follow.

It's still arguable whether doing other EQ first is beneficial . . . but I think that is the most common occurrence when people think it is beneficial to apply EQ pre-Audyssey. Depending on Dawg's experiences, maybe there are other reasons too.

What I will say is that I've ran Audyssey a number of times now, and sometimes the effect can sound differently. This last time, it seems as if there is a bit more rolloff than usual, and I wonder if it came about because of my recent DSP FW update.

 

[KEW]

Thanks JM & PD,

Well, I went with Audyssey first and the maximum "correction" for Audyssey EQ was +3db so I believe I can infer my room is not so bad (I don't remember for certain, but think the negative correction was -1.5) I'll check in the morning. I have to say that I was hoping for a dramatic change, but it is nothing so obvious. - It is always good to know things have not been too far out of whack!

I have not yet hooked in the SMS-1.

 

[jostenmeat]

You're welcome, KEW. Do you have a Marantz by chance? I am taking an educated guess, but really I have no idea.

I did not imply "overall" db cuts, in terms of level. I was talking about specific frequencies. I know for at least the XT version, Audyssey can apply hundreds of filters. (You know, the level might be just fine, but you have say a huge 10db spike at 71hz for example . . . )

If this is your first time applying Audyssey, then I should also make sure that you are aware of the various target curves available with any particular unit. There are curves called such things as Audyssey/House, Flat, Fronts, and even a "proprietary" NAD/PSB curve. Well, not exactly PSB, but Paul Barton still . . .

 

[KEW]

Yes (Marantz SR6001) and yes (first experience with Audyssey).

I was wondering about the "Flat" vs "Audyssey" curves. the "Flat" applies more and more gain as the frequency increases, up to +5.5dB, IIRC. I guess that means my room is acoustically a bit dead on the high end - this is with the Paradigm S-2 Be tweeter, so I was surprised to see the top end getting tweaked like that!

I think my MultEQ version only applies EQ on bands centered at 63, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000, and 1,600Hz.

It will be interesting to see what the SMS-1 sees and does with a higher resolution analysis of the low end.

 

[jostenmeat]

I was wondering about the "Flat" vs "Audyssey" curves. the "Flat" applies more and more gain as the frequency increases, up to +5.5dB, IIRC. I guess that means my room is acoustically a bit dead on the high end - this is with the Paradigm S-2 Be tweeter, so I was surprised to see the top end getting tweaked like that!

Yeah, interesting. Audyssey curve is indeed a roll off of the HF.

I think my MultEQ version only applies EQ on bands centered at 63, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000, and 1,600Hz.

No, this can't be right. Think about it, you only get one band for the sub channel? According to their website, MultEQ gets you 128x sub channel filter resolution (whatever that really means).

Also, I don't think my bands show any change at all when Audyssey is applied, so I found your experience to be interesting. I can't remember for certain, but I think if I tweaked any of the bands, that Audyssey is disengaged?

It will be interesting to see what the SMS-1 sees and does with a higher resolution analysis of the low end.

Ok, it's good that we know that you are using a Marantz. Historically (with all or almost all of their receivers with MultEQ), they don't have enough processing power to apply certain things simultaneously, like PLIIX matrixing on top of Audyssey, or decoding advanced bitstreams on top of Audyssey, or things like that.

Is this a 2ch system? Then you wouldn't have to worry so much about the above (as long as you have any bdp decode your bitstreams into mch PCM). Your comment about it being "nothing so obvious" brought this to light for me . . .

 

[KEW]

Yeah, interesting. Audyssey curve is indeed a roll off of the HF.
No, this can't be right. Think about it, you only get one band for the sub channel? According to their website, MultEQ gets you 128x sub channel filter resolution (whatever that really means).

I guess it only reports the adjustments at those 8 frequencies.

Also, I don't think my bands show any change at all when Audyssey is applied, so I found your experience to be interesting. I can't remember for certain, but I think if I tweaked any of the bands, that Audyssey is disengaged?

I'll get some pics of the screens. I haven't tweaked anything yet.

Ok, it's good that we know that you are using a Marantz. Historically (with all or almost all of their receivers with MultEQ), they don't have enough processing power to apply certain things simultaneously, like PLIIX matrixing on top of Audyssey, or decoding advanced bitstreams on top of Audyssey, or things like that.

Is this a 2ch system? Then you wouldn't have to worry so much about the above (as long as you have any bdp decode your bitstreams into mch PCM). Your comment about it being "nothing so obvious" brought this to light for me . . .

Yes, this is a 2.2 system. I do think the bass may have tightened just a bit, but didn't really listen close enough "before" to feel confident of that. The gain adjustments are not much at 63Hz, but it may be that setting the distance/phasing made the difference.

Thanks!

 

[jostenmeat]

Hey you're welcome. Don't post photos on my account, I totally believe you.

Of course for playing with before and after, all you do is engage/disable Audyssey.

FWIW, I've never used this tech on a 2ch system. With the mch HT, the sound does tighten up, but I think the biggest improvement comes with my center speaker; the dialogue is less muddled, less localizable near floor, and yes, I'm sure it has to do with rather poor placement (midbass boosts, which are what make it localizable and muddled). When I have an AT screen ready, perhaps my perceived need for this would be greatly diminished. I do have a healthy number of treatments.

 

[anamorphic96]

From my understanding after speaking with Chris at Audyssey, they prefer any sub eq to be done first then run Audyssey.

I would e-mail them as they tend to be very helpful.

 

[ParadigmDawg]

From my understanding after speaking with Chris at Audyssey, they prefer any sub eq to be done first then run Audyssey.

I would e-mail them as they tend to be very helpful.

You (KEW) could just read the Audyssey thread on AVS but that would take 40 days and confuse you...

 

[jostenmeat]

From my understanding after speaking with Chris at Audyssey, they prefer any sub eq to be done first then run Audyssey.

I would e-mail them as they tend to be very helpful.

I ran a search, read for 40 days straight, and then jumped in my time machine to come back here to post in this thread.

I haven't seen Chris say this (yet) with any forceful opinion. The one time that I've yet read that he recommended using an SMS1 prior to Audyssey is simply so that Audyssey knows what its working with.

IOW, I think he says that because he probably thinks Audyssey is good enough by itself or that Audyssey by itself is superior to Audyssey+something else. If not, then what is the reason?

Do you remember what Chris' reasoning was? He must have explained something?

Well, what appears to be his main issue with the comparisons involving the SMS1 is that they are simply using the one position mic method, and he finds it to be useless/misleading, saying in fact that what you see on the graph is not even what you will hear. OTOH, he says if you take many measurements with something "consumer friendly" like an XTZ, the resulting data would be much more accurate.

I don't know. OK I kept reading.

The first reason for running eq pre-Audyssey is simply so that Audyssey can then add additional delay/distance for the DSP/filters' (such as with the SMS1) electrical distance. Ok, he says that if you engage low pass filter on the SMS1, that you will be limiting what MEQ can see in the sub's response.

The second reason is that he seems to only recognize a flat curve or the target curve as the desired goal. The reason not to use SMS1 after here is so that you don't overboost any frequencies. Well, I have my Crown BandManager boosting low frequencies with a shelf. Post-Audyssey. Since my last cal, I find the bottom end too hot, and will use a different preset I've played with (have 7 presets now of 20 available; always used post-Audyssey in my HT).

I'm going to stop reading now, but if I find more reasons, I'll post 'em.

 

[anamorphic96]

This was e-mail correspondence I had with him a while back.

The first point is the major one and thats the delay/distance setting. The second big point is why go back and eq the sub with one mic position when Audyssey could be used with 8 different positions after the Velodyne.


http://ask.audyssey.com/forums/84181/entries/76175.html