• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Audyssey's Next Generation of Room Correction (MultEQ-X)

Are you a current Denon/Marantz AVR Owner and if so what do you think of Audyssey's MultEQ-X?

  • I'm a current AVR owner. $200 price is acceptable. I've already purchased it.

  • I'm a current AVR owner. $200 price is acceptable. I’m willing to spend the money once I learn more.

  • I'm a current AVR owner. $200 price is too high. Anything lower is better.

  • I'm not a current Denon/Marantz AVR owner. $200 price is acceptable.

  • I'm not a current Denon/Marantz AVR owner. $200 price is too high. Anything lower lower is better.

  • I'm a current AVR owner. $200 price is acceptable, but I don't like the restrictive terms. Wont buy.

  • I'm not an owner. $200 price is acceptable, but I don't like the restrictive terms. Wont buy.

  • Other (please explain).


Results are only viewable after voting.

fieldcar

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
821
Likes
1,258
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Not sure about the quality of the included mic, but a fail IMO not to allow a usb mic...
I agree.

They did address this and said that the denon measuring mic transducer is identical to the mic that's in something like a UMIK-1, but in a plastic shell. I'd say that this is really stretching the truth there, since you don't have unique mic calibration files, and the plastic will resonate.
 

Dj7675

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Messages
2,116
Likes
2,781
I agree.

They did address this and said that the denon measuring mic transducer is identical to the mic that's in something like a UMIK-1, but in a plastic shell. I'd say that this is really stretching the truth there, since you don't have unique mic calibration files, and the plastic will resonate.
It will be interesting... its just a matter of time when someone will measure with the included mic, and compare it with a UMIK-1 measurement, so this is something that can and am sure will be tested/verified.
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,270
Likes
9,765
Location
NYC
Not sure about the quality of the included mic, but a fail IMO not to allow a usb mic...
The Audyssey guy stated that using a USB mic would not be possible for timing reasons. :oops:
 

Haint

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2020
Messages
346
Likes
452
Here is one scenario for not relying on Pioneer AVRs...

To be fair it's a $350 9-channel 2018 model that saw contemporaneous Denon's (like the X3500) also measuring poorly--nevermind all the boutique NAD/Anthem models that have also bench tested horribly. The 2021 models may or may not pass the Audio Precision's muster, but barring some aspect that's completely broken, equalization quality will trump dubiously audible bench results many many many times over.
 

amper42

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
1,581
Likes
2,280
One of the larger weaknesses in the Denon/Marantz AVR line is amp performance. ASR measurements don't reflect realistic operation when using Pure Direct and running without internal amps. I would appreciate reading a review that measures the hardware in a normal configuration with internal amps used, Audyssey engaged along with subwoofers and DEQ. A true picture of measurements with these normal features engaged would likely be very different than what current ASR reviews offer readers. My guess is with all of these normal features engaged the receiver would measure worse than you might expect. Add the new DAC update and you have realistic disclosure of what to expect. :p:D:facepalm:
 
Last edited:

joentell

Active Member
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
237
Likes
766
Location
Los Angeles
Audyssey MultEQ-X Q&A with Jeff Clark
by @joentell

Streamed 6hrs ago...55min long.
Haven't watched it yet. Just saw it.

UPDATE:
I found out that JoeNTell is going to release a series of tutorial videos talking about MultEQ-X, from this website.
Im not sure if this will be paid or free?
I'm guessing Joe will release more info later.
Disclosure: I beta tested MultEQ-X and I was able to use the program for free. I wasn't compensated otherwise.

I'm planning on charging a fee for the courses. I may offer it as a service too, but I'm not sure. The courses (videos) are more about DSP tuning techniques. I was beta testing MultEQ-X at the time while I was writing up the procedures, but you can use any DSP you want like Equalizer APO or MiniDSP. To be clear, it's not only for MultEQ-X, it's just what I would recommend BECAUSE of the price. I'll explain.

Like I said in the video, I now use MultEQ-X to use my AVR as a PEQ filter bank. That's it! If you consider the alternatives for a DSP with 7-channels to 13-channels of inputs/outputs (depending on your AVR/Pre-Pro) and virtually unlimited "PEQ filters" (they're actually using FIR filters with lots of taps) with full-range EQ for each channel, there's not really anything in the $200 price range. Previously, I was using a MiniDSP DDRC88A with DIRAC, but that's only 8 in/out for $1100. Now I don't have a use for the MiniDSP DDRC88A in that system because of the MultEQ-X app.

I understand that many people won't use it like I did, and may not be happy paying the $200 for the other features. I get it.

I find that the results I'm getting, because of my techniques, and tons of time spent in REW taking measurements and creating filters, I am able to get performance on-par or better than Dirac. I think MSO can possibly do a better job than DLBC for example. Some things with time/phase alignment, Dirac still seems to do a better job of since I don't have an option to use all-pass filters. But for FR, I prefer my results more. I plan to explain in more detail in my video courses. I'll just say that it's more about the methods I use than the hardware I use to hold the filters.

I also don't like the idea of the license being tied to a user and an AVR. I relayed the feedback to Jeff Clark at Audyssey and they're looking for alternative ways to handle that situation. I told them it's best to act sooner rather than later.

The app is definitely a work in progress. Still a bit rough. I see potential for the app though. I think with a filter import option from REW, it will make more sense to people who want to use it the way I'm using it. If it weren't for BEQ, I would probably use it for my subs and not have to use my MiniDSP 2x4HD.
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,923
Likes
7,616
Location
Canada
If it weren't for BEQ, I would probably use it for my subs and not have to use my MiniDSP 2x4HD.

Does this mean you can use this app to set separate, independent filters for Subwoofer 1 and Subwoofer 2?
 

joentell

Active Member
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
237
Likes
766
Location
Los Angeles
Does this mean you can use this app to set separate, independent filters for Subwoofer 1 and Subwoofer 2?
No. The PEQ is still applied to the summed response. You'll still need a MiniDSP to do indiv. filters on each sub.

I'm assuming you want independent filters on subs to use something like MSO to minimize seat to seat variation. Is that correct?
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,923
Likes
7,616
Location
Canada
I'm assuming you want independent filters on subs to use something like MSO to minimize seat to seat variation. Is that correct?

Yep, that's why, using MSO. Unlimited PEQs for each sub would be pretty awesome. I figured not though -- I'm not sure it's even possible for them to add that because there might not be the hardware for two independent subwoofer channels in the AVRs.
 

joentell

Active Member
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
237
Likes
766
Location
Los Angeles
Yep, that's why, using MSO. Unlimited PEQs for each sub would be pretty awesome. I figured not though -- I'm not sure it's even possible for them to add that because there might not be the hardware for two independent subwoofer channels in the AVRs.
I'm guessing it's a hardware limitation
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,731
Likes
16,156
Sometimes one screenshot can be enough to know that its default correction is not something I would like, but at least it now has the option for manual filters...
apps.48823.14524960254668743.986941ef-434b-4ab5-b68a-fedf906c2ba8.294bf96f-8454-4463-8342-95198e70c206
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,313
Location
UK
Out of scope. Let me reframe.

One reasonable approach is for the license to follow the tangible product. Subsequent buyers enjoy that license over the lifespan of the product. Dirac follows that approach.

The other reasonable approach is for the license to follow the user. This approach is used by, e.g. Apple, Microsoft, FuzzMeasure, etc. If you get a new MacBook, you can legally install MS Office that you had on your old Mac (for example) on the new Mac.

Here, it looks like the license is simply rented by the user for the time period where that user has that certain product. That is considerably less consumer friendly than the other two options above.
I understand what you are saying. I am familiar with licensing methods. There are many software that are registered by a user but tied to the computer hardware. You may simply be not aware of.

iTunes used to tie DRM to the computer's network card MAC ID. Even if you bought the tracks you couldn't play it on another computer. They had a re-license mechanism but it is known to miserably fail. On the professional front I had at least three $3000+ software that used a lock and there was no mechanism other then to buy a license again (they offered a discount).

Registering a software to a person but locking to a machine is nothing new.
 

jhaider

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
2,822
Likes
4,514
iTunes used to tie DRM to the computer's network card MAC ID.

I don’t think that’s ever how iTunes DRM worked in the US (I’ve used iTunes for playback since 2001). You could keep a track bought from iTunes Music Store on 5 machines, but you could also de-authorize a machine and use that license on a new one. It worked fine from what I remember, though I never bought much from them. Always preferred to buy CDs.

As for your $3k package, I assume that’s not a consumer-facing software.
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,270
Likes
9,765
Location
NYC
Their defunct Pro kit had an individually calibrated mic, though.
Yes, but it was not connected by USB. It was a separate microphone and preamp that had an analog connection to the AVR/processor. I asked them if my similar calibrated mic/preamp with analog output might work. They chose not to answer.
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,313
Location
UK
I don’t think that’s ever how iTunes DRM worked in the US (I’ve used iTunes for playback since 2001). You could keep a track bought from iTunes Music Store on 5 machines, but you could also de-authorize a machine and use that license on a new one. It worked fine from what I remember, though I never bought much from them. Always preferred to buy CDs.
How did the authorisation worked? It has to know the computer somehow doesn't it?
As for your $3k package, I assume that’s not a consumer-facing software.
Not it wasn't. I was only trying to explain that such licenses exists, not whether it is OK or not.
 

Haint

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2020
Messages
346
Likes
452
Disclosure: I beta tested MultEQ-X and I was able to use the program for free. I wasn't compensated otherwise.

I'm planning on charging a fee for the courses. I may offer it as a service too, but I'm not sure. The courses (videos) are more about DSP tuning techniques. I was beta testing MultEQ-X at the time while I was writing up the procedures, but you can use any DSP you want like Equalizer APO or MiniDSP. To be clear, it's not only for MultEQ-X, it's just what I would recommend BECAUSE of the price. I'll explain.

Like I said in the video, I now use MultEQ-X to use my AVR as a PEQ filter bank. That's it! If you consider the alternatives for a DSP with 7-channels to 13-channels of inputs/outputs (depending on your AVR/Pre-Pro) and virtually unlimited "PEQ filters" (they're actually using FIR filters with lots of taps) with full-range EQ for each channel, there's not really anything in the $200 price range. Previously, I was using a MiniDSP DDRC88A with DIRAC, but that's only 8 in/out for $1100. Now I don't have a use for the MiniDSP DDRC88A in that system because of the MultEQ-X app.

I understand that many people won't use it like I did, and may not be happy paying the $200 for the other features. I get it.

I find that the results I'm getting, because of my techniques, and tons of time spent in REW taking measurements and creating filters, I am able to get performance on-par or better than Dirac. I think MSO can possibly do a better job than DLBC for example. Some things with time/phase alignment, Dirac still seems to do a better job of since I don't have an option to use all-pass filters. But for FR, I prefer my results more. I plan to explain in more detail in my video courses. I'll just say that it's more about the methods I use than the hardware I use to hold the filters.

I also don't like the idea of the license being tied to a user and an AVR. I relayed the feedback to Jeff Clark at Audyssey and they're looking for alternative ways to handle that situation. I told them it's best to act sooner rather than later.

The app is definitely a work in progress. Still a bit rough. I see potential for the app though. I think with a filter import option from REW, it will make more sense to people who want to use it the way I'm using it. If it weren't for BEQ, I would probably use it for my subs and not have to use my MiniDSP 2x4HD.

I'm sure the software works fine and is a big improvement in usability and customization. The problem is an $1100 EQ box isn't in competition with Denon/Marantz, so the value comparison you propose simply isn't a compelling argument to anyone. Even among enthusiasts and tinkerers, no one is looking to buy a DDRC88A to add to an existing high end AVR. They'd be looking to buy a whole new AVR, not an $1100 outboard processor. Their real competition here is an $1099 NR7100 or $1399 RZ50, which are fully featured 9-11 channel AVR's with Dirac and multiple HDMI 2.1 ports. MEQ-X is effectively a requirement to stay relevant in the AVR space, not an answer to MiniDSP. A failure to recognize this will all but assuredly send the recommendations and word of mouth sales to Onkyo/Pioneer, and away from Denon/Marantz (who benefited immensely when Onkyo dropped Audyssey years ago in favor of their disastrous AccuEQ).
 
Last edited:

joentell

Active Member
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
237
Likes
766
Location
Los Angeles
I'm sure the software works fine and is a big improvement in usability and customization. The problem is an $1100 EQ box isn't in competition with Denon/Marantz, so the value comparison you propose simply isn't a compelling argument to anyone. Even among enthusiasts and tinkerers, no one is looking to buy a DDRC88A to add to an existing high end AVR. They'd be looking to buy a whole new AVR, not an $1100 outboard processor. Their real competition here is an $1099 NR7100 or $1399 RZ50, which are fully featured 9-11 channel AVR's with Dirac and multiple HDMI 2.1 ports. MEQ-X is effectively a requirement to stay relevant in the AVR space, not an answer to MiniDSP. A failure to recognize will all but assuredly send all the recommendations and word of mouth sales to Onkyo/Pioneer, and away from Denon/Marantz (who benefitted immensely when Onkyo dropped Audyssey years ago in favor of their disastrous AccuEQ).
You aren't incorrect. But, what if you already own a Denon X4700H and you like it, but you have an itch for better room EQ. You might look into those alternatives from Onkyo, but you'll have to sell your AVR and buy a new one from Onkyo. If you don't want to go through the hassle of selling yours, then you have to shell out $1000+ for the Onkyo. If you had no AVR, then just go for the Onkyo if you want Dirac. But, if you like everything else about the Denon and just want more tuning capabilities, this is a way to do it for $200. I'll be more specific in saying, if you already own a compatible Denon or Marantz product and just want to tinker and tweak, this might be the least expensive way to do it.

People actually do want to use a MiniDSP DDRC88A to add Dirac to their non Dirac capable system. That's what I wanted to use it for and I did use it that way for a while. Other people who are interested in buying it from me mostly want to do exactly that. I'm not even sure what else someone would use it for.
 

jhaider

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
2,822
Likes
4,514
How did the authorisation worked? It has to know the computer somehow doesn't it?

iTunes "knew" you by your iCloud ID, called Apple ID then I think. As to how it worked, no idea. It just worked.

Not it wasn't. I was only trying to explain that such licenses exists, not whether it is OK or not.

I'm curious - what consumer-facing software costs $3k? I mean today, not in 1985.

Also, nobody disputes that such licenses "exist." If SU didn't choose this path we wouldn't be discussing!

The irony here is that the previous advanced Audssey product, the iOS App, has a best-of-both-worlds license: you can use it on multiple Audyssey-equipped devices AND it's portable as you upgrade your phone hardware. Frankly from what I’ve seen so far it’s the better product, too. This one seems to forsake modern features such as fitting the response to a target curve in favor of basic PEQ. (The miniDSP equivalent, BTW, is 10x10HD not DDRC-88). I guess some people like that. I don’t. This one also does not improve bass management either from what I could see, which is a huge disappointment as IMO Audyssey lags behind DLBC, ARC Genesis, and RoomPerfect there.

It will be interesting... its just a matter of time when someone will measure with the included mic, and compare it with a UMIK-1 measurement, so this is something that can and am sure will be tested/verified.

Ahem. See one of my posts above. OK, I think both of those were technically “CSL Calibrated Dayton EMM-6 into Focusrite interface” measurements, but close enough.

Bottom line is surveys show that the included mic allows Audyssey to fit the in room response of good speakers to their chosen target curve within the measured area.*

*I intentionally make no effort to sample the measurement points. I take samples within the same measured area. If the system is worth a damn it should provide stable results at any random set of control points within the measured area.

While I think it makes sense from a marketing perspective to let people use fancier mics, the audible benefit is likely just that you stop hearing people talk about the issue.
 
Top Bottom