Audyssey Manual Calibration “OCA’s REW + Audyssey Awesomeness”

[GalZohar]

Both the app and X send the exact same data and parameters to the AVR at the end of the day because Audyssey has no longer control over the firmware in the units since they sold the license long time ago to SU. No one can change the 12db/oct Butterworth (not Linkwitz to my surprize) high pass filter applied at the XO frequency in these units. Of course, which XO frequency will yield the best response can be calculated accordingly and with X one needs to carry everything over to REW to check this and really know what he's doing while with One this will be done on the go automatically. Your answer was correct btw.

However, the curve also contains a 12db/oct rolloff which isn't directly related to the crossover and is automatically determined during measurements (and is normally the same frequency as the automatically-detected crossover).

What I'm saying is that it might be worth applying that rolloff at the same frequency as your final chosen crossover (ex: 80Hz). Then your EQ filters will apply a 12db/rolloff which, when combined with the built-in 12db/oct rolloff of the crossover filter, would yield 24db/oct rolloff. Theoretically, that's supposed to be better, although I haven't seen anyone test to confirm it. Note that in the editor app this value cannot be changed, only MultEQ-X can change that value, however I estimate that it is somewhere in the ady file and therefore can be changed by your script. With X you can even change the slope to something different than 12db/oct but I'm not sure if there's any good reason to do that normally.

Audyssey also determines a minimum EQ frequency, below which no filters are applied, normally the same as the automatically-determined crossover and rolloff (that is, all 3 values are the same by default). With X those 3 values can be changed independently, and hopefully they can also be changed by externally modifying the ady file.

 

[OCA]

However, the curve also contains a 12db/oct rolloff which isn't directly related to the crossover and is automatically determined during measurements (and is normally the same frequency as the automatically-detected crossover).

What I'm saying is that it might be worth applying that rolloff at the same frequency as your final chosen crossover (ex: 80Hz). Then your EQ filters will apply a 12db/rolloff which, when combined with the built-in 12db/oct rolloff of the crossover filter, would yield 24db/oct rolloff. Theoretically, that's supposed to be better, although I haven't seen anyone test to confirm it. Note that in the editor app this value cannot be changed, only MultEQ-X can change that value, however I estimate that it is somewhere in the ady file and therefore can be changed by your script. With X you can even change the slope to something different than 12db/oct but I'm not sure if there's any good reason to do that normally.

Audyssey also determines a minimum EQ frequency, below which no filters are applied, normally the same as the automatically-determined crossover and rolloff (that is, all 3 values are the same by default). With X those 3 values can be changed independently, and hopefully they can also be changed by externally modifying the ady file.

Tell your friends at Audyssey if they stop encrypting the mic cal file, I can adapt One easily to X

 

[GalZohar]

Tell your friends at Audyssey if they stop encrypting the mic cal file, I can adapt One easily to X

That's not what I meant though. What I meant if maybe those values could be changed by modifying the ady file, even though they don't provide an interface to do so with the app. I'm guessing that they are somewhere in the editor app file even though the editor app cannot change them, external software like yours probably could, achieving the same slope that can be obtained with X while keeping all the other improvements.

 

[OCA]

That's not what I meant though. What I meant if maybe those values could be changed by modifying the ady file, even though they don't provide an interface to do so with the app. I'm guessing that they are somewhere in the editor app file even though the editor app cannot change them, external software like yours probably could, achieving the same slope that can be obtained with X while keeping all the other improvements.

The logic is quite different. Speaker responses are replaced with Dirac pulses (perfect impulse response) and that stops Audyssey from applying any filters of its own and it only generates filters to achieve user target curves if any. So every filter you wanna apply is fed to the app as custom target curve points. This technique is widely used since the days of Ratbuddyssey many years back. I know lots of Multeq-X users doing the same (they disable Audyssey measurements instead of uploading perfect speaker responses because they can in X) and add their REW generated filters as target curves to X. Actually, I know some users recently successfully uploaded One's filters to their receivers by using this method with X and customizing the filters further in X to their taste. FYI all customization tools in X also work the same way behind the scenes (unless they were given special access to the firmware in the units by SU).

 

[GalZohar]

The logic is quite different. Speaker responses are replaced with Dirac pulses (perfect impulse response) and that stops Audyssey from applying any filters of its own and it only generates filters to achieve user target curves if any. So every filter you wanna apply is fed to the app as custom target curve points. This technique is widely used since the days of Ratbuddyssey many years back. I know lots of Multeq-X users doing the same (they disable Audyssey measurements instead of uploading perfect speaker responses because they can in X) and add their REW generated filters as target curves to X. Actually, I know some users recently successfully uploaded One's filters to their receivers by using this method with X and customizing the filters further in X to their taste. FYI all customization tools in X also work the same way behind the scenes (unless they were given special access to the firmware in the units by SU).

Can't you use the built-in rolloff to apply a 12db/oct "filter" (I think such filter can't be done with the "points"?), then adjust the target curve to account for it so that your final response (without crossover filters) rolls off at 12db/oct at the crossover frequency? Theoretically that should improve the subwoofer integration.

Also, how do you determine the frequency at which to stop allowing filters, in order not to boost the bass at low frequencies the speaker can't play? Or do you simply not apply any boosts at all which I suppose would avoid this issue?

 

[phn]

Having again tweaked my room acoustics a bit, it was time to run new Audyssey settings. Having learnt about Audyssey One, I properly set on testing this one out as well.
-snip-

Having tried these out for a bit now I ended up turning DynamicEQ = OFF per your recommendation. I adjusted the subwoofer level back up a tad, maybe something I will reset to how your script set it, in a bit too.

For comparison, I saved MultEQ-X with Toole to my Quick select #2 and for another comparison with Audyssey Referece Off-set to #3. Those I have with DynamicEQ and RLO at 10dB. I often listen with quite low volume so I do like the Fletcher–Munson effect behind DEQ.

But when listening closer towards reference, I just keep going back to the One preset. Such an open soundstage.

 

[phn]

v1.3 out now I see. Great to see this being updated. What kind of improvements should I be looking towards if I run this again? I did my previous run with v1.2.

 

[OCA]

v1.3 out now I see. Great to see this being updated. What kind of improvements should I be looking towards if I run this again? I did my previous run with v1.2.

If your sub polarity was wrongly inverted by Audyssey v1.3 will correct that, if not, the results will be the same. There's also a minor improvement in the Audyssey anti reference curve at the very high frequencies if you have bat ears

 

[phn]

If your sub polarity was wrongly inverted by Audyssey v1.3 will correct that, if not, the results will be the same. There's also a minor improvement in the Audyssey anti reference curve at the very high frequencies if you have bat ears

No bat ears here lol. Maybe I will give it a go regardless. Perhaps with a tight measurements pattern at LP. Or maybe just one measurement? Do you have a comment on that, I recall you mentioned in one of your videos multiple measurements and averaging them does not necessarily result in a desired result. That was regarding higher frequencies you do not touch, tough, iirc. So maybe that was a generic comment vis-a-vis Dirac and Audyssey and their full audio range corrections.

 

[OCA]

No bat ears here lol. Maybe I will give it a go regardless. Perhaps with a tight measurements pattern at LP. Or maybe just one measurement? Do you have a comment on that, I recall you mentioned in one of your videos multiple measurements and averaging them does not necessarily result in a desired result. That was regarding higher frequencies you do not touch, tough, iirc. So maybe that was a generic comment vis-a-vis Dirac and Audyssey and their full audio range correction

It really depends on your listening requirement. You'll get the best precision with single mic point multiple measurements at that location or you'll have good precision in a wider area but nowhere will it be as good as the former.

 

[phn]

Thank you for your reply. I will try the former over the weekend with v1.3, as I did the latter with v1.2. Let us see if I can hear any differences.

 

[Peupeut]

v1.3 out now I see. Great to see this being updated. What kind of improvements should I be looking towards if I run this again? I did my previous run with v1.2.

Hello @OCA !

I wanted to give a try on the V1.3 but it is not working on my mac (Safari browser). The program runs perfectly, I see all calculation and graph edition in REW, I have the optimization log saved where I can review all the outcomes of the analysis, but no way to find the new .ady file...

I have tested it with the 1.3 and also the 1.3 09 4924 you proposed on the comments of the Youtube video. I have done a search on entire computer of any .ady file, looks like the final export never occurs....

For your info, it worked perfectly with the 1.2.

I will wait for the 1.4, I was just curious to test the gaps

Is there a chance on future version you extend the correction to 1kHz or further? I have a particular case where my atmos speakers (Focal ICA6) are supposed to be installed in an empty ceiling but in my case I have no other choice, there is some blown insulation above the ceiling . So the bass have disappeared in the frequency response (till 300Hz), and I would like to smooth this extra energy from 300 to 1kHz...

 

[OCA]

Hello @OCA !

I wanted to give a try on the V1.3 but it is not working on my mac (Safari browser). The program runs perfectly, I see all calculation and graph edition in REW, I have the optimization log saved where I can review all the outcomes of the analysis, but no way to find the new .ady file...

I have tested it with the 1.3 and also the 1.3 09 4924 you proposed on the comments of the Youtube video. I have done a search on entire computer of any .ady file, looks like the final export never occurs....

For your info, it worked perfectly with the 1.2.

I will wait for the 1.4, I was just curious to test the gaps

Is there a chance on future version you extend the correction to 1kHz or further? I have a particular case where my atmos speakers (Focal ICA6) are supposed to be installed in an empty ceiling but in my case I have no other choice, there is some blown insulation above the ceiling . So the bass have disappeared in the frequency response (till 300Hz), and I would like to smooth this extra energy from 300 to 1kHz...

I think that's related to Safari browser security settings, it doesn't want to download a second file for some reason. AFAIK Mac users solved that by using Chrome browsers.

 

[EasyC]

I think that's related to Safari browser security settings, it doesn't want to download a second file for some reason. AFAIK Mac users solved that by using Chrome browsers.

That was me. I think the problem for these browsers is the multiple files download at the end- maybe if the log and the ady file were zipped into one it would work on all browsers?

 

[OCA]

That was me. I think the problem for these browsers is the multiple files download at the end- maybe if the log and the ady file were zipped into one it would work on all browsers?

Good idea, I'll add it in the next build.

 

[JuanjoS]

Good idea, I'll add it in the next build.

Maybe add a small delay between downloads as suggested on StackOverflow.

 

[OCA]

That was me. I think the problem for these browsers is the multiple files download at the end- maybe if the log and the ady file were zipped into one it would work on all browsers?

I revised the script today to save files with an async function which will add a certain delay @JuanjoS mentions. Hopefully, you should be able to download the ady file now.

 

[Severian]

I've been using this for a week now and have run 1.2 and 1.3 (the first one revealing a couple of issues with my DIY speakers that needed fixing...) with a 5.2.2 setup on a Denon AVR-X3800H. My two DIY subs are wired in parallel as one channel, run through a Dayton Audio DSP-408 with a 21Hz HFP to protect the drivers.

The results are astoundingly good.

 

[Severian]

Also, as someone new to OCA's videos and relatively new to having a modern Audyssey-capable receiver - but fairly experienced with using REW to measure two-channel systems and even design a two-way active speaker - it was amazing to discover that's it's possible to import Audyssey measurements into REW at all!

 

[Mike Lima]

It really depends on your listening requirement. You'll get the best precision with single mic point multiple measurements at that location or you'll have good precision in a wider area but nowhere will it be as good as the former.

So are you saying if I am calibrating for me (one person in the MLP0, just use one microphone position?