• 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 Room EQ Review

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,767
Likes
3,706
Of course if you listen with DEQ you should perform the listening tests to check your curve with DEQ on. What I'm saying that I'm not sure if you set your low frequencies to match your room gain, if that would actually result in excessive bass with DEQ on or not. I suspect it shouldn't.
It definitely will because it doesn't know that you boosted the curve! It works on a set table of values. This is probably one of the reasons why some people don't like Dynamic EQ. They try to set up their system manually to near perfection, then turn it on to see what it does. They quickly turn it off because it overcooked the system. This is an incorrect use of Dynamic EQ.


In any case, I don't see which problems you are solving by raising the subwoofer level over modifying the low frequencies by changing the curve. The subwoofer has a crossover filter applied so you are basically raising the low frequencies with a very specific curve when you turn up the subwoofer, and in addition you get that extra level just from the subwoofer and not your speakers. If you create a curve for your speakers and subwoofer so that they match at the crossover you can get a similar or better effect (better because you have more control on the actual curve, so at the very least you can get a very similar result to just raising the subwoofer level).

I find saying DEQ is meant for a flat curve and then raising the subwoofer on top of DEQ to be in contradiction with each other.
The vast majority of Audyssey users increase sub levels because it sets them too low.

Additionally, one would think that raising the whole target curve like the approach taken by Dirac would be ideal, but that is fraught with error, especially if people use the default Dirac or Harman curves. In my experience (nearly a decade playing with this at this point) and that of other reputable members at AVS, you really need to prevent the bass boost from entering into the 100-200 Hz region. Allowing that range to be boosted more than just 1-2 dB above the 1 kHz range will cause your speakers to sound congested and will also increase the level of the redirected bass going to your sub. More of the ugliness in the upper bass will be coming through the sub and it does not sound good. Overall, you will lose clarity.

The takeaway is that your bass boost needs to be done by 100-120 Hz if you want the best sound quality. Boosting the level of the subs only achieves this extremely well. I could try to perfectly craft a curve however it wouldn't change much, and because we're talking about a crossover and not a cliff, it still blends. My slope descends from 20 Hz to 120 Hz to the tune of about 8-10 dB, then drops another 2 dB by 1 kHz, and another 2 dB by 10 kHz. Outside of the bass region, this is the natural slope of neutral speakers in this room without EQ.
 
Last edited:

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,615
Likes
5,168
Sounds so complicated, but to me, bass house curve, as the name implies, is about personal preference but it just happens that most people prefer a tilt in the low bass range like the one shown by the so called Harman curve. It obvious can be used as loudness compensation too, but personally if that's the goal, I would just use DEQ (for Denon/Marantz users).

DEQ, as someone mentioned before, is about "loudness" compensation based on how we hear. In theory, if DEQ is done perfectly (is that even possible, even with highly effective AI technology?) then I think it is better at least if accuracy (reference to the recording/mastering intended results) is the goal. House curve, even if personal preference is the goal, will only be good within a narrow range of listening level, outside of that I would say a different curve would be needed if the same goal (based on the individual's preference) is to be maintained. For example, a house curve based on 70 dB listening level may sound too bass heavy if the user crank it up to reference level. Conversely if the house curve is done based on the perceived sound quality at reference level, then if the user listens at 70 dB average, he/she may want to engage DEQ, or have another house curve ready for use at lower listening levels.

The combined effects of using bass house curves and DEQ together would make the process more complicated, again, if accuracy is the goal. If personal preference is the goal then I don't see an issue using both, but ideally one would have to have more than one bass house curve for different listening levels.

As @Newman alluded to earlier, a bass house curve that is based on sufficiency high level (such as THX reference I assume..) that this is a moot point. That's why I am very interested in knowing whether those Harman studies were done at sufficiently high listening levels so that "loudness" would not have been a factor. According to Newman, that was the case, so then the Harman curve, as least the "original" one (if there is in fact such an original curve) then it is really only tailored to sound the best based on the finding in the study but for levels much lower than that used in the study.

All of the above are just based on my own understanding, I could be stating the obvious, or my understanding may be all wrong, or partially correct.....

Regardless, since I use Audyssey, I would stick with DEQ, but I do have a couple slightly tilted curves just to be able to spice things up whenever I feel like to. Apparently, recent versions of Audyssey DEQ appeared to have boosted the surround channels too much, but it is easy enough to offset that using the level trim settings.
 

GalZohar

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2021
Messages
442
Likes
216
As far as I understand there are 4 unrelated aspects often used for target curves:

1. High frequency rolloff. A flat anechoic speaker will often measure having a high frequency rolloff in-room, and boosting it will probably just make the sound bright.

2. Tilt slope. Similar reasons as above.

3. Room gain bass boost. The claim is that if the room has measured overall bass boost you should keep it and only eliminate peaks/dips. I am not sure what science is behind that, but noticed many include that im their house curve, and anthem arc even includes it automatically in the default house curve.

4. Low bass boost (up to 80~120Hz), as there isn't really a way to know how the effects that are usually played at those frequencies *should* sound, how loud you want them is almost purely personal preference. Although theoretically having no boost here is supposed to be as loyal as possible to what was intended in the mix, I am not sure if that is actually true.

Note that none of the above include loudness compensation, which can be added on top, either with DEQ or by applying additional modifications to the curve.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
Conversely if the house curve is done based on the perceived sound quality at reference level, then if the user listens at 70 dB average, he/she may want to engage DEQ, or have another house curve ready for use at lower listening levels.
Great post @peng , right on point.
Unfortunately not many of us have the luxury of being able to rapidly switch between house curves. I've played with a few different "house curves" but it a real slow PITA to upload them. It would be nice if the AV front end could contain a few different ones. Maybe the latest units have that option, IDK.
In the end, DEQ can be a nice addition to a house preference curve, depending. ;)
YMMV

According to Newman, that was the case, so then the Harman curve, as least the "original" one (if there is in fact such an original curve) then it is really only tailored to sound the best based on the finding in the study but NOT for levels much lower than that used in the study.
? I was confused by this sentence, is that what you meant to say?

Apparently, recent versions of Audyssey DEQ appeared to have boosted the surround channels too much, but it is easy enough to offset that using the level trim settings.
I'm not sure if that's true anymore? A while back I found it a quite annoying side-effect of DEQ and I know there were a lot of complaints about it. I find it funny that I don't notice it any more. Maybe corrected in one of the many firmware updates I've gotten lately. Or I maybe I made adjustments to the rear levels to tame it? Don't honestly remember.
As far as I understand there are 4 unrelated aspects often used for target curves:
We do have to remember house curves as in the "Harman" curve was simply based on preference and not hearing a flat (accurate) response at the listening chair. I think the great majority likes a little bass boost and a droop on the top end can tame much of the bright sound or sibilance on many recordings. You either like it or not and can feel free to adjust to a personal preference, no law against it. ;)

So much of this can seem very contradictory. Do you run some form of DRC and then combine with REW measurements to get as flat a response as possible at the MLP? Run a room curve? Use DEQ? Combine them both? IDFK!
ROTFLMAO
 

GalZohar

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2021
Messages
442
Likes
216
We do have to remember house curves as in the "Harman" curve was simply based on preference and not hearing a flat (accurate) response at the listening chair. I think the great majority likes a little bass boost and a droop on the top end can tame much of the bright sound or sibilance on many recordings. You either like it or not and can feel free to adjust to a personal preference, no law against it. ;)

As far as I'm aware the Harman research was based on preference, but the result has some kind of science to back it up, as seems like many claim that you should create the curve to more or less follow the general line of your measured response, justified by you not wanting to EQ up/down measured reflections as they would make the direct sound less flat, which would sound worse overall. For me it's all theory as I haven't experimented with this myself (especially not in different rooms), but this seems to be a rather common advice.

So much of this can seem very contradictory. Do you run some form of DRC and then combine with REW measurements to get as flat a response as possible at the MLP? Run a room curve? Use DEQ? Combine them both? IDFK!
ROTFLMAO

I don't see a real point in using REW for flattening the response at the MLP (plus the tools to do it when you use Audyssey are sketchy). Seems like room curve and DEQ are combine-able although another option is to incorporate your loudness compensation into your house curve if you only listen at one level or are willing to swap configurations when you change the level... Of course if you combine you shouldn't add any bass boost to your curve without factoring in the DEQ boost, if you use listening tests to set your curve.
 

HarmonicTHD

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
3,326
Likes
4,829
Sounds so complicated, but to me, bass house curve, as the name implies, is about personal preference but it just happens that most people prefer a tilt in the low bass range like the one shown by the so called Harman curve. It obvious can be used as loudness compensation too, but personally if that's the goal, I would just use DEQ (for Denon/Marantz users).

DEQ, as someone mentioned before, is about "loudness" compensation based on how we hear. In theory, if DEQ is done perfectly (is that even possible, even with highly effective AI technology?) then I think it is better at least if accuracy (reference to the recording/mastering intended results) is the goal. House curve, even if personal preference is the goal, will only be good within a narrow range of listening level, outside of that I would say a different curve would be needed if the same goal (based on the individual's preference) is to be maintained. For example, a house curve based on 70 dB listening level may sound too bass heavy if the user crank it up to reference level. Conversely if the house curve is done based on the perceived sound quality at reference level, then if the user listens at 70 dB average, he/she may want to engage DEQ, or have another house curve ready for use at lower listening levels.

The combined effects of using bass house curves and DEQ together would make the process more complicated, again, if accuracy is the goal. If personal preference is the goal then I don't see an issue using both, but ideally one would have to have more than one bass house curve for different listening levels.

As @Newman alluded to earlier, a bass house curve that is based on sufficiency high level (such as THX reference I assume..) that this is a moot point. That's why I am very interested in knowing whether those Harman studies were done at sufficiently high listening levels so that "loudness" would not have been a factor. According to Newman, that was the case, so then the Harman curve, as least the "original" one (if there is in fact such an original curve) then it is really only tailored to sound the best based on the finding in the study but for levels much lower than that used in the study.

All of the above are just based on my own understanding, I could be stating the obvious, or my understanding may be all wrong, or partially correct.....

Regardless, since I use Audyssey, I would stick with DEQ, but I do have a couple slightly tilted curves just to be able to spice things up whenever I feel like to. Apparently, recent versions of Audyssey DEQ appeared to have boosted the surround channels too much, but it is easy enough to offset that using the level trim settings.
As for the listening levels of the Harman studies. I faintly remember F. Toole mentioning the levels in his book. And even more remotely think to remember it was in the lower 80s but definitely below THX standard. Again, please check it as I am not sure at all. So if you can get or have access to a copy you might find it there.
I am traveling and can’t have a look myself.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,454
Likes
4,217
There is no connection between “THX standard” and whether or not ‘quietness compensation’ is appropriate. Why bring it up?
 

HarmonicTHD

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
3,326
Likes
4,829
There is no connection between “THX standard” and whether or not ‘quietness compensation’ is appropriate. Why bring it up?
I never claimed there is. I just meant to remember, it was below it - it served me as a mental reference point.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,454
Likes
4,217
Well THX reference for home cinema is average SPL around 77-82 dB, so your ‘low 80s’ doesn’t seem to be “definitely below THX standard” at all.
 

HarmonicTHD

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
3,326
Likes
4,829
Well THX reference for home cinema is average SPL around 77-82 dB, so your ‘low 80s’ doesn’t seem to be “definitely below THX standard” at all.
What’s wrong with you? Are you just posting for arguing sake. I said, I faintly remember (in plain English - yes I might be wrong) - so why do you go and find out what’s right instead, contribute something constructive and help us all out.

Btw. THX reference is 85dB and I think to remember (do you notice the big disclaimer?) that Harman was below.

 
Last edited:

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
I don't see a real point in using REW for flattening the response at the MLP (plus the tools to do it when you use Audyssey are sketchy).
It's basically a followup to see how well Audyssey has done it's job. The "after" curve it shows you are just approximations and never really shows you the final outcome. If your using the Editor app or the new X PC program to dial-in a house curve it's best to see what the actual result is at the MPL, so REW can give you that info and allow you to go back into your designed house curve and tweak it to your desire.
Bottom line is, without a REW measurement at the MLP, you'll never know what Audyssey or most any other DRC has actually done.

Please guys, no need to get so aggressive over this. We're just theorizing on possible uses of the tools at hand.
 

GalZohar

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2021
Messages
442
Likes
216
REW as a monitoring tool is great, but the only thing I think you can actually do if the result isn't flat enough is to consider making the measurements closer to the MLP. If you find in REW that Audyssey didn't correctvsomething, I doubt that any target curve modifications would help. If your curve doesn't match the room response I suppose you can see that too, but you don't really need a REW measurement for that.

Of course REW is pretty necessary for time-aligning your subwoofers with each other and with the mains, as Audyssey often seems to mess it up (especially the subwoofers to mains parr). And can be also used to improve speaker and acoustoc treatment positioning as it provides more details and is faster than the Audyssey measurement.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,454
Likes
4,217
What’s wrong with you? Are you just posting for arguing sake. I said, I faintly remember (in plain English - yes I might be wrong) - so why do you go and find out what’s right instead, contribute something constructive and help us all out.

Btw. THX reference is 85dB and I think to remember (do you notice the big disclaimer?) that Harman was below.

What's wrong with me, LOL.

You raised no complaint when I said there is no connection between “THX standard” and whether or not ‘quietness compensation’ is appropriate. So it ends there IMHO, ie whether or not it is below THX reference is a complete red herring.

I'm assuming the reference level you linked is for THX certification purposes, and not intended to be a listening level. Listening reference level is what matters here, when discussing whether the Olive/Harman target curve allows for, or needs, adjustment for 'quietness compensation'. The C-weighted listening reference level for commercial cinemas is 85 dB, but this reduces with room volume, until most of our home cinema rooms need about 78 dB (link, Table 10.2). As Dr Olive has said, "the Harman Target has nothing to do with loudness contours as all the listening tests were done at average sound pressure levels well above where large growths in loudness in bass and treble occur"-link and "a reasonably loud but still comfortable level that is well above the low levels where loudness contours come into play"-link (this latter quote was for headphone tests but they absolutely have been doing the same thing for loudspeaker tests). So to all readers, let's please let go of the idea that the Olive/Harman target looks the way it does because they were listening too low in volume, or that raising volume even further would require a modification of the target curve.

PS as an aside, it is a widely held misunderstanding that it is desirable to play home movies at a -20 dB reference level of 85 dB-C. I hope the THX number has not been a contributor to this, and that's why I wish you hadn't brought it up as if it was relevant, and why I am taking the time and trouble to beat it back down into its correct context. At an appropriately lower level, adjusted for room volume, the psychological experience will be what the production team intended, and pushing it to 85 dB will create a louder-than-intended psychological experience.

cheers
 
Last edited:

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
"the Harman Target has nothing to do with loudness contours as all the listening tests were done at average sound pressure levels well above where large growths in loudness in bass and treble occur"-link and "a reasonably loud but still comfortable level that is well above the low levels where loudness contours come into play"-link
Good find, that answers the question on the playback levels of the curve.

PS as an aside, it is a widely held misunderstanding that it is desirable to play home movies at a -20 dB reference level of 85 dB-C
Never heard that before.
I heard many talk about listening at 0 db but I always found that too loud for home presentation.
I'll normally listen at -10 db and find that comfortable. (for movies)
 

HarmonicTHD

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
3,326
Likes
4,829
What's wrong with me, LOL.

You raised no complaint when I said there is no connection between “THX standard” and whether or not ‘quietness compensation’ is appropriate. So it ends there IMHO, ie whether or not it is below THX reference is a complete red herring.

I'm assuming the reference level you linked is for THX certification purposes, and not intended to be a listening level. Listening reference level is what matters here, when discussing whether the Olive/Harman target curve allows for, or needs, adjustment for 'quietness compensation'. The C-weighted listening reference level for commercial cinemas is 85 dB, but this reduces with room volume, until most of our home cinema rooms need about 78 dB (link, Table 10.2). As Dr Olive has said, "the Harman Target has nothing to do with loudness contours as all the listening tests were done at average sound pressure levels well above where large growths in loudness in bass and treble occur"-link and "a reasonably loud but still comfortable level that is well above the low levels where loudness contours come into play"-link (this latter quote was for headphone tests but they absolutely have been doing the same thing for loudspeaker tests). So to all readers, let's please let go of the idea that the Olive/Harman target looks the way it does because they were listening too low in volume, or that raising volume even further would require a modification of the target curve.

PS as an aside, it is a widely held misunderstanding that it is desirable to play home movies at a -20 dB reference level of 85 dB-C. I hope the THX number has not been a contributor to this, and that's why I wish you hadn't brought it up as if it was relevant, and why I am taking the time and trouble to beat it back down into its correct context. At an appropriately lower level, adjusted for room volume, the psychological experience will be what the production team intended, and pushing it to 85 dB will create a louder-than-intended psychological experience.

cheers
The question from the previous poster was : at what SPL the Harman listening studies were conducted.

That you still haven’t answered in all your many words.

And my answer to the above question was, based on my patchy memory was (as I indicated several that I might remember incorrectly): lower 80ies but below 85dB (THX) as THX served me as a personal reminder / memory aid when I initially read Toole’s book and I thought to my self oh the studies are below 85dB (THX) - not more no less.

No discussion if ThX applies here and what else you go off on. (Of course it doesn’t apply). And at what people are listening at - wasn’t the question either etc.

Sure in hindsight: not making an assumption about the level at all or simply stating „I think it was below 85dB“ and not even mentioning THX at all might have avoided any confusion. Who knows.
 
Last edited:

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,615
Likes
5,168
The question from the previous poster was : at what SPL the Harman listening studies were conducted.

That you still haven’t answered in all your many words.

And my answer to the above question was, based on my patchy memory was (as I indicated several that I might remember incorrectly): lower 80ies but below 85dB (THX) as THX served me as a personal reminder / memory aid when I initially read Toole’s book and I thought to my self oh the studies are below 85dB (THX) - not more no less.

No discussion if ThX applies here and what else you go off on. (Of course it doesn’t apply). And at what people are listening at - wasn’t the question either etc.

Sure in hindsight: not making an assumption about the level at all or simply stating „I think it was below 85dB“ and not even mentioning THX at all might have avoided any confusion. Who knows.

Thank you for your helpful comments. I am one (not sure about others) who did ask that question about spl/Harman listening studies. I asked only because I was thinking about Audyssey DEQ that does has something to do with THX reference level, at least to some extent in terms of its algorithm and I have also wonder if Audyssey's flat target curve had put it in disadvantage in comparison tests vs other RC software such as Anthem and Dirac's, unless those tests were done at or very near the THX reference level that Audyssey DEQ appears to reference to.


In my opinion, regardless of the level Harman used, a target curve (for clarity, I refer to the bass range, say 20-200 Hz only), a "customized" target curve to tilt the bass up towards 20 Hz will likely improve the bass perception for Audyssey users who listen to levels well below THX reference (and will not use Audyssey DEQ), example, 75 dB. Conversely, Audyssey users who won't use DEQ for whatever reasons and stick with the default target curve will likely be among those who complained about Audyssey making the sound thin, and/or bright etc. This has nothing to do with the "red herring" that Newman mentioned, because I am referring the specific case where an Audyssey user may create what they thought was a Harman curve, without considering the effects on the perceived bass balance would change depending on the listening level.
 

HarmonicTHD

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
3,326
Likes
4,829
Thank you for your helpful comments. I am one (not sure about others) who did ask that question about spl/Harman listening studies. I asked only because I was thinking about Audyssey DEQ that does has something to do with THX reference level, at least to some extent in terms of its algorithm and I have also wonder if Audyssey's flat target curve had put it in disadvantage in comparison tests vs other RC software such as Anthem and Dirac's, unless those tests were done at or very near the THX reference level that Audyssey DEQ appears to reference to.


In my opinion, regardless of the level Harman used, a target curve (for clarity, I refer to the bass range, say 20-200 Hz only), a "customized" target curve to tilt the bass up towards 20 Hz will likely improve the bass perception for Audyssey users who listen to levels well below THX reference (and will not use Audyssey DEQ), example, 75 dB. Conversely, Audyssey users who won't use DEQ for whatever reasons and stick with the default target curve will likely be among those who complained about Audyssey making the sound thin, and/or bright etc. This has nothing to do with the "red herring" that Newman mentioned, because I am referring the specific case where an Audyssey user may create what they thought was a Harman curve, without considering the effects on the perceived bass balance would change depending on the listening level.
That’s how I understood you in the first place and I agree with what you wrote.

Personally I also boost the bass and have a tilt to follow the “natural “ HF roll-off caused by my room (ca -1dB/Oct). I don’t use DEQ currently, but consider it a useful feature.

Edit: … calibrated to 80dBSPL for my system.
 
Last edited:

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,767
Likes
3,706
As Dr Olive has said, "the Harman Target has nothing to do with loudness contours as all the listening tests were done at average sound pressure levels well above where large growths in loudness in bass and treble occur"-link and "a reasonably loud but still comfortable level that is well above the low levels where loudness contours come into play"-link
Well that definitely is not correct, as the loudness contours continue up higher in volume. You can see it on the ISO standard and I've heard it myself.
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,615
Likes
5,168
As Dr Olive has said, "the Harman Target has nothing to do with loudness contours as all the listening tests were done at average sound pressure levels well above where large growths in loudness in bass and treble occur"-link and "a reasonably loud but still comfortable level that is well above the low levels where loudness contours come into play"-link (this latter quote was for headphone tests but they absolutely have been doing the same thing for loudspeaker tests).

That seems reasonable, but if I want to create such a target curve based on Harman's findings on the preferred tilt similar to the one Amir did in one of his reviews, then I would want to consider the slope of the tilt vs my listening level(s). And if I decide not to use DEQ, then I would likely have to do at least two target curves, one has a steeper slope than the others.

index.php



So to all readers, let's please let go of the idea that the Olive/Harman target looks the way it does because they were listening too low in volume, or that raising volume even further would require a modification of the target curve.

Given the info you have provided in the link, I fully agree with you on this, but I would say that at least logically speaking, I may (in practice I likely wouldn't bother..) indeed require a modified curve if I typically listen to 70 dB average (vs the 78-80 dB you cited) level or below, unless I can find a way to balance thing off by using DEQ.

PS as an aside, it is a widely held misunderstanding that it is desirable to play home movies at a -20 dB reference level of 85 dB-C.

Widely? Not on ASR, I hope not..:)

You raised no complaint when I said there is no connection between “THX standard” and whether or not ‘quietness compensation’ is appropriate. So it ends there IMHO, ie whether or not it is below THX reference is a complete red herring.

I don't think anyone has suggested that the so called Harman curve has connection to THX standard. To me, if I want to use such a curve I would definitely consider creating more than one curve, or find a way to use it with DEQ on top effectively and that would require some trial and error, for reasons I explained above. That's just my opinion based on what I know now about the so called Harman curve, Audyssey DEQ, and the logic. It seems to me your "complete red herring" remark is related to something different.

As you most likely know, Audyssey's DEQ algorithm is not based on a fixed "loudness curve".
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,615
Likes
5,168
Personally I also boost the bass and have a tilt to follow the “natural “ HF roll-off caused by my room (ca -1dB/Oct). I don’t use DEQ currently, but consider it a useful feature.

Have you tried lowering the surround channel levels by a couple dB? I have been living with the seemingly elevated (to the point of annoying..) surround channel levels until recently when someone somewhere suggested to lower the surround level trims by 3 dB. I have no idea why I didn't think of such a simple solution. So far it works well, for me anyway. I am quite sure the elevated level effects weren't there prior to 2016 or 2017 so D+M models such as those prior to X4400H, SR7012, AV8802 would not have such issue.
 
Top Bottom