Audyssey Room EQ Review

[GalZohar]

Any tips on mic position if listening position is against back wall? Audessey says to measure at least 50cm away from the back wall but I’m planning on buying some acoustic panels for the back wall. Should I still measure 50cm away with and without panels?

As far as I'm aware most of the issues are with high frequencies, where the answers become complicated and you probably won't find a single one that's 100% correct. If you limit EQ to low frequencies, it's probably best to just place the microphone at and around where your head should be, at the height(s) where your ears should be.

 

[Sal1950]

Any tips on mic position if listening position is against back wall?

Just skip the back positions and do three at the MLP and three more in front.
That's what I do here.
I'll be just fine.

 

[amansangar]

Just skip the back positions and do three at the MLP and three more in front.
That's what I do here.
I'll be just fine.

I was doing positions 7-8 in between position 1-3 but even my main listening position is about 20-25cm away from wall when Audessey says to do 50cm away from wall.

 

[amansangar]

Nevermind I found all my answers about Audessey in this post https://www.avsforum.com/threads/gu...nd-bass-preferences.2958528/#aname-Section IC
Very useful even though it is a very long read.

 

[Tenfilip]

Nevermind I found all my answers about Audessey in this post https://www.avsforum.com/threads/guide-to-subwoofer-calibration-and-bass-preferences.2958528/#aname-Section IC
Very useful even though it is a very long read.

I seriously hope Netflix will make a series on this, otherwise I will never digest it.

 

[Sal1950]

 

[Astrozombie]

Now waiting for Amir to do a YPAO review ....

 

[Vacceo]

A couple days ago I experienced some comparisons from a friend that transitioned from Denon to NAD, that is, from Audyssey to Dirac.

What I listened to did not feel extremely different. Let's consider that the electronics were not too different in terms of distortion, noise and power, the sources were the same and so were the speakers, what changed was the EQ software.

To be honest, I liked Dirac better because it sounded a bit more precise on the bass (kind of a boxer that punches quick and precisely, just to take a slight step back and cover), but overall, it was not too different.

It is relevant to considered that there was no tinkering and fine tuning; just measure and let the system run by default.

Have I been subjected to a very clear case of psychoacoustics? Are my ears dead? Is this forum nitpicky (as it should!) with very small margins?

 

[GalZohar]

Have I been subjected to a very clear case of psychoacoustics? Are my ears dead? Is this forum nitpicky (as it should!) with very small margins?

Psychological differences are very much possible in such a test.

It is relevant to considered that there was no tinkering and fine tuning; just measure and let the system run by default.

This means the differences you heard could be attributed to different target curves rather than different capabilities of the EQ systems. Due to how small the differences are between he systems compared to how large differences are between different target curves, I think there is little point to compare systems using target curves that aren't identical. That is, unless you want to also compare their capability to determine the target curve automatically (which Audyssey doesn't do at all, and will always lose on that front against a system that does have some kind of automation in that area).

 

[Vacceo]

The interesting observation, then, is that in an apples to oranges comparison, I did not feel a huge difference, hence the baseline technology may be different in the implementation, but the end goal may not be too different.

In the not too distant future I am considering upgrading my electronics, and it seems that going dirac or audyssey may not be the huge factor many people imply.

 

[Tenfilip]

Note, that without "tweaking", Audyssey has its problems. You would hear difference by just playing with it (e.g. disabling the "2k correction").

@Galz: what do you mean about automating the target curve and that Audyssey has none?

 

[Vacceo]

Note, that without "tweaking", Audyssey has its problems. You would hear difference by just playing with it (e.g. disabling the "2k correction").

@Galz: what do you mean about automating the target curve and that Audyssey has none?

X32 is an aging EQ software, indeed. What suprised me is that Dirac, being far more up to date, did not change things too drastically from Audyssey. My guess is that we´re talking about a degree of fine tuning that, if you´re not activelly measuring, can go unnoticed with relative ease.

With EQ-X things may be different, though.

 

[GalZohar]

Note, that without "tweaking", Audyssey has its problems. You would hear difference by just playing with it (e.g. disabling the "2k correction").

@Galz: what do you mean about automating the target curve and that Audyssey has none?

What I mean is that Audyssey default target curve is flat aside from the 2KHz 3db dip and some high frequency roll off if you choose reference option, or totally flat, if you choose flat option. Anything else requires manual modifications through the 20$ or 200$ app. Setting an automatic reasonably good target curve is probably not that complicated, especially with a PC app that is under their control. If they got a good target curve out of the box, I'm guessing many of the Audyssey haters would not exist.

Anthem Arc let you configure the target curve with some pre-defined parameters that affect it, but also sets those parameters automatically for the initial configuration, and it seems to mostly work pretty nice. It still doesn't apply any tilt while setting max EQ frequency to 5KHz, which is probably not a good idea in most cases, but it does increase the bass via the "room gain" parameter according to the measurements.

Seems like Dirac also released some kind of app that helps you automatically determine a reasonable target curve, although I've yet to see any reviews or experiment reports on how effective it is, but it's most likely better than just keeping a flat curve.

 

[Vacceo]

Does the Dirac impulse response make such a difference compared to Audyssey? What is the difference with it?

 

[Chromatischism]

Does the Dirac impulse response make such a difference compared to Audyssey? What is the difference with it?

They both adjust impulse, the difference is Dirac can do so without changing phase via all pass fillers. The downside to that approach is group delay. Someone can correct me on the details but that's what I understand.

 

[Vacceo]

They both adjust impulse, the difference is Dirac can do so without changing phase via all pass fillers. The downside to that approach is group delay. Someone can correct me on the details but that's what I understand.

So to put a culinary analogy, Dirac stews food with a different method than Audyssey, but the final dish is not terribly different.

 

[Tenfilip]

What I mean is that Audyssey default target curve is flat aside from the 2KHz 3db dip and some high frequency roll off if you choose reference option, or totally flat, if you choose flat option. Anything else requires manual modifications through the 20$ or 200$ app. Setting an automatic reasonably good target curve is probably not that complicated, especially with a PC app that is under their control. If they got a good target curve out of the box, I'm guessing many of the Audyssey haters would not exist.

Anthem Arc let you configure the target curve with some pre-defined parameters that affect it, but also sets those parameters automatically for the initial configuration, and it seems to mostly work pretty nice. It still doesn't apply any tilt while setting max EQ frequency to 5KHz, which is probably not a good idea in most cases, but it does increase the bass via the "room gain" parameter according to the measurements.

Seems like Dirac also released some kind of app that helps you automatically determine a reasonable target curve, although I've yet to see any reviews or experiment reports on how effective it is, but it's most likely better than just keeping a flat curve.

TBH the mobile app is a very worthy upgrade, at least the Andorid one (especially if you can have both devices on the Ethernet cable, but lately worked well on Wifi as well).
I dont know still, how do you find a perfect target curve in an automatic way? This is something, that strongly depends on your taste, I assume?

 

[GalZohar]

TBH the mobile app is a very worthy upgrade, at least the Andorid one (especially if you can have both devices on the Ethernet cable, but lately worked well on Wifi as well).
I dont know still, how do you find a perfect target curve in an automatic way? This is something, that strongly depends on your taste, I assume?

Some aspects may depend on taste, but some basic concepts are pretty global. Generally (at least for 1st try) you should keep the room gain measured in the bass and any tilt and rolloff of the high frequencies, if you choose to not limit the eq to just the bass. Also, in Audyssey if you have room gain in your speakers you need to manually align the sub to said room gain (usually a simple level raising).

 

[Chromatischism]

This means the differences you heard could be attributed to different target curves rather than different capabilities of the EQ systems.

Was going to say that.

The interesting observation, then, is that in an apples to oranges comparison, I did not feel a huge difference, hence the baseline technology may be different in the implementation, but the end goal may not be too different.

What content was listened to? Maybe it didn't reveal the differences.

I dont know still, how do you find a perfect target curve in an automatic way? This is something, that strongly depends on your taste, I assume?

Somewhat, at least in the bass area. But otherwise we all prefer a similar target, +/- a little bit.

 

[Vacceo]

A film, Avatar; and the Danse Macabre from Saint Saens.