Audyssey XT32 vs Dirac Live

[dlaloum]

From your past post: "My own subjective comparison of default Audyssey and Default Dirac (the XT32 AVR was a 2013 model, so no adjustment of target curves, or turning off of MRC!) "

Have you tried a more recent version of Audyssey on a current receiver, with target curve adjustments?
Still a lot of vagueness between the two room corrections and their performance, and a lot of mixed results. Would be nice to get more comprehensive comparisons of the two so we can understand in what conditions which of the DRCs perform better than the other and why. i.e. is it speaker dependent, or room acoustics dependent?

No I have not - that would require my purchasing an additional AVR for comparison - as loan/trial policies are less common where I am!

A thorough test would require level matching, followed by curve matching, then output measurment with another adjustement step to ensure levels at the final stage are matched along with the curves.

I expect that if one were to go to all that bother (and match microphone locations too !!) - one would find the results to be well nigh identical between Dirac Live and Audyssey XT32.

Dirac Live Bass Control - takes things a step further, and for those AVR's with that software, I don't believe Audyssey has an answer.

Dirac Live - ART - when available will take it an order of magnitude further from what Audyssey is capable of.

Dirac continues to innovate, whereas Audyssey, has been sitting on its Laurels for 10 years, and has merely released the tuning capabilities that were previously reserved for the "pro" kits, to the mass market with the apps...
No actual R&D seems to have been going on. (When D&M bought the exclusive licences, it removed the incentive for further R&D investment - unless D&M invests... which they haven't done)

So yes for the Rz50/DRX3.4/X3800 market sector, and the respective capabilities, I don't expect the audible differences to be massive- with proper tuning I expect they would be well nigh non existent.

However. there may be differences in ease of use, how easily one can achieve a very good result...

Having AVR's with both systems on them (Denon, in a couple of months) - will encourage a few people to do more thorough comparative testing - I look forward to that!

 

[chych7]

No I have not - that would require my purchasing an additional AVR for comparison - as loan/trial policies are less common where I am!

A thorough test would require level matching, followed by curve matching, then output measurment with another adjustement step to ensure levels at the final stage are matched along with the curves.

I expect that if one were to go to all that bother (and match microphone locations too !!) - one would find the results to be well nigh identical between Dirac Live and Audyssey XT32.

Dirac Live Bass Control - takes things a step further, and for those AVR's with that software, I don't believe Audyssey has an answer.

Dirac Live - ART - when available will take it an order of magnitude further from what Audyssey is capable of.

Dirac continues to innovate, whereas Audyssey, has been sitting on its Laurels for 10 years, and has merely released the tuning capabilities that were previously reserved for the "pro" kits, to the mass market with the apps...
No actual R&D seems to have been going on. (When D&M bought the exclusive licences, it removed the incentive for further R&D investment - unless D&M invests... which they haven't done)

So yes for the Rz50/DRX3.4/X3800 market sector, and the respective capabilities, I don't expect the audible differences to be massive- with proper tuning I expect they would be well nigh non existent.

However. there may be differences in ease of use, how easily one can achieve a very good result...

Having AVR's with both systems on them (Denon, in a couple of months) - will encourage a few people to do more thorough comparative testing - I look forward to that!

I did such a comparison here, to the best of my ability, using the PC Dirac Live trial version for stereo (so one doesn't need two receivers to do this):

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

We all understand that incorrect position. There is no miscommunication. Have you tried taking confirmatory measurements properly - same area, random sample points? Incorrect position, aping measure point? He's only talking about an apples to apples comparison in a specific sense. You are...

www.audiosciencereview.com

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

We all understand that incorrect position. There is no miscommunication. Have you tried taking confirmatory measurements properly - same area, random sample points? Incorrect position, aping measure point? He's only talking about an apples to apples comparison in a specific sense. You are...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Here I matched target curves, levels, microphone positions, etc. and found that Dirac didn't sound as good. I did rerun Dirac later with different microphone patterns, but still came to the same conclusion. Would love to see other people try and do this type of comparison, and report their results. The Denon X3800 should enable more of these comparisons.

Note that this was before I got the ACM1-X mic for Audyssey; my stock mic was not well calibrated, so Audyssey's matching to the target was off. I still attempted to match the response between Dirac and Audyssey. I think the issues in perceived sound from Dirac had to do more with what it was doing to the phase response, than the tonality/target curve response. I'm sure there is a dependence on the room acoustics; I have plenty of room treatments in my theater, maybe that favors one correction over the other.

DLBC is definitely a plus, but you can achieve similar results with a miniDSP + Multi Sub Optimizer for cheaper than the cost of a DLBC license, if you invest the time to do it (which I have; I've also seen people run MSO over DLBC too). ART isn't even a reasonable comparison since you have to buy a ~$20k processor to get it; Trinnov is what one should be comparing for that. Let's discuss that when it is available in <$2k receivers (current receivers I don't think have the hardware to support ART).

 

[Music707]

I did such a comparison here, to the best of my ability, using the PC Dirac Live trial version for stereo (so one doesn't need two receivers to do this):

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

We all understand that incorrect position. There is no miscommunication. Have you tried taking confirmatory measurements properly - same area, random sample points? Incorrect position, aping measure point? He's only talking about an apples to apples comparison in a specific sense. You are...

www.audiosciencereview.com

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

We all understand that incorrect position. There is no miscommunication. Have you tried taking confirmatory measurements properly - same area, random sample points? Incorrect position, aping measure point? He's only talking about an apples to apples comparison in a specific sense. You are...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Here I matched target curves, levels, microphone positions, etc. and found that Dirac didn't sound as good. I did rerun Dirac later with different microphone patterns, but still came to the same conclusion. Would love to see other people try and do this type of comparison, and report their results. The Denon X3800 should enable more of these comparisons.

Note that this was before I got the ACM1-X mic for Audyssey; my stock mic was not well calibrated, so Audyssey's matching to the target was off. I still attempted to match the response between Dirac and Audyssey. I think the issues in perceived sound from Dirac had to do more with what it was doing to the phase response, than the tonality/target curve response. I'm sure there is a dependence on the room acoustics; I have plenty of room treatments in my theater, maybe that favors one correction over the other.

DLBC is definitely a plus, but you can achieve similar results with a miniDSP + Multi Sub Optimizer for cheaper than the cost of a DLBC license, if you invest the time to do it (which I have; I've also seen people run MSO over DLBC too). ART isn't even a reasonable comparison since you have to buy a ~$20k processor to get it; Trinnov is what one should be comparing for that. Let's discuss that when it is available in <$2k receivers (current receivers I don't think have the hardware to support ART).

Two remarks:

- The least costly way to get Dirac ART right now is considerably below $20K. The StormAudio Core 16 will support Dirac ART and was priced at $12K in March 22 according to a review on stereonet.com.

Prices might have gone up since and might continue to do so. It seems that currently in Europe there is a price increase from €13K to €14K. Still there seems to be a lot of headroom until reaching $20K.

- Hardware requirements may be lower than you seem to imply. According to my memory one source (I currently don't recall which one) mentioned that Dirac ART requires 20 percent additional processing power to Dirac Live during listening. (The prior calculation of the filters is done on a PC.) If this is true several AVRs and PrePros might have sufficient processing power on board. But it seems that a major firmware revision is mandatory for Dirac ART to run. An additional question might be whether or not manufacturers want to keep Dirac ART to the flagship units, even if the hardware power were available down the line.

Until October, Dirac ART will not be available for other manufacturers than StormAudio, anyway. Sadly, we have to have even more patience than we already had.

 

[dlaloum]

I did such a comparison here, to the best of my ability, using the PC Dirac Live trial version for stereo (so one doesn't need two receivers to do this):

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

We all understand that incorrect position. There is no miscommunication. Have you tried taking confirmatory measurements properly - same area, random sample points? Incorrect position, aping measure point? He's only talking about an apples to apples comparison in a specific sense. You are...

www.audiosciencereview.com

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

We all understand that incorrect position. There is no miscommunication. Have you tried taking confirmatory measurements properly - same area, random sample points? Incorrect position, aping measure point? He's only talking about an apples to apples comparison in a specific sense. You are...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Here I matched target curves, levels, microphone positions, etc. and found that Dirac didn't sound as good. I did rerun Dirac later with different microphone patterns, but still came to the same conclusion. Would love to see other people try and do this type of comparison, and report their results. The Denon X3800 should enable more of these comparisons.

Note that this was before I got the ACM1-X mic for Audyssey; my stock mic was not well calibrated, so Audyssey's matching to the target was off. I still attempted to match the response between Dirac and Audyssey. I think the issues in perceived sound from Dirac had to do more with what it was doing to the phase response, than the tonality/target curve response. I'm sure there is a dependence on the room acoustics; I have plenty of room treatments in my theater, maybe that favors one correction over the other.

DLBC is definitely a plus, but you can achieve similar results with a miniDSP + Multi Sub Optimizer for cheaper than the cost of a DLBC license, if you invest the time to do it (which I have; I've also seen people run MSO over DLBC too). ART isn't even a reasonable comparison since you have to buy a ~$20k processor to get it; Trinnov is what one should be comparing for that. Let's discuss that when it is available in <$2k receivers (current receivers I don't think have the hardware to support ART).

Seems we will be waiting another year for ART on affordable AVR's.

The D&M models should be able to support it, and I am continuing to hold out hope for that flagship onkyos. ( an x3800 + ART, would be a substantial step up in $$$ on the base x3xxx, an Onkyo with it standard, would likely be great value )

Much as I would like to see ART made available as an upgrade for existing Dirac AVR's, I doubt that will happen on mainstream models.

 

[MiniC]

Sorry, but you make no sense, unless you are considering utilizing only EQ without also adjusting phase.

With DRC, you can turn this:

View attachment 198584

Into this (and often better):

View attachment 198585

Without filling your room with bass traps and annoying your spouse in the process. Look at that! With nothing more than FIR magic (aka physics), we have turned very audible deep, broad nulls into mostly inaudible shallow, narrow nulls without greatly increasing distortion. Amazing!

I suggest you read this:

Amazon.com

Hi, I’ve got the Kef R3 non meta. Did Google search and chanced upon your posting.
As a ”non Audioholics”, it just comes into my mind to compare the measured soundwave of Dirac vs Xt32.
Since both software is to provide correction to to the variables of the room to make any room to be as perfect as possible.
Thus I would think that there will be an ideal sound curve.
Then from there I would see which freq that Dirac emphasise on And see if I can alter my curve manually.
Not sure if I can compare in this manner.

This is how xt32 with full filter freq and midrange compensation looks like.
I suppose 0 is the Audyssey reference which is 85db.
If I look at your Dirac curve, its “reference” seems to be at ~77.5db.
20hz for Dirac is at ~56db,
20hz for xt32 seems to be 85-5db= 80db.
From 30-100hz, Dirac seems to maintain 77.5db with variation of 2.5db peak to peak.
Xt32 seems to have less than 1db peak to peak.
Overall xt32 seems to smoothen the peaks too much.
And when these small little peaks are almost flat, it will make the treble less obvious?

 

[Dj7675]

Check out the review of the R3 speaker HERE. What you have is an excellent speaker. IMO, the only thing you can do by doing EQ full range with the default curve with Audyssey is make it worse.. Try this first…
1-Listen to it without EQ
2-Limit to it with EQ limited to 500hz. You may notice weak bass
3-If bass is weak add back bass with a room curve starting at 150-200hz. If you have subs, add about the same level to the sub trims as you boost the target curve.

Use listening tests as much as possible to do a//b testing to determine what sounds best. It isn’t always the case that the best graph sounds best as automated systems can over correct high frequencies that are not an audible problem.

 

[GalZohar]

Red curve in the app is a lie.
Even the MultEQ-X app confirms it (as it shows much more realistic predictions)

 

[peng]

Hi, I’ve got the Kef R3 non meta. Did Google search and chanced upon your posting.
As a ”non Audioholics”, it just comes into my mind to compare the measured soundwave of Dirac vs Xt32.
Since both software is to provide correction to to the variables of the room to make any room to be as perfect as possible.
Thus I would think that there will be an ideal sound curve.
Then from there I would see which freq that Dirac emphasise on And see if I can alter my curve manually.
Not sure if I can compare in this manner.

This is how xt32 with full filter freq and midrange compensation looks like.
I suppose 0 is the Audyssey reference which is 85db.
If I look at your Dirac curve, its “reference” seems to be at ~77.5db.
20hz for Dirac is at ~56db,
20hz for xt32 seems to be 85-5db= 80db.
From 30-100hz, Dirac seems to maintain 77.5db with variation of 2.5db peak to peak.
Xt32 seems to have less than 1db peak to peak.
Overall xt32 seems to smoothen the peaks too much.
And when these small little peaks are almost flat, it will make the treble less obvious?

View attachment 286021

You cannot use those curves to compare results between Dirac and Audyssey because they don't represent the actual response at your main seat position. To do an apples to apples comparison, it would be better to measure the response at one mic position at a time, at least the main mic position, using measuring software such as REW and a reasonable accurate mic such as Umik's.

By the way, you said "This is how xt32 with full filter freq and midrange compensation looks like.", but based on the red curve, it looks like it is with midrange compensation disabled.

 

[peng]

Red curve in the app is a lie.
Even the MultEQ-X app confirms it (as it shows much more realistic predictions)

That's a topic that I wish there are more awareness among RC/REQ users. In this case, I guess you can say that it is a lie, with exaggeration, but it is complicated. We don't know what they do the spatial "averaging", it's got to be more than "fuzzy logic", so it may be better we don't jump from one extreme, that is to think it is accurate/realistic response at the mmp, to think it is a "lie". Dirac Live's similar too, if you compare those kind of curves using only one mic position, it would look very close to that measured with say, REW, otherwise not. Lastly, try telling those Anthem loyal friends about this, it seems the vast majority of them would rely totally on those curves (like that red one on this post), and think/said that ARCG is by far the best...

 

[MiniC]

You cannot use those curves to compare results between Dirac and Audyssey because they don't represent the actual response at your main seat position. To do an apples to apples comparison, it would be better to measure the response at one mic position at a time, at least the main mic position, using measuring software such as REW and a reasonable accurate mic such as Umik's.

By the way, you said "This is how xt32 with full filter freq and midrange compensation looks like.", but based on the red curve, it looks like it is with midrange compensation disabled.

Hi peng, sharp eyes!!
Sorry made a mistake.
Its full range filter freq and midrange compensation is disabled.

After I got the secrets to Audyssey guide, been playing around just full range filter frequency, no midrange compensation, but I varied the dynamic EQ On/off, Reference level offset to 5 and 10db. Dynamic volume is light/medium.
I’m using saving private Ryan movie as the track.
The opening scene has the America flag moving with the wind. There is the sound of the cloth flapping in the air.

So I find that with dynamic EQ off, basically I need to up the volume higher to hear this flag flapping sound. But on the descend of omaha beach, the loudness and pitch will be unbearable, too loud and the bullets sound is too piercing.
Dynamic EQ on and dynamic vol at light or medium will be able to hear the flags flapping at lower volume, but the bass is boomy.

Then I read further and saw this harshness solution and that’s to create midrange compensation based on the speakers crossover freq. k3 is 400hz and 2.9khz. Thus I use the app to create these 2 dips.
But this will not spoil my speakers if I load them into the avr right?

I always read about turning the dynamic EQ and volume off on websites. Thus I have this belief that these sort of mask up the true sound of the speaker.

 

[MiniC]

Check out the review of the R3 speaker HERE. What you have is an excellent speaker. IMO, the only thing you can do by doing EQ full range with the default curve with Audyssey is make it worse.. Try this first…
1-Listen to it without EQ
2-Limit to it with EQ limited to 500hz. You may notice weak bass
3-If bass is weak add back bass with a room curve starting at 150-200hz. If you have subs, add about the same level to the sub trims as you boost the target curve.

Use listening tests as much as possible to do a//b testing to determine what sounds best. It isn’t always the case that the best graph sounds best as automated systems can over correct high frequencies that are not an audible problem.

Thanks. I will try this over the wkend.

Check out the review of the R3 speaker HERE. What you have is an excellent speaker. IMO, the only thing you can do by doing EQ full range with the default curve with Audyssey is make it worse.. Try this first…
1-Listen to it without EQ
2-Limit to it with EQ limited to 500hz. You may notice weak bass
3-If bass is weak add back bass with a room curve starting at 150-200hz. If you have subs, add about the same level to the sub trims as you boost the target curve.

Use listening tests as much as possible to do a//b testing to determine what sounds best. It isn’t always the case that the best graph sounds best as automated systems can over correct high frequencies that are not an audible problem.

Hi EQ full range = multi EQ filter frequency range ?
For (3), add back bass with room curve starting 150-200hz. This means vary the filter frequency by 150-200hz?
I have a sub.

 

[peng]

Hi peng, sharp eyes!!
Sorry made a mistake.
Its full range filter freq and midrange compensation is disabled.

After I got the secrets to Audyssey guide, been playing around just full range filter frequency, no midrange compensation, but I varied the dynamic EQ On/off, Reference level offset to 5 and 10db. Dynamic volume is light/medium.
I’m using saving private Ryan movie as the track.
The opening scene has the America flag moving with the wind. There is the sound of the cloth flapping in the air.

So I find that with dynamic EQ off, basically I need to up the volume higher to hear this flag flapping sound. But on the descend of omaha beach, the loudness and pitch will be unbearable, too loud and the bullets sound is too piercing.
Dynamic EQ on and dynamic vol at light or medium will be able to hear the flags flapping at lower volume, but the bass is boomy.

Then I read further and saw this harshness solution and that’s to create midrange compensation based on the speakers crossover freq. k3 is 400hz and 2.9khz. Thus I use the app to create these 2 dips.
But this will not spoil my speakers if I load them into the avr right?

I always read about turning the dynamic EQ and volume off on websites. Thus I have this belief that these sort of mask up the true sound of the speaker.

View attachment 286071

No harm trying, but I would think the dips you created seem a little drastic, how about start with just 2 to 3 dB just to test the water, then go from there.

 

[MiniC]

No harm trying, but I would think the dips you created seem a little drastic, how about start with just 2 to 3 dB just to test the water, then go from there.

Got it. Will try out.
I previously bought a minidsp umik mic, will try with REW. Thanks!

 

[Dj7675]

Got it. Will try out.
I previously bought a minidsp umik mic, will try with REW. Thanks!

I haven’t watched or read the recommendation for creating dips like you have done in Audyssey… I would guess the idea is where speakers have their crossover their could be increased distortion or a natural dip where those crossover points are. In that case it would not be a good idea to boost the frequency response. There are speakers like that and it would or could make sense depending on the speaker. However the R3 is a very well engineered speaker. From the review Amir did of the R3, the on axis frequency response is very even (no dips around the crossover), distortion is excellent showing no increases around the crossover, and it shows extremely good directivity (meaning it can accept EQ very well). The question is if the speaker does not have any issues around the crossover points, why would this speaker need to have those dips in the target curve? If you find the speaker a little bright, a small shelf filter or gentle tilting down target might do the trick.

 

[Dobbyisfree]

I think it is worth pointing out firstly, as a general point, that there is a massive list of differences between the standard Audyssey MultEQ phone/tablet app and the MutltEQ-X PC application. Not just the flexibility but also additional features. I'm not going to list them all, as such lists are easy to find on the internet. And AVSForum as a very well established thread on MultEQ-X that tells one nearly everything one would need to know.

The greatest flexibility benefit, for me personally, (although not relevant to the overall performance) is that it enables you to re-measure individual channels. Lots of us tweak and upgrade every five minutes. If, for example, I change the angle of the centre speaker slightly I can just re-run and EQ for centre channel.

The greatest performance benefit, for me personally, is the ability to increased the maximum cut in filters (the phone/tablet app is limited) and the ability to increase the maximum boost too. This is the "Headroom Expansion" feature, as Audyssey call it. While one needs to be clever with it, making sure that their system is capable at their typical listening volume of coping with these bigger boosts, it has certainly reaped audible benefits in my system. This is in my opinion, of course, by switching between presets on the AVR to compare with and without Headroom Expansion.

 

[Andysu]

Hi peng, sharp eyes!!
Sorry made a mistake.
Its full range filter freq and midrange compensation is disabled.

After I got the secrets to Audyssey guide, been playing around just full range filter frequency, no midrange compensation, but I varied the dynamic EQ On/off, Reference level offset to 5 and 10db. Dynamic volume is light/medium.
I’m using saving private Ryan movie as the track.
The opening scene has the America flag moving with the wind. There is the sound of the cloth flapping in the air.

So I find that with dynamic EQ off, basically I need to up the volume higher to hear this flag flapping sound. But on the descend of omaha beach, the loudness and pitch will be unbearable, too loud and the bullets sound is too piercing.
Dynamic EQ on and dynamic vol at light or medium will be able to hear the flags flapping at lower volume, but the bass is boomy.

Then I read further and saw this harshness solution and that’s to create midrange compensation based on the speakers crossover freq. k3 is 400hz and 2.9khz. Thus I use the app to create these 2 dips.
But this will not spoil my speakers if I load them into the avr right?

I always read about turning the dynamic EQ and volume off on websites. Thus I have this belief that these sort of mask up the true sound of the speaker.

View attachment 286071

plays here in full JBL professional cinema 4673A x5 behind at - screen L Lc C Rc R five screen wide , some portions of dialog pans are positioned Lc Rc or wider at L R or commonly centre stage

lows are impactful and threaten on 15" bass while JBL horns cd 2446 2380A give same outstanding cinematic flashback clearness of softer sounds or louder sounds without distortion . i hear the same sound effects and even stock sound effects that are familiar sounding in other skywalker sound mixes , with some new sound effects

THX sound system with x5 behringer DCX 2496 two used for the five screen , i can make the sound aggressively loud deafening or claim or loud and exciting , that's the flexibility control i have

" they're killing us and we don't have a chance and that ain't fair " the lows just in the centre channel are chest pounding that doesn't seem to give a break , when measured up close with SPL meter its a few now and then dB over 120dB that's up close standing near the projection screen

 

[peng]

I haven’t watched or read the recommendation for creating dips like you have done in Audyssey… I would guess the idea is where speakers have their crossover their could be increased distortion or a natural dip where those crossover points are. In that case it would not be a good idea to boost the frequency response. There are speakers like that and it would or could make sense depending on the speaker. However the R3 is a very well engineered speaker. From the review Amir did of the R3, the on axis frequency response is very even (no dips around the crossover), distortion is excellent showing no increases around the crossover, and it shows extremely good directivity (meaning it can accept EQ very well). The question is if the speaker does not have any issues around the crossover points, why would this speaker need to have those dips in the target curve? If you find the speaker a little bright, a small shelf filter or gentle tilting down target might do the trick.

I am not so sure about that, that's why if he's good at it (seems that way), there is no harm trying and let his hearing be the judge. The thing is, while what you said may be true, I think it could also be true that if the speaker's anechoic response does show series (such as >2 to 3 dB narrow trough looking types) dips in the crossover ranges, then it would probably by design, and in that case, levelling it off by the room correction software whether it be Audyssey or Dirac Live, may not be a good idea. At least, that's Audyssey's positions. All these major RC software, at least Audyssey, Dirac, Anthem, presumably Trinnov's are headed by well qualified PhDs, so I am in no position to take side or challenge their claims, so again, best try both and see what each individual's ears/brains prefer.

Having said that, I just looked at the ASR measurements on the R3, and it showed no dips in the Klippel tests that if I understand right, would simulate anechoic and predict in room response. Those response curves did not show the dips that MiniC seems to be having. In that case, I would agree with you it is probably better leave that part of the target curve alone. Better still, he probably will do better by limiting Audyssey to correct up to around 300 to 1,000 Hz, something I believe you alluded to before as well.

 

[Dj7675]

I am not so sure about that, that's why if he's good at it (seems that way), there is no harm trying and let his hearing be the judge. The thing is, while what you said may be true, I think it could also be true that if the speaker's anechoic response does show series (such as >2 to 3 dB narrow trough looking types) dips in the crossover ranges, then it would probably by design, and in that case, levelling it off by the room correction software whether it be Audyssey or Dirac Live, may not be a good idea. At least, that's Audyssey's positions. All these major RC software, at least Audyssey, Dirac, Anthem, presumably Trinnov's are headed by well qualified PhDs, so I am in no position to take side or challenge their claims, so again, best try both and see what each individual's ears/brains prefer.

Having said that, I just looked at the ASR measurements on the R3, and it showed no dips in the Klippel tests that if I understand right, would simulate anechoic and predict in room response. Those response curves did not show the dips that MiniC seems to be having. In that case, I would agree with you it is probably better leave that part of the target curve alone. Better still, he probably will do better by limiting Audyssey to correct up to around 300 to 1,000 Hz, something I believe you alluded to before as well.

Totally agree it doesn’t hurt to try anything and listen to see if things improve with a./b comparisons. But, if he has a KEF R3… as shown in the review, no dips, no distortion etc around the crossovers. But of course it never hurts to try things..

 

[MiniC]

Yesterday I chanced upon the cinemaEQ. So my settings on Denon x4800h is Reference, DynEQ on, Dynamic vol light, RLO at 0, CinemaEQ on. Vol 60db.
The USA flag dancing in the air which I consider the details, can be heard clearly , and the bass is not boomy And bullets sound not piercing(after enable cinemaEQ).
The surround feels more immersive, like u at the same place as the actors.
So cinemaEQ seems to be bringing the surround staging up.
‘Omaha beach descend, the vocals are softer than the surrounding due to the bombing.
‘After Miller party took the beach and speak in a non war enviroment, the speech is clear and crisp.
‘Thus I guess the original recording of the scenes will portrait the ambience, which is why I didn’t enable dialog enhancement.
I guess maybe for movies, I need these settings To be enabled.
‘Maybe for music I need to disable more of them to get the correct sound it was recorded.

All of these fidgeting is actually also trying to evaluate if I need to get the Dirac.
Since Dirac license is so expensive and it follows the receiver, not the owner.

Thanks for all the advices.

 

[Dj7675]

Yesterday I chanced upon the cinemaEQ. So my settings on Denon x4800h is Reference, DynEQ on, Dynamic vol light, RLO at 0, CinemaEQ on. Vol 60db.
The USA flag dancing in the air which I consider the details, can be heard clearly , and the bass is not boomy And bullets sound not piercing(after enable cinemaEQ).
The surround feels more immersive, like u at the same place as the actors.
So cinemaEQ seems to be bringing the surround staging up.
‘Omaha beach descend, the vocals are softer than the surrounding due to the bombing.
‘After Miller party took the beach and speak in a non war enviroment, the speech is clear and crisp.
‘Thus I guess the original recording of the scenes will portrait the ambience, which is why I didn’t enable dialog enhancement.
I guess maybe for movies, I need these settings To be enabled.
‘Maybe for music I need to disable more of them to get the correct sound it was recorded.

All of these fidgeting is actually also trying to evaluate if I need to get the Dirac.
Since Dirac license is so expensive and it follows the receiver, not the owner.

Thanks for all the advices.

CinemaEQ rolls off high frequencies.