• 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 XT32 vs REW comparison

chych7

Active Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
Messages
276
Likes
425
Try adjusting the crossover up/down and playing with subwoofer distance, to smooth out the 80 Hz.
If your speakers are ported, there's a phase rotation that happens over the port tune, which can cause cancellation/nulls. Sometimes plugging the ports on the speakers can help smoothen the response to the subs, if the speakers have sufficient bass extension by themselves.
 
OP
R

robh

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2023
Messages
44
Likes
23
Location
Cleveland OH
Try adjusting the crossover up/down and playing with subwoofer distance, to smooth out the 80 Hz.
If your speakers are ported, there's a phase rotation that happens over the port tune, which can cause cancellation/nulls. Sometimes plugging the ports on the speakers can help smoothen the response to the subs, if the speakers have sufficient bass extension by themselves.
They did come with 2 kinds of port plugs. I only did it on the center speaker due to placement in a cabinet, but will try on L&R and run again. thanks.
 

ExPerfectionist

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2023
Messages
129
Likes
138
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Nice choice of speakers, OP!
I also have 3x Ascend Sierra-LX speakers up front, with SVS Elevation speakers for rears and Atmos middle height, and a Rythmik F12SE sub.

Using Audyssey on my Marantz SR5015 receiver, and REW, I experimented and settled on these:

  • Front right corner for the sub is the best placement for bass for me, easiest to EQ and integrate. I originally had it along the right wall about 3-4 feet along the right wall, thinking the corner would be too boomy.
  • I am using the PEQ on the F12 to tame a peak around 50~60Hz, and did that based on REW sweeps and dialed it in before running Audyssey
  • Running different sweeps, I settled on using a 100Hz XO. This gives me the smoothest bass response and gets rid of a null I was getting around 80~90Hz or so I think. The Sierra-LX are capable of going down to about 35Hz for me, but can't compete with the F12, and the 100Hz XO gives the best integration overall.
  • I ended up using the O plugs in the Sierra-LX to help shape the bass response and integration with the sub to be smoothest

I use the Audyssey EQ app and limit the EQ range to 600~1000Hz depending on the channel.
 
OP
R

robh

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2023
Messages
44
Likes
23
Location
Cleveland OH
I find this interesting. Below are measurements of my left speaker (as an example) in my 3.1 setup. Same previous Reference Audyssey calculation, speaker set to small, with 40, 60 and 80Hz crossovers measured with REW. These measurements include the sub. When I initially ran Audyssey, it autoselected my crossover at 40Hz. Per Marantz documentation, it said I can safely set it higher if I want, but not lower of course. So I set it for 60Hz thinking I might as well give my subwoofer more to do.

The resulting graph looks interesting. There is no good answer, but it appears Audyssey isn't compensating for my subwoofer at 65Hz. 'Could be placement, as some of you mentioned.

Meanwhile, my Ascend Sierra-LX on its stand, in a totally different spot, has no trouble with 65Hz but poops out around 40Hz, which is expected for a bookshelf (I assume the blue line 20-35Hz'ish is sub). Without further adjustments, there is no good answer.

Since I don't want to buy a miniDSP, it looks like I'll take the advice here and just manually adjust it with ratbuddyssey to get it closer to level. It's a shame vanilla Audyssey isn't more adept. What's more upsetting are the original Audyssey graphs shown in ratbuddyssey (in my original post) are wildly wrong, which will make the adjustments more trial & error. I assume REW measurements are more accurate, unless someone says otherwise??

Thanks everyone.


1698772946296.png
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,811
Likes
5,398
I find this interesting. Below are measurements of my left speaker (as an example) in my 3.1 setup. Same previous Reference Audyssey calculation, speaker set to small, with 40, 60 and 80Hz crossovers measured with REW. These measurements include the sub. When I initially ran Audyssey, it autoselected my crossover at 40Hz. Per Marantz documentation, it said I can safely set it higher if I want, but not lower of course. So I set it for 60Hz thinking I might as well give my subwoofer more to do.

The resulting graph looks interesting. There is no good answer, but it appears Audyssey isn't compensating for my subwoofer at 65Hz. 'Could be placement, as some of you mentioned.

Meanwhile, my Ascend Sierra-LX on its stand, in a totally different spot, has no trouble with 65Hz but poops out around 40Hz, which is expected for a bookshelf (I assume the blue line 20-35Hz'ish is sub). Without further adjustments, there is no good answer.

Since I don't want to buy a miniDSP, it looks like I'll take the advice here and just manually adjust it with ratbuddyssey to get it closer to level. It's a shame vanilla Audyssey isn't more adept. What's more upsetting are the original Audyssey graphs shown in ratbuddyssey (in my original post) are wildly wrong, which will make the adjustments more trial & error. I assume REW measurements are more accurate, unless someone says otherwise??

Thanks everyone.


View attachment 322760

Audyssey's are predicted response and are affected by the different mic positions you used during the calibration, so those curves will not look the same as REW's. REW's are therefore more accurate because they represent actual measurements, not predicted, but you do have to check the other mic positions, they will be very different, typically the mmp's will look the smoothest and flattest, as expected.

I have run REW hundreds of times, and in my setup, 80 Hz and 90 Hz crossover usually look the best, 60 Hz would look fine most of the time, but 40 Hz usually look terrible. It really depends a lot of your speakers and room. From your graphs, 60 Hz seems to be best for you, but that's just the MMP, you should look at your other seats too before you decide which one would suit you best.
 
OP
R

robh

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2023
Messages
44
Likes
23
Location
Cleveland OH
I did more testing with REW and generating a 100Hz sine wave, while moving the UMIK-1 mic around. Well, I didn't even need to do that. I could tell immediately that my MLP is in the suckout zone. The right couch seat (closer to the sub) is decent, but not the other two. Up to a 5-8 dB lower difference. The only way I could get the SVS SB-2000 sub closer to my 85dB test tone was put it in the corner AND face it towards the wall, using all the bass loading I can. Well that would look ugly with it's back control panel to me, so now I'm not sure what to do. I assume a DSP product or EQ would just trade one good position for another.

So I'm open to suggestions. Would a ported sub be better? Or a sealed sub with the woofer facing down to the floor (if that's still a thing)? I used to have one like that.

Thanks for ALL the advice so far. You guys are gold.

1698889521622.png
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,811
Likes
5,398
I did more testing with REW and generating a 100Hz sine wave, while moving the UMIK-1 mic around. Well, I didn't even need to do that. I could tell immediately that my MLP is in the suckout zone. The right couch seat (closer to the sub) is decent, but not the other two. Up to a 5-8 dB lower difference. The only way I could get the SVS SB-2000 sub closer to my 85dB test tone was put it in the corner AND face it towards the wall, using all the bass loading I can. Well that would look ugly with it's back control panel to me, so now I'm not sure what to do. I assume a DSP product or EQ would just trade one good position for another.

So I'm open to suggestions. Would a ported sub be better? Or a sealed sub with the woofer facing down to the floor (if that's still a thing)? I used to have one like that.

Thanks for ALL the advice so far. You guys are gold.

View attachment 323105

From what I can see, that suckout can be improved by 3 to 5 dB if you worked at it using Ratbuddyssey. No guarantee, but I think it can be done. It is a time consuming process as each time you make a change you have check it with REW for at least a few mic positions (can focus on mmp first) and it could be a pain to send the ady file back and forth between Rat and the App. The process would likely involve cutting the peaks, including even some minor peaks, in order to make the suck out areas look boosted but not actually boosted, once that's done, you have to increase the levels to compensate for the cuts made earlier. As it is now, the suck out isn't going to be that noticeable anyway because it is narrow enough, and with more speakers and the sub playing in the same band at the same time, it most likely won't be as bad as it look when only the left speaker is playing in the range. So if it was me, I would spend a few days to flatten it more, again probably by 3-5 dB, but that's an ocd thing, it won't gain me anything that can be audible, ymmv..
 
OP
R

robh

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2023
Messages
44
Likes
23
Location
Cleveland OH
From what I can see, that suckout can be improved by 3 to 5 dB if you worked at it using Ratbuddyssey.
Wouldn't that improve one position at the expense of heightened bass at other positions? Or you do mean just find a compromise that's acceptable, but not perfect, for all?
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,811
Likes
5,398
Wouldn't that improve one position at the expense of heightened bass at other positions? Or you do mean just find a compromise that's acceptable, but not perfect, for all?
Not the way I did it, I detailed how I did it, on Audioholics. Jon AA (he's the one who inspired me to do the laborious tweaks with Rat) did too, but he did it differently. I can link you to that Audioholics thread if you are interested, but it really is a lot of work if you want to get some better looking curves. I have done it, so my ocd/curiosity is sort of satisfied so if I were to go back to D+M's avrs some day, I wouldn't spend more than 4 hours on the App and Rat just get me over the point of diminishing return.

By the way, do you have just one sub, if yes, a second one will likely help a lot to lessen that suckout.
 
Last edited:
OP
R

robh

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2023
Messages
44
Likes
23
Location
Cleveland OH
By the way, do you have just one sub, if yes, a second one will likely help a lot to lessen that suckout.
I do. I was thinking a second one would help. I'd rather not, but it appears to be the best solution. My fear is instead of combining to make things better, it'll exasperate more problems. Only one way to find out.
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,811
Likes
5,398
I do. I was thinking a second one would help. I'd rather not, but it appears to be the best solution. My fear is instead of combining to make things better, it'll exasperate more problems. Only one way to find out.
Try one that you can return within so many days. Just to deal with that 70-80 Hz dip you can try a small one that is easy to move and place.
 
OP
R

robh

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2023
Messages
44
Likes
23
Location
Cleveland OH
I added some custom target curve points with Ratbuddssey, re-uploaded it to the Marantz, and I don't see any difference with REW. 'Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but I might just have to fight my finger on the iPad.
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,811
Likes
5,398
I added some custom target curve points with Ratbuddssey, re-uploaded it to the Marantz, and I don't see any difference with REW. 'Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but I might just have to fight my finger on the iPad.
Did you apply cut or boosts? You need focus on cuts, not boost.
 

staticV3

Master Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
8,319
Likes
13,393
I did all boosts, since its drops I'm trying to fix. Did it wrong?
Whether you use cuts of boosts to create your filter response doesn't matter. It's where and how you choose to apply those filters that matters.

As @peng said, it's better to reduce peaks than to boost nulls.
 
Last edited:

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,811
Likes
5,398
I did all boosts, since its drops I'm trying to fix. Did it wrong?

I would say so, as I explained in my earlier post. Using the finger to draw is the same as using Ratbuddyssey, except it is much easier to type in the changes than to draw, that's why people use Ratbuddyssey.
 
OP
R

robh

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2023
Messages
44
Likes
23
Location
Cleveland OH
Using boosts to fix the drops is wrong?

I have it figured out I think. I can see the REW graphs changing a bit every time I upload something & recheck. It won't be perfect, but it'll help.
 

staticV3

Master Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
8,319
Likes
13,393
Using boosts to fix the drops is wrong?

I have it figured out I think. I can see the REW graphs changing a bit every time I upload something & recheck. It won't be perfect, but it'll help.
Trying to fix response nulls with peak filters can result in nasty distortion artefacts.

Using just EQ, you're often better off reducing bass peaks and leaving the nulls alone.

Nulls can be effectively addressed using room treatment, sub placement, or multiple subs ideally with clever DSP like MSO or DLBC.
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,811
Likes
5,398
Using boosts to fix the drops is wrong?

I have it figured out I think. I can see the REW graphs changing a bit every time I upload something & recheck. It won't be perfect, but it'll help.
Not always wrong and not in absolute sense but the approach should be to cut the peaks, and don"t try to boost the room mode nulls. You can try boost a little just to see how it reacts, if it doesn't work than you know it's a null.
 
Top Bottom