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

[GalZohar]

I've asked this before but got no answers yet...
Anyone tried to set the cutoff frequency to the crossover frequency (keeping the default 2nd order slope) and measure how that improves the subwoofer integration (over the default which is often lower than 80Hz)? Preferably comparing after using REW to manually adjust subwoofer distance for optimal integration in both cases.

 

[DuncanTodd]

The latter.

Forgot to ask. How does that calculation works with subs? I assume it's not a straight x0.875 like with passive speakers.

 

[KMO]

0.875 applies for any active or passive speaker or sub.

An active speaker/sub will show a bigger distance as it incorporates some virtual distance for the processing delay. But that virtual distance is subject to the same distance->delay conversion error and still needs the 0.875 to get the right delay compensation in the AVR.

 

[Chromatischism]

Forgot to ask. How does that calculation works with subs? I assume it's not a straight x0.875 like with passive speakers.

It technically is, however you may still want to do sub distance tweaking on your own.

 

[DuncanTodd]

0.875 applies for any active or passive speaker or sub.

An active speaker/sub will show a bigger distance as it incorporates some virtual distance for the processing delay. But that virtual distance is subject to the same distance->delay conversion error and still needs the 0.875 to get the right delay compensation in the AVR.

Thanks.
I stumbled on a post on different thread on avsf that went into quite a confusing explanation (maybe not so confusing, but I've yet had time to read it), how tuning the subwoofer distance is different in this case, so wanted to verify.

 

[KMO]

It's simple if you're using a distance measurement from (non MultEQ-X) Audyssey that was based on delay, like the speakers' was. Then 0.875 for everything gets you to what Audyssey was intending to do. (Which I believe is a pure impulse alignment, not addressing phase integration for crossover).

But if after initial Audyssey measurement you did any sort of crossover integration through frequency response analysis, changing the sub distance, then putting the 0.875 change in would mess with that integration. The complicated posts in there are trying to talk people through what to do to their sub distance number to preserve the sub/speaker offset and hence their crossover integration, without having to redo the measurements and sub timing alignment. You could just redo it after the 0.875 adjustment.

Actually - the 0.875 adjustment is so small compared to the sort of changes made during sub alignment, it probably doesn't really matter anyway. The timing alignment tool in REW uses 0.5ms steps by default, and that's a very small change to phase at typical crossover levels, starting from an aligned position. The 0.875 tweak will likely not end up shifting stuff by even two of those steps. So just doing the 0.875 to everything will only ever so slightly disrupt a crossover integration.

 

[GalZohar]

I remote connected to a friends PC to try and help him tune his system and saw something strange:

I added some low shelf filter to account for some room gain, trying to boost the bass a few decibels. However, the effect on the "after" curve seemed much smaller than the decibel amount I entered in the filter (a 3db boost seemed to boost by a very small amount, 1db or less, compared to no filter). Even setting the maximum of 10db boost showed the "after" curve only a few db higher than the baseline level. Any idea if this is just a display error or if the filters work differently than what I expect them to do? Unfortunately, this was done remotely so I had no way to measure what was actually happening.

On another note, it seems like the MultEQ-X "after" curve is much more realistic-looking than the android/iphone app "after" curve, which strengthens the claim that the android/iphone app "after" curve is complete BS even if you give it (probably false) credit for being some kind of spatial averaging result.

 

[peng]

I remote connected to a friends PC to try and help him tune his system and saw something strange:

I added some low shelf filter to account for some room gain, trying to boost the bass a few decibels. However, the effect on the "after" curve seemed much smaller than the decibel amount I entered in the filter (a 3db boost seemed to boost by a very small amount, 1db or less, compared to no filter). Even setting the maximum of 10db boost showed the "after" curve only a few db higher than the baseline level. Any idea if this is just a display error or if the filters work differently than what I expect them to do? Unfortunately, this was done remotely so I had no way to measure what was actually happening.

On another note, it seems like the MultEQ-X "after" curve is much more realistic-looking than the android/iphone app "after" curve, which strengthens the claim that the android/iphone app "after" curve is complete BS even if you give it (probably false) credit for being some kind of spatial averaging result.

May be within the range you picked there are several room mode dips that Audyssey couldn't do much about.

 

[KMO]

You can't effectively boost your way out of low-frequency nulls. Almost all extra energy from your gain just goes to the other places in the room, probably making the balance in those places even worse.

Your best bet is moving the subwoofer / speakers. Or listening position.

You can see similar effects from reflections cancelling at higher frequencies - you boost the reflections too, so they still cancel.

Most of the time a +3dB gain filter will provide +3dB output, but not when nulls/cancellations are happening.

If you mess with REW or similar you'll see people wittering on about "minimum phase" regions of response - that's what they're talking about. "Minimum phase" is the good parts of the frequency response that respond to EQ - an "excess phase" graph shows spikes in regions where it won't respond to EQ.

The simple Audyssey app will be assuming everything is minimum phase and will respond to EQ perfectly, and shows what the after would look like if that was the case. (It's just literally summing the "before" and the "EQ" level, ignoring phase).

If the MultEQ-X app is doing better, then it is likely paying attention to the phase issues.

 

[Chromatischism]

In my experience, Audyssey detects and does not attempt to boost null regions of the response. It will fill in the edges and make it narrower, which helps make it less audible.

 

[GalZohar]

There were both peaks and dips, as you would normally see in the bass region. The average level of the bass region seemed to be around 3db above the baseline, so setting the curve to +3db in this region should have resulted with less correction, rather than more. In any case, as the boost is broadband, I would expect to see the overall level rise by 3db anyway. Especially when it already seemed to be at that +3db before EQ, and the EQ took it down.

 

[KMO]

I'm a bit lost on your description now.

One thing that may be relevant is that the EQ filters can't change the overall gain of the subwoofer. If your curve change made the whole frequency range of the subwoofer 3dB higher, nothing much happens. You only get to change the shape of the curve within its range. (This is my experience with older Audyssey, but I don't think this has changed).

So imagine you changed the target curve from totally flat (ew) to sloping down 8dB from 20Hz to 20kHz (yay). The sub should now be louder than the mains. But that won't happen. Both the sub and the mains will have downward-sloping response, but the sub's slope will be going from +2dB to -2dB (say) rather than +4dB to 0dB.

The 0dB point for the sub filter is chosen as the average of the sub's limited-bandwidth response, not the average of the system's full-bandwidth response. At least in Audyssey Pro, this is visible in the "after" graphs, and may be so in the current apps. The 100Hz response shown for a speaker might be +2dB, while for the sub it might be 0dB.

So if you have higher bass overall in your target curve, you have to adjust the sub master trim to get the sub's response to stitch together correctly with the mains.

(I stand to be corrected if any of this has changed - maybe in MultEQ-X?)

 

[GalZohar]

It was for speakers, not subwoofer. However, it's possible that as I limited the EQ frequency to 300, and set the filter center frequency at 200, then from the software's point of view I was boosting the entire frequency range, although from my point of view I was boosting only the the bass. Although if that's really the case, this makes bass boosting impossible without also EQing the high frequencies, which seems wrong? Is that actually what was happening? Is this unique to Audyssey? Are there any feasible workarounds, so that I can EQ just the bass but keep the overall room gain or even apply a bass boost? How does it work in Arc/Dirac when limiting EQ to just bass?

I didn't even get to the sub, obviously with how things work one should just boost the overall subwoofer level so that it matches with the speaker levels at the crossover region. But first one should actually succeed in boosting the bass of the speakers...

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

The people at Audyssey do not seem to understand the value of customer retention. I was all ready to buy the software and start using it.
Well this is the response I got from them when I inquire about the transfer to a new model in case of my old (X-3400H) having to be replaced ..

This is my correspondence with them... NOT pleased . Sour about Audyssey whose most interesting feature is the DEQ for me. If I can find a serious alternative to DEQ, , I will bolt out...

Ticket #xxxxxx: Interested in the MultEQ-X PC App​

Your request (#xxxxxx) has been updated. To review the status of the request and add additional comments, follow the link below: http://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/requests/xxxxxx You can also add a comment by replying to this email. ​ Customer Support Team, Aug 19, 2022, 8:07 AM PDT: Hi Frantz, unfortunately the license cannot be transferred to another AVR. I would suggest waiting until you upgrade your receiver, and then purchasing a license for MultEQ-X. Best Regards, Audyssey Support Please understand tickets may be marked "Solved" for expediency. Please feel free to continue the conversation if your issue is not resolved completely to your satisfaction. Check out our new MultEQ-X calibration software Calibrated Mics for MultEQ-X are now available on Amazon.com Adapter Cables for using the Pro Kit with MultEQ-X are now available on Amazon.com Replacement Microphones for many AVRs are available on Amazon.com ​ Frantz, Aug 19, 2022, 1:52 AM PDT: Hi I am the owner of a Denon AVR-X3400, which I acquired about 4 years ago. I love it and I now consider Audyssey as a requirement for any audio system. I have used the Audyssey Smartphone App with good results but also realize its limitations. I want to acquire the MultEQ-X App. My Denon is 4 years old. I have to consider a time when it dies and has to be replaced, by a Denon of course. What happens to my license if my receiver is out of commission? Does it get transferred to the new receiver? I am not asking to keep on using it on other receivers on a regular basis. just that one time if my, relatively old Receiver has an issue? I want to know if the license will be transferred in such a case. Then I will acquire the MultEQ-X App. Looking forward to your reply. Thank Frantz

Peace.

 

[tifune]

Hi

The people at Audyssey do not seem to understand the value of customer retention. I was all ready to buy the software and start using it.
Well this is the response I got from them when I inquire about the transfer to a new model in case of my old (X-3400H) having to be replaced ..

This is my correspondence with them... NOT pleased . Sour about Audyssey whose most interesting feature is the DEQ for me. If I can find a serious alternative to DEQ, , I will bolt out...

Ticket #xxxxxx: Interested in the MultEQ-X PC App​

​ Your request (#xxxxxx) has been updated. To review the status of the request and add additional comments, follow the link below: http://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/requests/xxxxxx You can also add a comment by replying to this email. ​ ​ Customer Support Team, Aug 19, 2022, 8:07 AM PDT: Hi Frantz, unfortunately the license cannot be transferred to another AVR. I would suggest waiting until you upgrade your receiver, and then purchasing a license for MultEQ-X. Best Regards, Audyssey Support Please understand tickets may be marked "Solved" for expediency. Please feel free to continue the conversation if your issue is not resolved completely to your satisfaction. Check out our new MultEQ-X calibration software Calibrated Mics for MultEQ-X are now available on Amazon.com Adapter Cables for using the Pro Kit with MultEQ-X are now available on Amazon.com Replacement Microphones for many AVRs are available on Amazon.com ​ ​ Frantz, Aug 19, 2022, 1:52 AM PDT: Hi I am the owner of a Denon AVR-X3400, which I acquired about 4 years ago. I love it and I now consider Audyssey as a requirement for any audio system. I have used the Audyssey Smartphone App with good results but also realize its limitations. I want to acquire the MultEQ-X App. My Denon is 4 years old. I have to consider a time when it dies and has to be replaced, by a Denon of course. What happens to my license if my receiver is out of commission? Does it get transferred to the new receiver? I am not asking to keep on using it on other receivers on a regular basis. just that one time if my, relatively old Receiver has an issue? I want to know if the license will be transferred in such a case. Then I will acquire the MultEQ-X App. Looking forward to your reply. Thank Frantz

Peace.

This is literally the only reason I haven't purchased yet. I've read elsewhere there is an exception to be made for AVRs that fail, but I can't find any such verbiage on Audyssey's site and now you have this reply straight from support. I'd love to try it but this is just too limiting given the price

 

[GalZohar]

Hi

The people at Audyssey do not seem to understand the value of customer retention. I was all ready to buy the software and start using it.
Well this is the response I got from them when I inquire about the transfer to a new model in case of my old (X-3400H) having to be replaced ..

This is my correspondence with them... NOT pleased . Sour about Audyssey whose most interesting feature is the DEQ for me. If I can find a serious alternative to DEQ, , I will bolt out...

Ticket #xxxxxx: Interested in the MultEQ-X PC App​

​ Your request (#xxxxxx) has been updated. To review the status of the request and add additional comments, follow the link below: http://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/requests/xxxxxx You can also add a comment by replying to this email. ​ ​ Customer Support Team, Aug 19, 2022, 8:07 AM PDT: Hi Frantz, unfortunately the license cannot be transferred to another AVR. I would suggest waiting until you upgrade your receiver, and then purchasing a license for MultEQ-X. Best Regards, Audyssey Support Please understand tickets may be marked "Solved" for expediency. Please feel free to continue the conversation if your issue is not resolved completely to your satisfaction. Check out our new MultEQ-X calibration software Calibrated Mics for MultEQ-X are now available on Amazon.com Adapter Cables for using the Pro Kit with MultEQ-X are now available on Amazon.com Replacement Microphones for many AVRs are available on Amazon.com ​ ​ Frantz, Aug 19, 2022, 1:52 AM PDT: Hi I am the owner of a Denon AVR-X3400, which I acquired about 4 years ago. I love it and I now consider Audyssey as a requirement for any audio system. I have used the Audyssey Smartphone App with good results but also realize its limitations. I want to acquire the MultEQ-X App. My Denon is 4 years old. I have to consider a time when it dies and has to be replaced, by a Denon of course. What happens to my license if my receiver is out of commission? Does it get transferred to the new receiver? I am not asking to keep on using it on other receivers on a regular basis. just that one time if my, relatively old Receiver has an issue? I want to know if the license will be transferred in such a case. Then I will acquire the MultEQ-X App. Looking forward to your reply. Thank Frantz

Peace.

While this is probably not a great way of selling software, we can't say that this wasn't communicated very early on, and can't really say nothing wrong about the customer support doing anything wrong here. You can vote with your wallet, but consider that any alternatives that can EQ bass properly are going to cost much more than an X3700h with MultEQ-X.

Honestly, considering the price of alternatives, the 200$ is not what would make me buy or avoid an Audyssey device. For example, if the issue I mentioned in #944 is real with no workaround, I find that a much greater reason to pay a lot more than extra 200$ for an alternative, if I ever decide to increase the budget by that much.

 

[KMO]

It was for speakers, not subwoofer. However, it's possible that as I limited the EQ frequency to 300, and set the filter center frequency at 200, then from the software's point of view I was boosting the entire frequency range, although from my point of view I was boosting only the the bass. Although if that's really the case, this makes bass boosting impossible without also EQing the high frequencies, which seems wrong? Is that actually what was happening?

Hmm, yes, it's plausible to me at least that you might see the same "average of filtered region is 0dB" effect in a limited EQ of the mains as you do with a sub. Would explain what you're seeing.

(What you were saying was so reminiscent of my own sub experiences I just assumed we were talking about a sub).

 

[FrantzM]

Hi


It is not a matter of how much it cost. It is of how it is sold,
Could be personal: I find it a underhanded: Sell the option wit the AVR. Done. Don't sell a stand alone software and then attached it to a gear. I don't see this as a customer-friendly strategy. They may get away with it for a while. In the big schem of things $200.oo is not that much, it remains that such their response is lame: "Wait until your receiver crap out , then get our software, which is by the way, not transferable to your next purchase" ?
Let's admit there are better ways to make money...

 

[peng]

You can't effectively boost your way out of low-frequency nulls. Almost all extra energy from your gain just goes to the other places in the room, probably making the balance in those places even worse.

Your best bet is moving the subwoofer / speakers. Or listening position.

You can see similar effects from reflections cancelling at higher frequencies - you boost the reflections too, so they still cancel.

Most of the time a +3dB gain filter will provide +3dB output, but not when nulls/cancellations are happening.

If you mess with REW or similar you'll see people wittering on about "minimum phase" regions of response - that's what they're talking about. "Minimum phase" is the good parts of the frequency response that respond to EQ - an "excess phase" graph shows spikes in regions where it won't respond to EQ.

The simple Audyssey app will be assuming everything is minimum phase and will respond to EQ perfectly, and shows what the after would look like if that was the case. (It's just literally summing the "before" and the "EQ" level, ignoring phase).

If the MultEQ-X app is doing better, then it is likely paying attention to the phase issues.

If I understood him right, he just wanted to restore some room gain that XT32 presumably must have cut, if that's the case it should work, except if in that case there happened to have too many nulls that you mentioned within the range he tried to low shelf it up. Also if that's case, then instead of using what he called a low shelf type filter, but use REW to identify where the original room gain frequency points were, and boost those only, then XT32 (via the App) will likely comply. At least it worked for me that way in the past.

Edit: Posted too soon, missed a few..

 

[SoundGuy]

Two cents… I tried Room EQ and other forms of DSP including Audyssey extensively in two or three homes on different setups and I must say it superficially sounds better (smooth) but overall results in an anemic less natural sound to my ears. My opinion is this - if your speakers are of reasonable high quality then any anomalies will be room related - it is much better to either acoustically treat the room or just accept that the room casts some anomalies (which are real) and live with it. RT60 Measurements will help define what treatments are needed.

The problem (two cents) with DSP is that it affects the direct sound (60% of what you hear) as well as the reverberant sound (40% of what you hear). So in order to flatten out an anomaly in the room you are applying a correction to all the sound when it is actually a problem from only 40% of sound field, if you have a reasonably good speaker. This affects the balance of sound in the range of the adjustment done by DSP and sounds unnatural because of the change in direct sound level. Direct sound level is really important to stereo imaging and integrity of the stereo illusion. A vocalist or instrument covering a range of frequencies appears to come convincingly from a point source if the sound field is consistent across the frequency range.

That said, the non directional sound field below 150Hz should benefit from DSP without affecting soundstage but once again I find acoustic treatment sounds better than DSP - this is puzzling since our lower frequency hearing is not supposed to be broken into direct or reflected but it is what I have observed. I also observe that large 15 or 18 inch woofers sound more like the real thing (a real kick drum head) than small 6 or 8 inch multiple bass woofers (equivalent area) - another puzzle which is hard to explain - something to do with transient response and damping on large drivers I suspect.