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

[Aaron7]

Both would be very interesting as one can see how REW and MultiXQ correlates. Thx.

Below are 1st pages from both EQ-x APP and REW test 1/12 smoothed. All my channels look 99% like the first speaker except the Sub of course. I spent months trying out every conceivable option. In the end after testing results through REW this is what gave me the flattest response. Note that I have 2 subs and I run the range from AUTO to 100hz. I do not like the sound when you try extending the range of the sub too high. Also note that Auto to 20khz should be the range for the rest of the speakers. I find that only "AUTO" to 20k works properly. The sub slope should be disabled for best results. The rest of my speakers I Override and slope at 6 and cross at 80hz. The suggested crossover points that the app recommended did not provide the flattest results.

 

[Reverend Slim]

Looks like you had the same little rise in response at the very high end that I was hearing in my system. If you hear any graininess with things like female vocals, I recommend trying a small shelf of about 1.5dB at about 15-17kHz to very lightly roll off the highs a touch. I also use Flat, but that little minor cut did a lot to tame things with my speakers. Just throwing it out there.

 

[chych7]

Below are 1st pages from both EQ-x APP and REW test 1/12 smoothed. All my channels look 99% like the first speaker except the Sub of course. I spent months trying out every conceivable option. In the end after testing results through REW this is what gave me the flattest response. Note that I have 2 subs and I run the range from AUTO to 100hz. I do not like the sound when you try extending the range of the sub too high. Also note that Auto to 20khz should be the range for the rest of the speakers. I find that only "AUTO" to 20k works properly. The sub slope should be disabled for best results. The rest of my speakers I Override and slope at 6 and cross at 80hz. The suggested crossover points that the app recommended did not provide the flattest results.

Why are you specifically looking for the flattest response? Flat at the listening position actually boosts the high frequencies of the speaker, so it's not actually flat (a speaker that is flat near-field will have a downward slope at the listening position, see all of Amir's speaker reviews, Harman listener curves and such). But I guess if it sounds better to you, then that's fine. Nevertheless, nice to see that Audyssey is effectively capturing the desired response. You can also create additional filters in REW that MultEQ-X can import, if you want to fix that rise after 10k.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Below are 1st pages from both EQ-x APP and REW test 1/12 smoothed. All my channels look 99% like the first speaker except the Sub of course. I spent months trying out every conceivable option. In the end after testing results through REW this is what gave me the flattest response. Note that I have 2 subs and I run the range from AUTO to 100hz. I do not like the sound when you try extending the range of the sub too high. Also note that Auto to 20khz should be the range for the rest of the speakers. I find that only "AUTO" to 20k works properly. The sub slope should be disabled for best results. The rest of my speakers I Override and slope at 6 and cross at 80hz. The suggested crossover points that the app recommended did not provide the flattest results.

Thanks for posting and nice work.

I had the same reaction as @chych7

Maybe have a look at the Harman preference curve. It is the result of an anechoically flat speaker when played in a real room. It usually exhibits a slight bass boost and a slight roll off of about 0.5 to 1dB per octave depending on room. I usually let Audyssey „follow“ the natural roll off of the room. Or disable it above Schroedinger. A flat in-room response instead is by many people perceived as too bright and lacking of bass.

But please don’t take it as criticism. If you prefer it the way you set it up, that is all what counts.

 

[Miker 1102]

It’s not “correct” but a simplification that’s as likely to hurt (as in, sum less cleanly than optimal, rob headroom) as help. You missed the point, which was the part you didn’t quote. The theoretically (and IME actually) better approach is, as @Sancus wrote above:

“treat "flat response at MLP" and "minimum deviation for all other listening positions" as targets, and then check every possible EQ filter, delay, phase, and gain setting to see which combination produces the best results given your targets.”

That’s what separates an SFM or DLBC from simpler attempts at solving the problem.

Put another way, one can shuffle about with ankle cuffs on, or take them off and sprint.

This was a good analogy. I worked in law enforcement and had a young man escape the court house in full shackles orange the whole nine in the middle of the downtown where I was staioned. He was the fastest moving person I ever saw with ankle cuffs. I chased him out in the street in the middle of a 4 way and my director and deputy director came running out! I will never forget the look on my face. Wasn't not my prisoner that day I just happened to be walking thru the courthouse.

 

[Aaron7]

Looks like you had the same little rise in response at the very high end that I was hearing in my system. If you hear any graininess with things like female vocals, I recommend trying a small shelf of about 1.5dB at about 15-17kHz to very lightly roll off the highs a touch. I also use Flat, but that little minor cut did a lot to tame things with my speakers. Just

Note that the MIC is facing up with a file to adjust for Freq response. Our ears are facing to the side against the chair. Therefore we lose HF response based on direction compared to the MIC. So I doubt that our ears intake this small boost based on directional basis. Perhaps that is what it is taking into account.

 

[chych7]

Looks like there's some new MultEQ-X Pro that was just announced (just saw in my e-mail), I don't see any posting elsewhere.

Announcing MultEQ-X Pro!​

What is MultEQ-X Pro? MultEQ-X Pro is a new version of MultEQ-X designed specifically for professional AVR installers and their businesses. How is it different from MultEQ-X? It has all the same technical features as MultEQ-X, but it adds an improved licensing system that is easier for business users to manage. Is it a separate download from MultEQ-X? Yes. You download and install it directly from our new Pro web site. The Pro web site also lets you keep track of all your licenses in one convenient place. Does MultEQ-X Pro still require a Microsoft account? No it doesn’t! We received a lot of feedback that requiring a Microsoft account was inconvenient, so we eliminated it. With MultEQ-X Pro there’s no need to create a Microsoft account, and no need to visit the Microsoft Store. So how do I purchase licenses? Directly from us! You can place an order with our sales department ([email protected]). I’m already using MultEQ-X. Why should I switch to MultEQ-X Pro? Besides the improved licensing system, we are offering a minimum 10% discount on every order, with even greater discounts for large orders. You also get service and support directly from our sales department. The only requirement is that you must purchase at least 5 licenses. What if I’ve already bought some MultEQ-X licenses? Can I transfer them to MultEQ-X Pro? Yes you certainly can. We will happily move your licenses to Pro, but you must purchase enough additional licenses to meet the 5 license minimum. Sounds good. How do I get started? All you have to do is email us at [email protected] and we will be happy to answer any questions. Anything else I should know? Only that MultEQ-X has been getting amazing reviews! Here are a couple of the most recent ones:​

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

Why are you specifically looking for the flattest response? Flat at the listening position actually boosts the high frequencies of the speaker, so it's not actually flat (a speaker that is flat near-field will have a downward slope at the listening position, see all of Amir's speaker reviews, Harman listener curves and such). But I guess if it sounds better to you, then that's fine. Nevertheless, nice to see that Audyssey is effectively capturing the desired response. You can also create additional filters in REW that MultEQ-X can import, if you want to fix that rise after 10k.

It is a pernicious hobby.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Looks like there's some new MultEQ-X Pro that was just announced (just saw in my e-mail), I don't see any posting elsewhere.

Yes saw it too in my email. It is for Pros which service several devices I guess. One can convert existing licenses to Pro ones, but you have to have or buy at least 5 licenses.

 

[Bimbleton]

Hello all,

Is there a detailed guide/post or YouTube video that can walk through how to use REW to generate filters and use them in MultEQ-X?

To be honest, I’m getting stuck at the part where I implement a house curve into REW, so a video for that would be super helpful. Checked out a few, but they seem to use older builds of REW.

Thanks for helping a newbie!

 

[chych7]

Hello all,

Is there a detailed guide/post or YouTube video that can walk through how to use REW to generate filters and use them in MultEQ-X?

To be honest, I’m getting stuck at the part where I implement a house curve into REW, so a video for that would be super helpful. Checked out a few, but they seem to use older builds of REW.

Thanks for helping a newbie!

I made a very simple video to show the process I use. I got the Harman house curve I used from here.

 

[Bimbleton]

I made a very simple video to show the process I use. I got the Harman house curve I used from here.

This is so great thank you!!

 

[GaryH]

I have not seen all the videos yet, but would like to know if MultEQ-X "levels" the playing field and achieves identical quality of DRC on Denons like X1x00H and X2x00H, which are limited to MultEQ XT, whereas the X3x00H and higher models support XT32? At the low end, even X7x0H is supported by MultEQ-X but only gets MultEQ (no XT)...

Or, are the MultEQ XT limitation due to inferior DSP hardware in X1x00H and X2x00H, making the cost of the new app is even more questionable for these entry level AVRs?

Did you ever find out anything about this?

 

[Toblerone]

Why isn't there an option to test the changes made after eq'ing the system using the same test that measures the original frequency response levels?

 

[Sal1950]

Why isn't there an option to test the changes made after eq'ing the system using the same test that measures the original frequency response levels?

Good question. But better to just use REW and a UMIK to measure that and more.

 

[Reverend Slim]

Why isn't there an option to test the changes made after eq'ing the system using the same test that measures the original frequency response levels?

Because there is no way to apply the filters on top of the test chirps. This would be something D&M would have to implement in the AVR, not something that Audyssey would have access to.

 

[anotherhobby]

Because there is no way to apply the filters on top of the test chirps. This would be something D&M would have to implement in the AVR, not something that Audyssey would have access to.

On top of those technical limitations, I also think the notion of testing a correction that was based on perhaps 8 measurements (varies by flavor) by measuring the room response in only 1 location would not be a very good test. I'm sure most people realize these corrections are not for one spot, and small dips and peaks will vary from seat to seat. There is a primary seating location, but the "quality" of the correction would need to consider the response at all measurement locations in order to determine if it did a good job. Thus a test would also involve orchestrating the human to move the microphone thru all the same spots. The precision required on behalf of the human to hit the same spot for both measure/test at every location could also prove to be very challenging. I think in reality you'd just need to have one calibration microphone statically positioned at each spot instead of using 1 mic that the human moves. Much more expensive, but that's probably the only way to do it well and make it repeatable by ordinary humans in the wild. Plus side would be speed since you'd only need to run tones thru everything once.

 

[Toblerone]

It doesnt have to be that serious. We get a fake before and after in the mobile app we should get a more realistic before and after for $180 more in the desktop version. Doesn't have to be that precise and I shouldn't have to buy a separate microphone and learn a 2nd app to get the measurements...

 

[Dj7675]

It doesnt have to be that serious. We get a fake before and after in the mobile app we should get a more realistic before and after for $180 more in the desktop version. Doesn't have to be that precise and I shouldn't have to buy a separate microphone and learn a 2nd app to get the measurements...

Never happen IMO. The only system I am aware of that does an after measurement to confirm results is HARMAN Arcos… it is very expensive and done by custom, trained calibrators and uses 8 microphones that aren’t moved.

Arcos

www.jblsynthesis.com

None of the EQ systems do a post measurement check… not Dirac, Trinnov, RoomPerfect, Anthem ARC etc… not realistic to expect it from Audyssey IMO.

 

[peng]

Never happen IMO. The only system I am aware of that does an after measurement to confirm results is HARMAN Arcos… it is very expensive and done by custom, trained calibrators and uses 8 microphones that aren’t moved.

Arcos

www.jblsynthesis.com

None of the EQ systems do a post measurement check… not Dirac, Trinnov, RoomPerfect, Anthem ARC etc… not realistic to expect it from Audyssey IMO.

I think if they wanted to they could implement such a feature without much difficulty. I don't think they would do it for more than one reason, one being they know many users will complain the "after" will not look as good as the predicted response. It would be too much for them to keep explaining to people why that would be the case.