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

[joentell]

Audyssey MultEQ-X Q&A with Jeff Clark

by @joentell

Streamed 6hrs ago...55min long.
Haven't watched it yet. Just saw it.

UPDATE:
I found out that JoeNTell is going to release a series of tutorial videos talking about MultEQ-X, from this website.
Im not sure if this will be paid or free?
I'm guessing Joe will release more info later.

Disclosure: I beta tested MultEQ-X and I was able to use the program for free. I wasn't compensated otherwise.

I'm planning on charging a fee for the courses. I may offer it as a service too, but I'm not sure. The courses (videos) are more about DSP tuning techniques. I was beta testing MultEQ-X at the time while I was writing up the procedures, but you can use any DSP you want like Equalizer APO or MiniDSP. To be clear, it's not only for MultEQ-X, it's just what I would recommend BECAUSE of the price. I'll explain.

Like I said in the video, I now use MultEQ-X to use my AVR as a PEQ filter bank. That's it! If you consider the alternatives for a DSP with 7-channels to 13-channels of inputs/outputs (depending on your AVR/Pre-Pro) and virtually unlimited "PEQ filters" (they're actually using FIR filters with lots of taps) with full-range EQ for each channel, there's not really anything in the $200 price range. Previously, I was using a MiniDSP DDRC88A with DIRAC, but that's only 8 in/out for $1100. Now I don't have a use for the MiniDSP DDRC88A in that system because of the MultEQ-X app.

I understand that many people won't use it like I did, and may not be happy paying the $200 for the other features. I get it.

I find that the results I'm getting, because of my techniques, and tons of time spent in REW taking measurements and creating filters, I am able to get performance on-par or better than Dirac. I think MSO can possibly do a better job than DLBC for example. Some things with time/phase alignment, Dirac still seems to do a better job of since I don't have an option to use all-pass filters. But for FR, I prefer my results more. I plan to explain in more detail in my video courses. I'll just say that it's more about the methods I use than the hardware I use to hold the filters.

I also don't like the idea of the license being tied to a user and an AVR. I relayed the feedback to Jeff Clark at Audyssey and they're looking for alternative ways to handle that situation. I told them it's best to act sooner rather than later.

The app is definitely a work in progress. Still a bit rough. I see potential for the app though. I think with a filter import option from REW, it will make more sense to people who want to use it the way I'm using it. If it weren't for BEQ, I would probably use it for my subs and not have to use my MiniDSP 2x4HD.

 

[Sancus]

If it weren't for BEQ, I would probably use it for my subs and not have to use my MiniDSP 2x4HD.

Does this mean you can use this app to set separate, independent filters for Subwoofer 1 and Subwoofer 2?

 

[joentell]

Does this mean you can use this app to set separate, independent filters for Subwoofer 1 and Subwoofer 2?

No. The PEQ is still applied to the summed response. You'll still need a MiniDSP to do indiv. filters on each sub.

I'm assuming you want independent filters on subs to use something like MSO to minimize seat to seat variation. Is that correct?

 

[Sancus]

I'm assuming you want independent filters on subs to use something like MSO to minimize seat to seat variation. Is that correct?

Yep, that's why, using MSO. Unlimited PEQs for each sub would be pretty awesome. I figured not though -- I'm not sure it's even possible for them to add that because there might not be the hardware for two independent subwoofer channels in the AVRs.

 

[joentell]

Yep, that's why, using MSO. Unlimited PEQs for each sub would be pretty awesome. I figured not though -- I'm not sure it's even possible for them to add that because there might not be the hardware for two independent subwoofer channels in the AVRs.

I'm guessing it's a hardware limitation

 

[thewas]

Sometimes one screenshot can be enough to know that its default correction is not something I would like, but at least it now has the option for manual filters...

 

[sarumbear]

Out of scope. Let me reframe.

One reasonable approach is for the license to follow the tangible product. Subsequent buyers enjoy that license over the lifespan of the product. Dirac follows that approach.

The other reasonable approach is for the license to follow the user. This approach is used by, e.g. Apple, Microsoft, FuzzMeasure, etc. If you get a new MacBook, you can legally install MS Office that you had on your old Mac (for example) on the new Mac.

Here, it looks like the license is simply rented by the user for the time period where that user has that certain product. That is considerably less consumer friendly than the other two options above.

I understand what you are saying. I am familiar with licensing methods. There are many software that are registered by a user but tied to the computer hardware. You may simply be not aware of.

iTunes used to tie DRM to the computer's network card MAC ID. Even if you bought the tracks you couldn't play it on another computer. They had a re-license mechanism but it is known to miserably fail. On the professional front I had at least three $3000+ software that used a lock and there was no mechanism other then to buy a license again (they offered a discount).

Registering a software to a person but locking to a machine is nothing new.

 

[jhaider]

iTunes used to tie DRM to the computer's network card MAC ID.

I don’t think that’s ever how iTunes DRM worked in the US (I’ve used iTunes for playback since 2001). You could keep a track bought from iTunes Music Store on 5 machines, but you could also de-authorize a machine and use that license on a new one. It worked fine from what I remember, though I never bought much from them. Always preferred to buy CDs.

As for your $3k package, I assume that’s not a consumer-facing software.

 

[Trell]

The Audyssey guy stated that using a USB mic would not be possible for timing reasons.

Their defunct Pro kit had an individually calibrated mic, though.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Their defunct Pro kit had an individually calibrated mic, though.

Yes, but it was not connected by USB. It was a separate microphone and preamp that had an analog connection to the AVR/processor. I asked them if my similar calibrated mic/preamp with analog output might work. They chose not to answer.

 

[sarumbear]

I don’t think that’s ever how iTunes DRM worked in the US (I’ve used iTunes for playback since 2001). You could keep a track bought from iTunes Music Store on 5 machines, but you could also de-authorize a machine and use that license on a new one. It worked fine from what I remember, though I never bought much from them. Always preferred to buy CDs.

How did the authorisation worked? It has to know the computer somehow doesn't it?

As for your $3k package, I assume that’s not a consumer-facing software.

Not it wasn't. I was only trying to explain that such licenses exists, not whether it is OK or not.

 

[Haint]

Disclosure: I beta tested MultEQ-X and I was able to use the program for free. I wasn't compensated otherwise.

I'm planning on charging a fee for the courses. I may offer it as a service too, but I'm not sure. The courses (videos) are more about DSP tuning techniques. I was beta testing MultEQ-X at the time while I was writing up the procedures, but you can use any DSP you want like Equalizer APO or MiniDSP. To be clear, it's not only for MultEQ-X, it's just what I would recommend BECAUSE of the price. I'll explain.

Like I said in the video, I now use MultEQ-X to use my AVR as a PEQ filter bank. That's it! If you consider the alternatives for a DSP with 7-channels to 13-channels of inputs/outputs (depending on your AVR/Pre-Pro) and virtually unlimited "PEQ filters" (they're actually using FIR filters with lots of taps) with full-range EQ for each channel, there's not really anything in the $200 price range. Previously, I was using a MiniDSP DDRC88A with DIRAC, but that's only 8 in/out for $1100. Now I don't have a use for the MiniDSP DDRC88A in that system because of the MultEQ-X app.

I understand that many people won't use it like I did, and may not be happy paying the $200 for the other features. I get it.

I find that the results I'm getting, because of my techniques, and tons of time spent in REW taking measurements and creating filters, I am able to get performance on-par or better than Dirac. I think MSO can possibly do a better job than DLBC for example. Some things with time/phase alignment, Dirac still seems to do a better job of since I don't have an option to use all-pass filters. But for FR, I prefer my results more. I plan to explain in more detail in my video courses. I'll just say that it's more about the methods I use than the hardware I use to hold the filters.

I also don't like the idea of the license being tied to a user and an AVR. I relayed the feedback to Jeff Clark at Audyssey and they're looking for alternative ways to handle that situation. I told them it's best to act sooner rather than later.

The app is definitely a work in progress. Still a bit rough. I see potential for the app though. I think with a filter import option from REW, it will make more sense to people who want to use it the way I'm using it. If it weren't for BEQ, I would probably use it for my subs and not have to use my MiniDSP 2x4HD.

I'm sure the software works fine and is a big improvement in usability and customization. The problem is an $1100 EQ box isn't in competition with Denon/Marantz, so the value comparison you propose simply isn't a compelling argument to anyone. Even among enthusiasts and tinkerers, no one is looking to buy a DDRC88A to add to an existing high end AVR. They'd be looking to buy a whole new AVR, not an $1100 outboard processor. Their real competition here is an $1099 NR7100 or $1399 RZ50, which are fully featured 9-11 channel AVR's with Dirac and multiple HDMI 2.1 ports. MEQ-X is effectively a requirement to stay relevant in the AVR space, not an answer to MiniDSP. A failure to recognize this will all but assuredly send the recommendations and word of mouth sales to Onkyo/Pioneer, and away from Denon/Marantz (who benefited immensely when Onkyo dropped Audyssey years ago in favor of their disastrous AccuEQ).

 

[joentell]

I'm sure the software works fine and is a big improvement in usability and customization. The problem is an $1100 EQ box isn't in competition with Denon/Marantz, so the value comparison you propose simply isn't a compelling argument to anyone. Even among enthusiasts and tinkerers, no one is looking to buy a DDRC88A to add to an existing high end AVR. They'd be looking to buy a whole new AVR, not an $1100 outboard processor. Their real competition here is an $1099 NR7100 or $1399 RZ50, which are fully featured 9-11 channel AVR's with Dirac and multiple HDMI 2.1 ports. MEQ-X is effectively a requirement to stay relevant in the AVR space, not an answer to MiniDSP. A failure to recognize will all but assuredly send all the recommendations and word of mouth sales to Onkyo/Pioneer, and away from Denon/Marantz (who benefitted immensely when Onkyo dropped Audyssey years ago in favor of their disastrous AccuEQ).

You aren't incorrect. But, what if you already own a Denon X4700H and you like it, but you have an itch for better room EQ. You might look into those alternatives from Onkyo, but you'll have to sell your AVR and buy a new one from Onkyo. If you don't want to go through the hassle of selling yours, then you have to shell out $1000+ for the Onkyo. If you had no AVR, then just go for the Onkyo if you want Dirac. But, if you like everything else about the Denon and just want more tuning capabilities, this is a way to do it for $200. I'll be more specific in saying, if you already own a compatible Denon or Marantz product and just want to tinker and tweak, this might be the least expensive way to do it.

People actually do want to use a MiniDSP DDRC88A to add Dirac to their non Dirac capable system. That's what I wanted to use it for and I did use it that way for a while. Other people who are interested in buying it from me mostly want to do exactly that. I'm not even sure what else someone would use it for.

 

[jhaider]

How did the authorisation worked? It has to know the computer somehow doesn't it?

iTunes "knew" you by your iCloud ID, called Apple ID then I think. As to how it worked, no idea. It just worked.

Not it wasn't. I was only trying to explain that such licenses exists, not whether it is OK or not.

I'm curious - what consumer-facing software costs $3k? I mean today, not in 1985.

Also, nobody disputes that such licenses "exist." If SU didn't choose this path we wouldn't be discussing!

The irony here is that the previous advanced Audssey product, the iOS App, has a best-of-both-worlds license: you can use it on multiple Audyssey-equipped devices AND it's portable as you upgrade your phone hardware. Frankly from what I’ve seen so far it’s the better product, too. This one seems to forsake modern features such as fitting the response to a target curve in favor of basic PEQ. (The miniDSP equivalent, BTW, is 10x10HD not DDRC-88). I guess some people like that. I don’t. This one also does not improve bass management either from what I could see, which is a huge disappointment as IMO Audyssey lags behind DLBC, ARC Genesis, and RoomPerfect there.

It will be interesting... its just a matter of time when someone will measure with the included mic, and compare it with a UMIK-1 measurement, so this is something that can and am sure will be tested/verified.

Ahem. See one of my posts above. OK, I think both of those were technically “CSL Calibrated Dayton EMM-6 into Focusrite interface” measurements, but close enough.

Bottom line is surveys show that the included mic allows Audyssey to fit the in room response of good speakers to their chosen target curve within the measured area.*

*I intentionally make no effort to sample the measurement points. I take samples within the same measured area. If the system is worth a damn it should provide stable results at any random set of control points within the measured area.

While I think it makes sense from a marketing perspective to let people use fancier mics, the audible benefit is likely just that you stop hearing people talk about the issue.

 

[joentell]

@jhaider You are correct that the MiniDSP 10x10 is a closer match than the DDRC88A. I want to be clear that I mentioned the 88A because that's what I personally came from. If you plan on applying PEQ to more than 10 channels, you will need an additional MiniDSP device.

 

[Haint]

You aren't incorrect. But, what if you already own a Denon X4700H and you like it, but you have an itch for better room EQ. You might look into those alternatives from Onkyo, but you'll have to sell your AVR and buy a new one from Onkyo. If you don't want to go through the hassle of selling yours, then you have to shell out $1000+ for the Onkyo. If you had no AVR, then just go for the Onkyo if you want Dirac. But, if you like everything else about the Denon and just want more tuning capabilities, this is a way to do it for $200. I'll be more specific in saying, if you already own a compatible Denon or Marantz product and just want to tinker and tweak, this might be the least expensive way to do it.

People actually do want to use a MiniDSP DDRC88A to add Dirac to their non Dirac capable system. That's what I wanted to use it for and I did use it that way for a while. Other people who are interested in buying it from me mostly want to do exactly that. I'm not even sure what else someone would use it for.

I meant no one in the rhetorical sense, in that it's an infinitesimally small market. Certainly there's exponentially higher demand for wholesale AVR upgrades, be it for better room correction, HDMI 2.1, more wattage, or what have you. I agree that the $200 license might make some level of sense specifically for X700 Series owners who plan to keep them until they die, but for the reliable upgrader or those with older models it's incredibly difficult to justify.

As I mentioned, tying the license to a single user and serial number actively discourages that customer from ever buying a new Denon/Marantz (as you're effectively flushing $400 in software licenses down the toilet--$200 wasted on your old unit, and another $200 buying a redundancy for the new unit). Factor in customers who own multiple D&M AVR's (who they should be rewarding for their loyalty, not actively spiting) and you'll eventually multiply that by 2x, 3x, 4x, or more.

I get that they're ostensibly targeting "Pro's" here, but that's a very small market, and the overwhelming majority of projects using Denon/Marantz are just installers dumping a bunch of Klipsch speakers in a partially finished basement. 9 out of 10 of them don't even bother running Audyssey and the 1 who does sets the mic on the floor or the seat of the couch. The people doing fully treated $50,000+ rooms with real measurement based setup are being upsold "boutique" electronics and speakers, not Denon's.

 

[joentell]

I meant no one in the rhetorical sense, in that it's an infinitesimally small market. Certainly there's exponentially higher demand for wholesale AVR upgrades, be it for better room correction, HDMI 2.1, more wattage, or what have you. I agree that the $200 license might make some level of sense specifically for X700 Series owners who plan to keep them until they die, but for the reliable upgrader or those with older models it's incredibly difficult to justify.

As I mentioned, tying the license to a single user and serial number actively discourages that customer from ever buying a new Denon/Marantz (as you're effectively flushing $400 in software licenses down the toilet--$200 wasted on your old unit, and another $200 buying a redundancy for the new unit). Factor in customers who own multiple AVR's (who they should be rewarding for their loyalty, not actively spiting) and you'll eventually multiply that by 2x, 3x, 4x, or more.

I get that they're ostensibly targeting "Pro's" here, but that's a very small market, and the overwhelming majority of projects using Denon/Marantz are just installers dumping a bunch of Klipsch speakers in a partially finished basement. 9 out of 10 of them don't even bother running Audyssey and the 1 who does sets the mic on the floor or the seat of the couch. The people doing fully treated $50,000+ rooms with real measurement based setup are being upsold "boutique" electronics and speakers, not Denon's.

Ok, I can agree with most of what you said. This entire industry is niche. I thought we all knew that.

I've told the Audyssey folks that they should rethink their licensing model.

I hope they are watching these forum posts. Instead of saying the obvious, what do you propose they change?

 

[sarumbear]

iTunes "knew" you by your iCloud ID, called Apple ID then I think. As to how it worked, no idea. It just worked.

As I said it worked by checking the MAC ID of the network chip of the device. If you changed your network card your access to your music library was gone. It happened to me and I lost one out five allocation.

 

[Trell]

Denon/Marantz have already raised prices significantly and plan to do so again in Jan. They should offer MultEQ-X as a $50 option or include it for free. Other receivers are coming to market with Dirac included. If Sound United wants to be competitive they should include Dirac or MultEQ-X as part of the product. Trying to tie a $200 EQ purchase to each receiver is a losing strategy for the company. It will entice customers to move to other brands with Dirac and destroy brand good will. The aim of creating new receiver models is to entice customers to upgrade. Any peripheral sales should align with that strategy.

If Sound United had marketing vision they would include MultEQ-X free to all existing users as a reward for brand loyalty and entice new customers with the idea that by staying with Denon/Marantz you are buying into a company dedicated to adding value to your purchase even after the sale. If we were looking at that formula now, these discussions would be entirely about praising the company.

The current Denon AVC-X4700H is 50% more expensive than my Denon AVR-X4200W (2015 year model) where I to upgrade today, and that is going to be more expensive?

For that I could have access to the Audyssey app which would be useful, more amplifiers I won't use, HEOS for streaming music that could be nice to have but I don't stream music today anyway, and better pre-amplifier output (I think, not seen 4200W measurements) which would be useful should I decide to use active speakers in my living room.

To me the current Denon pricing is not that attractive today. The new Windows app could have been an incentive but not from what I've read about it so far.

 

[bo_knows]

Ok, I can agree with most of what you said. This entire industry is niche. I thought we all knew that.

I've told the Audyssey folks that they should rethink their licensing model.

I hope they are watching these forum posts. Instead of saying the obvious, what do you propose they change?

I'm willing to pay $100 for the software and I want to be able to use it on any new Denon/Marantz receiver, pre-pro that I may purchase in the future. This way, the engineering team gets paid and they can continue to advance the application.