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

[HarmonicTHD]

Recalibrated my system with the latest MultEQ-X 1.5 version with the ACM-1X calibrated mic. There are some new features available that directly affect the EQ algorithm, which cannot be reproduced in the phone app:
- Disable auto leveling, which lets you set a correct target curve across speakers and subwoofers
- EQ headroom expansion and cut limit control, which allows Audyssey to apply stronger EQ

After verification with REW, I'm quite happy with the results, getting curves that are true to the target. I'm not bothering with REW filter import now.

From youtube video:

View attachment 281467

View attachment 281466

Why do you keep the BBC dip (at 2kHz) in your target curve? Not really needed for most speakers anymore or does your speaker need it?

You could also experiment with a Harman style target curve.

 

[tjcinnamon]

Why do you keep the BBC dip (at 2kHz) in your target curve? Not really needed for most speakers anymore or does your speaker need it?

You could also experiment with a Harman style target curve.

Yeah, I’m not a fan of that dip. Now that i can draw my target curve, I’ll just do that.

 

[chych7]

Why do you keep the BBC dip (at 2kHz) in your target curve? Not really needed for most speakers anymore or does your speaker need it?

You could also experiment with a Harman style target curve.

What? I don't. I took a screenshot from the youtube video (linked in my post) that discusses the new features in MultEQ-X 1.5, that's not my curve (which is a negative sloping Harman-like one).
My Atmos ceiling speakers certainly need the dip; with a tweeter in front of the woofer, a large dip is naturally seen in this range.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

What? I don't. I took a screenshot from the youtube video (linked in my post) that discusses the new features in MultEQ-X 1.5, that's not my curve (which is a negative sloping Harman-like one).
My Atmos ceiling speakers certainly need the dip; with a tweeter in front of the woofer, a large dip is naturally seen in this range.

Got it. I thought is was yours. Nevermind.

 

[JohnAps]

Hello!
Seeing some of @chych7 &
@tjcinnamon replies of the forums i have established that we can disable audyssey corrections for our speakers and work by importing filters and/or target curves from rew, to our speakers for correcting them...
I have a denon avr-2400h with audyssey multeq xt and i wanted to ask of you if the the multeq-x is indeed working with the the rew filters as it should. Meaning do we get the predicted result if we measure again with rew after the import?
Are the filters we upload used as they are or does it convert them to a curve and computes its own filtering or something (probably meaning we dont get exact results from rew - multieqx integration).
Lastly do you happen to know if in older receivers like mine (that have the plain old multeq xt), do these or other important functionalities, like the filter import etc, work in a worse manner?

I am looking to buy the program, but there arent many verifiable information about this.
I was using rew + mobile app with some perfect cal files "hacks" to achieve custom correction while disabling audyssey corrections, and i want to find out if i can do the same but better with multeqx, which i will if multeqx can indeed and truly work with filters and it isnt some gimmicky conversion of the filters which results in the same behavior as the mobile app target curve function...

I sincerely thank you for any conclusive information on this, if you are actively using rew and multeq-x for manual calibration as you will help me have a clear image of the program before i buy.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Hello!
Seeing some of @tjcinnamon replies of the forums i have established that we can disable audyssey corrections for our speakers and work by importing filters and/or target curves from rew, to our speakers for correcting them...
I have a denon avr-2400h with audyssey multeq xt and i wanted to ask of you if the the multeq-x is indeed working with the the rew filters as it should. Meaning do we get the predicted result if we measure again with rew after the import?
Are the filters we upload used as they are or does it convert them to a curve and computes its own filtering or something (probably meaning we dont get exact results from rew - multieqx integration).
Lastly do you happen to know if in older receivers like mine (that have the plain old multeq xt), do these or other important functionalities, like the filter import etc, work in a worse manner?

I am looking to buy the program, but there arent many verifiable information about this.
I was using rew + mobile app with some perfect cal files "hacks" to achieve custom correction while disabling audyssey corrections, and i want to find out if i can do the same but better with multeqx, which i will if multeqx can indeed and truly work with filters and it isnt some gimmicky conversion of the filters which results in the same behavior as the mobile app target curve function...

I sincerely thank you for any conclusive information on this, if you are actively using rew and multeq-x for manual calibration as you will help me have a clear image of the program before i buy.

I don’t think MultiEQX works with your AVR. I think you need at least XT32.

I think you can download the app via the MS Store and get a feel for the UI and the features. But I think you can not connect to any AVR without paying, but I am not sure.

 

[JohnAps]

I don’t think MultiEQX works with your AVR. I think you need at least XT32.

I think you can download the app via the MS Store and get a feel for the UI and the features. But I think you can not connect to any AVR without paying.

It works @HarmonicTHD. Firstly it says that it works with any receiver that the mobile app works and secondly there is a list somewhere with my model in it. Also there are mentions of even plain multeq so i guess xt is okay....
Also i have downloaded the app with the dummy receiver, and i have took a tour on the feeling of the ui and its possibilities, but this doesnt give me any conclusive information about the actual handling of the imported filters and functionality on older receivers...

 

[HarmonicTHD]

It works @HarmonicTHD. Firstly it says that it works with any receiver that the mobile app works and secondly there is a list somewhere with my model in it. Also there are mentions of even plain multeq so i guess xt is okay....

Ok. My bad.

 

[tjcinnamon]

Hello!
Seeing some of @tjcinnamon replies of the forums i have established that we can disable audyssey corrections for our speakers and work by importing filters and/or target curves from rew, to our speakers for correcting them...
I have a denon avr-2400h with audyssey multeq xt and i wanted to ask of you if the the multeq-x is indeed working with the the rew filters as it should. Meaning do we get the predicted result if we measure again with rew after the import?
Are the filters we upload used as they are or does it convert them to a curve and computes its own filtering or something (probably meaning we dont get exact results from rew - multieqx integration).
Lastly do you happen to know if in older receivers like mine (that have the plain old multeq xt), do these or other important functionalities, like the filter import etc, work in a worse manner?

I am looking to buy the program, but there arent many verifiable information about this.
I was using rew + mobile app with some perfect cal files "hacks" to achieve custom correction while disabling audyssey corrections, and i want to find out if i can do the same but better with multeqx, which i will if multeqx can indeed and truly work with filters and it isnt some gimmicky conversion of the filters which results in the same behavior as the mobile app target curve function...

I sincerely thank you for any conclusive information on this, if you are actively using rew and multeq-x for manual calibration as you will help me have a clear image of the program before i buy.

Here are my measurements. They are only single measurements and not averaged so the room is more pronounced. But it's largely as designed.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Here are my measurements. They are only single measurements and not averaged so the room is more pronounced. But it's largely as designed.

You can do better way than that (with MultiEQX) provided your speakers (and MLP) can do it. Or is this smiley face frequency response how you prefer it?

I get pretty much Harman preference curve (with ca 4 dB low frequency boost) with my setup.

 

[JohnAps]

Here are my measurements. They are only single measurements and not averaged so the room is more pronounced. But it's largely as designed.

Can i find you on social or somewhere to chat a bit about multeq-x? If yes here is my fb page if you can sent me a message i would really appreciate it.

If you cant/wont go into social, can you please answer any of my previous questions, seeing that you are using multeq-x with rew?
Just for clarification this is the order of the question's in my previous post:

1. Can we completely disable audyssey corrections? (If yes, do we still have deq and dyn volume?)
2. Is the processing of the rew filters done in a "pure" way?
(Practically Meaning: do you get the predicted result of the filters when designing them in rew when you remeasure with rew after you apply them in multeqx?)
(Theoretically Meaning: do you know if the filters are processed as is or does multeq-x converts them and tries to approximate them?)
3. Do you happen to know the differences/implications of the multeq-x use in older receivers with the multeq xt version instead of the xt32?

I appreciate any knowledge IF you happen to have in any of the above questions!

 

[tjcinnamon]

You can do better way than that (with MultiEQX) provided your speakers (and MLP) can do it. Or is this smiley face frequency response how you prefer it?

I get pretty much Harman preference curve (with ca 4 dB low frequency boost) with my setup.

I do like it bright. Also, DEQ probably bumped the tail up like that. My kids were sleeping so I measured at -30dB where I listen at -20dB.

I’ve got another measurement that’s wicked flat on a different present. This one sounds better than that one. Could be the phase, could be the fact that they overlap so smoothly. But this one sounds better. That hump around 1000 presents itself really easily. So that’s a room thing.

Some folk don’t EQ above 300. I’m not in that camp.

 

[tjcinnamon]

Can i find you on social or somewhere to chat a bit about multeq-x? If yes here is my fb page if you can sent me a message i would really appreciate it.

If you cant/wont go into social, can you please answer any of my previous questions, seeing that you are using multeq-x with rew?
Just for clarification this is the order of the question's in my previous post:

1. Can we completely disable audyssey corrections? (If yes, do we still have deq and dyn volume?)
2. Is the processing of the rew filters done in a "pure" way?
(Practically Meaning: do you get the predicted result of the filters when designing them in rew when you remeasure with rew after you apply them in multeqx?)
(Theoretically Meaning: do you know if the filters are processed as is or does multeq-x converts them and tries to approximate them?)
3. Do you happen to know the differences/implications of the multeq-x use in older receivers with the multeq xt version instead of the xt32?

I appreciate any knowledge IF you happen to have in any of the above questions!

I’m not on social but will happily answer. For 1: yes and yes. I’m a big fan of DEQ and like my own curve.
2: yes, I get the predicted results within reason. I do measure my source measurements with DEQ engaged and at my standard listening level. Keepin mind that I’m using an average of measurements for the source and replicating that to “check my work” is cumbersome (and I don’t do it).

3: I’m unsure but I’m sure there is documentation. I’m not even sure it’s compatible. MQX might require more horsepower for the FIR filters it creates

 

[JohnAps]

I’m not on social but will happily answer. For 1: yes and yes. I’m a big fan of DEQ and like my own curve.
2: yes, I get the predicted results within reason. I do measure my source measurements with DEQ engaged and at my standard listening level. Keepin mind that I’m using an average of measurements for the source and replicating that to “check my work” is cumbersome (and I don’t do it).

3: I’m unsure but I’m sure there is documentation. I’m not even sure it’s compatible. MQX might require more horsepower for the FIR filters it creates

I have searched everywhere, and i have even deployed bing chat and chatgpt4 browsing plugin for this and none of us can find anything as per documentation on any of the above matters.
What i want to establish basically is if the imported filters do work as FIR filters "as they should". Or if multeq-x is using the filters to create a "target curve" as the mobile app is doing and then applies that correction as best it can...
Because if its the latter then i wont get any improvement on my speaker's response compared to the mobile app + rew custom curves i am currently doing...

 

[JohnAps]

I’m not even sure it’s compatible. MQX might require more horsepower for the FIR filters it creates

Supposedly it works in any receiver that the mobile app works! Thats what the documentation says at least and i have verified that multieq-x does see my denon

 

[Dobbyisfree]

3. Do you happen to know the differences/implications of the multeq-x use in older receivers with the multeq xt version instead of the xt32?

It's compatible with loads of models with only XT and, amazingly, models with only MultEQ too (not XT).

A guy on AVForums shared the results from MultEQ-X from his Marantz Cinema 70 that only has MultEQ.

I have the same EQ on my 2009 Denon AVR1910 (used in a spare bedroom) . After seeing his (visual) results on the Marantz I can see why the results (audibly) on the old Denon were so poor!

 

[HarmonicTHD]

I do like it bright. Also, DEQ probably bumped the tail up like that. My kids were sleeping so I measured at -30dB where I listen at -20dB.

I’ve got another measurement that’s wicked flat on a different present. This one sounds better than that one. Could be the phase, could be the fact that they overlap so smoothly. But this one sounds better. That hump around 1000 presents itself really easily. So that’s a room thing.

Some folk don’t EQ above 300. I’m not in that camp.

Ah DEQ explains it. That’s fine. Without that information people might get the wrong impression that this would be the performance you get with Audyssey/ MultiEWx.

 

[tjcinnamon]

Ah DEQ explains it. That’s fine. Without that information people might get the wrong impression that this would be the performance you get with Audyssey/ MultiEWx.

That’s a very good point! I’ll post my super flat one. To make up for it. It’s I botched the sub on that one but really wasn’t focusing on that at the time. I run my 5 subs in a minidsp and have MQX completely skip them.

It sounds fantastic BTW! I’m a huge fan of DEQ. Once I post my sub measurement, people will think I’m insane. I run 3 DIY bridges with Crown XLS amps about 9inches from MLP, the SPL is crazy because of the close measurement but the decay time is low (relatively speaking) because the SPL is lower in the room.

I wish I had a 4800 (instead of a 4700) so I could A/B Dirac and MQX. I did have a Dirac NAD unit for 3 years and ran countless calibrations with that. And I like MQX better for now.

 

[tjcinnamon]

I have searched everywhere, and i have even deployed bing chat and chatgpt4 browsing plugin for this and none of us can find anything as per documentation on any of the above matters.
What i want to establish basically is if the imported filters do work as FIR filters "as they should". Or if multeq-x is using the filters to create a "target curve" as the mobile app is doing and then applies that correction as best it can...
Because if its the latter then i wont get any improvement on my speaker's response compared to the mobile app + rew custom curves i am currently doing...

Yes, they work as they should. There’s a high probability there would be an improvement. it corrects an issue with the delay. The internal iterations of Audyssey use the incorrect formula for the speed of sound. MQX corrects that.

I have no experience with the mobile app.

 

[JohnAps]

it corrects an issue with the delay. The internal iterations of Audyssey use the incorrect formula for the speed of sound. MQX corrects that.

The issue on delay can be solved by multipling the distances in meters with 0.875 manually if you dont have MQX, so i dont have that problem...