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

[JohnAps]

@chych7 Thank you very much for those graphs and taking the time to share your thoughts!
I will contemplate a bit on your thoughts and come to a conclusion about the purchase tomorrow after i sleep on it!

I think if the correction is even slightly better than i currently have, it will be worth it cause i can remove the high frequency rolloff in MQX whereas with the app is like there is the filter rolloff and we kinda like add a second filter to boost the filter that creates the dip, so my highs are very not what it should be...

Thank you again!
I will share my thoughts if i purchase of course!

 

[JohnAps]

Can anyone also confirm if we can use stock audyssey mic with MQX? I have read that we can, but i would like to verify it for sure!

 

[tjcinnamon]

Can anyone also confirm if we can use stock audyssey mic with MQX? I have read that we can, but i would like to verify it for sure!

Yes

 

[JohnAps]

Yes

So the amc1 isn't necessary just optional, correct?

 

[tjcinnamon]

So the amc1 isn't necessary just optional, correct?

Correct. I own both and both work

 

[chych7]

So the amc1 isn't necessary just optional, correct?

If you have a UMIK/REW, you can verify the results and adjust the target curve to get the desired result. I found my stock mic to be quite off (it gave a +3-5 dB treble boost) and got the ACM-1X mic anyway, which fixed that issue.

 

[JohnAps]

I will stick with UMIK/REW for now! Thank you!

 

[Flak]

Ah I spoke too soon, the previous results used 10 Hz - 20 kHz frequency sweeps, so probably the impulse response is mostly dominated by bass/room issues. Below are plots from 500 Hz - 20 kHz. Now we see more of a difference between Audyssey and Dirac. Dirac seems to have better phase control, but Audyssey still is improving the impulse response.


View attachment 188980


View attachment 188981

As far as impulse responses are concerned, in an ideal world there would be nothing below zero (your measurements show the differences between Dirac and Audyssey):

With reference to the reported more focused imaging but with a narrower soundstage, I think that's expected behavior because of the side reflections that are attenuated.

 

[JohnAps]

Ι will be trying multeq-x the next days, but of course until there is some phase correction, not done only by delay correcting, audyssey will always be inferior...

 

[chych7]

Ι will be trying multeq-x the next days, but of course until there is some phase correction, not done only by delay correcting, audyssey will always be inferior...

I would point you to my results here:

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

I can see the first point but not the 2nd - unless you measured those other seats and fed that data to Audyssey. My point was that you should not expect to match Audyssey's predicted response if you're not measuring the same points.

audiosciencereview.com

Generally from my understanding, we don't really hear phase. We do, however, hear phase differences across speakers; the better speakers are matched in level and phase across the frequency range, the better they image (as an experiment, you can flip the polarity of one speaker, which rotates the phase by 180 deg, to see how bad the image gets). Interestingly my results showed Dirac did a worse job than Audyssey here, and Audyssey does improve phase matching.

 

[chych7]

As far as impulse responses are concerned, in an ideal world there would be nothing below zero (your measurements show the differences between Dirac and Audyssey):


View attachment 286311
With reference to the reported more focused imaging but with a narrower soundstage, I think that's expected behavior because of the side reflections that are attenuated.

How do you determine the effect of side reflections from the impulse chart?

I had looked at the REW clarity metrics, which I thought should capture direct vs. reflected sound:

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

You missed where I said we're talking about different things. I was only responding to the checking of the "after" graph that Audyssey displays in the software. Simple fact is that verifying the results of room EQ should be done with spatially averaged measurement no matter how particular room...

audiosciencereview.com

But those plots wouldn't explain what I heard with Dirac, which should suggest higher direct and less reflected sound (Clarity plots would have suggested the opposite).

 

[JohnAps]

I would point you to my results here:

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

I can see the first point but not the 2nd - unless you measured those other seats and fed that data to Audyssey. My point was that you should not expect to match Audyssey's predicted response if you're not measuring the same points.

audiosciencereview.com

Generally from my understanding, we don't really hear phase. We do, however, hear phase differences across speakers; the better speakers are matched in level and phase across the frequency range, the better they image (as an experiment, you can flip the polarity of one speaker, which rotates the phase by 180 deg, to see how bad the image gets). Interestingly my results showed Dirac did a worse job than Audyssey here, and Audyssey does improve phase matching.

Dirac newest arc technologies that will be probably be available even in older receivers with the launch in newest models, will by far surpass audyssey capabilities... I havent tested simple dirac, but at least on dirac arc they have phase correction along side with room modes correction, both of these things are something that audyssey simply doesnt even take into account...
The random phase correction that audyssey maybe does, is happening simply from the correction in the response... A phase match would be good exactly for that, imaging, and also for better averaged responses between different speakers when we are talking about movies (multichannel).
That's my 2 cents at least.

 

[chych7]

Dirac newest arc technologies that will be probably be available even in older receivers with the launch in newest models, will by far surpass audyssey capabilities... I havent tested simple dirac, but at least on dirac arc they have phase correction along side with room modes correction, both of these things are something that audyssey simply doesnt even take into account...
The random phase correction that audyssey maybe does, is happening simply from the correction in the response... A phase match would be good exactly for that, imaging, and also for better averaged responses between different speakers when we are talking about movies (multichannel).
That's my 2 cents at least.

Yes Dirac ART is a totally different ballgame, but don't expect it to arrive in older/lower priced receivers anytime soon. That's meant to compete with Trinnov, so we're talking $10k+. No indication that this is going to change, so it's just speculation/hope. I don't even think the hardware on lower end receivers can support it (needs more processing power). It also needs a different speaker setup methodology to take full advantage of it, where all speakers can work full range. Many current systems do not support this; even those pricey Perlstein THX systems are designed to roll off at 80 Hz. What it really gives you is the ability to forego room treatments... but you can essentially get similar results with good room treatments and lower end room correction systems.

 

[dlaloum]

I would point you to my results here:

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

I can see the first point but not the 2nd - unless you measured those other seats and fed that data to Audyssey. My point was that you should not expect to match Audyssey's predicted response if you're not measuring the same points.

audiosciencereview.com

Generally from my understanding, we don't really hear phase. We do, however, hear phase differences across speakers; the better speakers are matched in level and phase across the frequency range, the better they image (as an experiment, you can flip the polarity of one speaker, which rotates the phase by 180 deg, to see how bad the image gets). Interestingly my results showed Dirac did a worse job than Audyssey here, and Audyssey does improve phase matching.

And yet Dirac noticeably improved imaging over my previous Audyssey setup.

 

[chych7]

And yet Dirac noticeably improved imaging over my previous Audyssey setup.

And yet Dirac noticeably degraded soundstage in my current setup.

All these DRCs are equipment/room/setup dependent. My results won't be the same as yours.

I run Dirac in my bedroom system, which is acoustically untreated and has room/speaker asymmetries. There I get different results than my theater; much better imaging without soundstage issues. I haven't tried Audyssey there (getting my AVR there would be a pain...).

 

[dlaloum]

Yes Dirac ART is a totally different ballgame, but don't expect it to arrive in older/lower priced receivers anytime soon. That's meant to compete with Trinnov, so we're talking $10k+. No indication that this is going to change, so it's just speculation/hope. I don't even think the hardware on lower end receivers can support it (needs more processing power). It also needs a different speaker setup methodology to take full advantage of it, where all speakers can work full range. Many current systems do not support this; even those pricey Perlstein THX systems are designed to roll off at 80 Hz. What it really gives you is the ability to forego room treatments... but you can essentially get similar results with good room treatments and lower end room correction systems.

The ART demo rooms appeared to use Bookshelf speakers, at least for surrounds. Although I agree that from reading about how it works, optimal results will be achieved from full range speakers all around. - It is worth keeping in mind that for ART's cancellation magic to work, you don't need flat response into the low bass region ... you just need "enough" response - so even if your 25Hz is down 10db, it would still have enough output to provide ART input .... which means the "full range" criteria for ART, would be quite different to what we usually think of as full range.

With regards to processing capabilities / power, Dirac specifically stated that a device capable of running DLBC should have sufficient power to run ART.

Having said that, it is noticeable that with the lower end Storm prepro, Dirac ART is "limited" to a certain number of helper speakers (I don't recall the exact number!) - and with the upper end Storm prepro, there is no such limitation....

So it appears that there would be some sort of tiering of ART based on available processor CPU power....

A basic 5.2 or 7.2 setup would be supported with all tiers, but once you move to 9.4 or more it might require a more powerful top tier processor.

Processors in the Denon X3800 / Onkyo RZ50 market segment, should be powerful enough to run ART - whether the manufacturers do the necessary integration and make it available on this market segment is a completely different issue.

We also have no idea as to what the ART pricing will be. If it is similar to DLBC, then it will be marginally viable on these mass market AVR's (would you pay an additional 50% on top of the AVR price for ART? - most people would not).... Climbing to the next market segment, at around US$3000 an additional $800 becomes and expensive but viable addition, and clearly for the US$6000+ market segment, the price of the software is unlikely to be an issue. (all of which assumes pricing similar to DLBC.... if the pricing ends up being substantially more.... then its market will be limited to Trinnov competition)

 

[dlaloum]

And yet Dirac noticeably degraded soundstage in my current setup.

All these DRCs are equipment/room/setup dependent. My results won't be the same as yours.

I run Dirac in my bedroom system, which is acoustically untreated and has room/speaker asymmetries. There I get different results than my theater; much better imaging without soundstage issues. I haven't tried Audyssey there (getting my AVR there would be a pain...).

Not disagreeing with you at all! (this is indeed very room and speaker dependent!)

But I did do the experiment(s)

First I compared new AVR to old AVR "in the raw" (no processing) .... which led me to deploy my external power amps, the new AVR's weedy, scrawny, amp, definitely needed the "Atlas" treatment, after the old flagship model Onkyo SR876 kicked a bucket load of sand in its face... (the Crown XLS2500, with 440W@8ohm easily provided plenty of "body building")

Once I had the power amp in the setup, the new AVR sounded identical to the old when run without RoomEQ (which is as it should be!)

Then I compared the results with Audyssey, to the results with basic (quick 3 spot measurement) Dirac... Dirac provided much better dialogue clarity, midrange, and imaging... an immediately noticeable improvement, which I am very very happy with.

For the last 10 years, I have been doing most of my listening without Audyssey, as the results were disappointing, and I found my setup sounded better without it. - this is absolutely not the case with Dirac - my setup is now sound better than it has at any time over the last 15 years.... hard to do a memory comparison to before that, as at that time I was in a very different room, and running an all electrostatic surround setup, which did indeed sound very very good - but I cannot depend on memory from 15+ years ago.

 

[chych7]

Not disagreeing with you at all! (this is indeed very room and speaker dependent!)

But I did do the experiment(s)

First I compared new AVR to old AVR "in the raw" (no processing) .... which led me to deploy my external power amps, the new AVR's weedy, scrawny, amp, definitely needed the "Atlas" treatment, after the old flagship model Onkyo SR876 kicked a bucket load of sand in its face... (the Crown XLS2500, with 440W@8ohm easily provided plenty of "body building")

Once I had the power amp in the setup, the new AVR sounded identical to the old when run without RoomEQ (which is as it should be!)

Then I compared the results with Audyssey, to the results with basic (quick 3 spot measurement) Dirac... Dirac provided much better dialogue clarity, midrange, and imaging... an immediately noticeable improvement, which I am very very happy with.

For the last 10 years, I have been doing most of my listening without Audyssey, as the results were disappointing, and I found my setup sounded better without it. - this is absolutely not the case with Dirac - my setup is now sound better than it has at any time over the last 15 years.... hard to do a memory comparison to before that, as at that time I was in a very different room, and running an all electrostatic surround setup, which did indeed sound very very good - but I cannot depend on memory from 15+ years ago.

What AVR did you try Audyssey with? The SR876 only has Audyssey XT, which is inferior to XT32 and will obviously lose against Dirac. It also sounds like you haven't used MultEQ-X (the main topic of this thread), so is your experience really up to date to the current state of Audyssey, and is it a fair comparison vs. Dirac?

 

[dlaloum]

What AVR did you try Audyssey with? The SR876 only has Audyssey XT, which is inferior to XT32 and will obviously lose against Dirac. It also sounds like you haven't used MultEQ-X (the main topic of this thread), so is your experience really up to date to the current state of Audyssey, and is it a fair comparison vs. Dirac?

I had the SR876, and when its HDMI board failed, replaced it with an Integra DTR 70.4 (which is XT32) - results with both of these were identical...

When my 70.4's DSP board failed (bricking the unit... I am still trying to find a replacement DSP for it ) I pulled out the old 876, and used it for many months via SPDIF (bypass the HDMI) until the new generation AVR finally got delivered.

So yes, the 876 was XT, but I had already compared its response in my room, with the 70.4 (which is XT32) and found them to be the same. (perhaps according to Audyssey, the additional filters provided by XT32 weren't needed in my setup?)

Also worthy of note, my 876 and 70.4 did not have the option of using either the Smartphone app or the PC app for adjustment - so the only option on these was the Audyssey defaults.
These defaults are unchanged. - My gut feeling is that if there had been a way of disabling MRC, then I would have been fine with the Audyssey performance.... and would perhaps have preferred it to without RoomEQ. - But the Midrange is absolutely the heart of any listening... and the default Audyssey configuration, with MRC enabled, does nasty things in the midrange. The default Dirac setup, does not have this issue.

So yes - defenders of Audyssey will say that with the current generation of Audyssey apps and tuning (and the Denon/Marantz AVR's that support it) better results are possible.... Perhaps true - but I had the choice between taking another chance on Audyssey, after 2 generations of disappointment, or switching to Dirac, and the results with Dirac were (are) absolutely stunning.

Now if I was the owner of any of the multiple generations of Denon AVR's that support the MultEQ apps, I would definitely go down that path, and I would find it extremely difficult to justify the additional $$ to either purchase a Dirac Licence (for the current generation) or upgrade the AVR (for older generations)... I would lay bets, that you could get an Audyssey setup tuned to match a Dirac setup - or so close that Blind testing is unlikely to show a definitive winner (preferences yes, winner, probably not).

So yes D&M's move to enable optional Dirac is interesting, but I think it is mostly relevant for users of DLBC, and in the future DL-ART.

For the majority of users, who simply run the default and don't mess with complicated apps.... my experience would seem to show that Dirac does a better job. (well it did for my setup and my ears)

 

[bodhi]

For the majority of users, who simply run the default and don't mess with complicated apps.... my experience would seem to show that Dirac does a better job. (well it did for my setup and my ears)

For the real majority of users the difference between Audyssey XT vs Dirac out of the box does not matter at all. Even most enthusiasts seem to think that the difference is subtle at best.

And when we narrow the user base to really critical hobbyists, it seems weird to even discuss Audyssey performance without an app that can be had for lunch money.