• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

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

Are you a current Denon/Marantz AVR Owner and if so what do you think of Audyssey's MultEQ-X?

  • I'm a current AVR owner. $200 price is acceptable. I've already purchased it.

  • I'm a current AVR owner. $200 price is acceptable. I’m willing to spend the money once I learn more.

  • I'm a current AVR owner. $200 price is too high. Anything lower is better.

  • I'm not a current Denon/Marantz AVR owner. $200 price is acceptable.

  • I'm not a current Denon/Marantz AVR owner. $200 price is too high. Anything lower lower is better.

  • I'm a current AVR owner. $200 price is acceptable, but I don't like the restrictive terms. Wont buy.

  • I'm not an owner. $200 price is acceptable, but I don't like the restrictive terms. Wont buy.

  • Other (please explain).


Results are only viewable after voting.
I'm new to running native Windows ARM 11 and x64 apps in a emulation environment on Mac silicon. Per Audyssey on Windows requirements: "MultEQ-X runs on Windows 10 systems, version 1809 (October 2018 Update, AKA “Redstone 5”) Build 17763 or newer. The software is x64 native. Windows 11 is also supported."

I do know that one of the main advantages of EQ-X; with the phone app (post calibration) a house curve doesn't actually raise the sub levels but actually lowers everything else so that's why most people have to go back and raise the trim levels on the subs, causing a potential mismatch level in the crossover region.

But with 'Disable Auto-leveling' on, EQ-X it will keep all other freqs the same level (post calibration) while allowing you to actually increase the sub level outputs (i.e. keep room gain via your house curve by applying less attenuation in that region or boosting it if possible).

With the BF sale at 25% off I gave it a try and it works much better (less trial and error) other than not being able to modify the house curves on the measurement page, but they say that feature is on the 'dev list'.
 
In answer to some of my questions, it appears minimum requirement is Windows 10. My old laptop's version of Bootcamp I believe only supports win 8.1, so that option appears out for me. However, I went to Ars Technica's review of Win 11 Arm, and here's a full paragraph from that review:

"Today, Microsoft is formally blessing Parallels as a way to run the Professional and Enterprise versions of Windows 11 on Apple Silicon Macs. The Arm version of Windows running under Parallels has some limitations—no support for DirectX 12 or newer OpenGL versions, no support for the Linux or Android subsystems, and a few missing security features. But it can run Arm-native Windows apps as well as 32- and 64-bit x86 apps thanks to Windows 11's x86-to-Arm code translation features. Pretty much anything that isn't a game should run tolerably well, given the speed of Apple's M1 and M2 chip families, though there are still weird edge cases for specific apps, and hardware that requires specialized drivers to work in Windows may not support the Arm version."

So it does not appear that a 64 bit X86 app should be a problem, unless it's one of the listed support features? I think I've done everything right, but no bueno.
 
Good find, I think the reason is what MS stated in the info you linked, "Experiences that depend on an additional layer of virtualization (nested virtualization) are not supported." which matches with Audyssey's statement, "This configuration is NOT supported because Windows 11 ARM would require x64 virtualization to run MultEQ-X, but multiple layers of emulation are not possible.

So the unsupported nested virtualization requirement is the issue. Would be nice if someone found a hack, as I use the Mac for Dirac, REW, and using EQ-X would be nice as that computer is faster, lighter, quieter, with a larger better screen than my older PC laptop. Or (if by now ~ 2024) Audyssey made a Mac silicon version, like Dirac does.
 
Yeah, except I'm not buying the "nested virtualization" excuse. Win 11 Arm is fully Arm native, it just uses Parallels to map access to Mac system resources. Win 11 provides all the (most of the) hooks a 64 bit x86 app needs to run, then translates the remaining app specific stuff to Arm code. So they say Win 11 Arm " would require x64 virtualization to run MultiEQ-x". Well, Win 11 does just that. Many (most?) other x64 x86 (hate doing that) have no trouble running in that environment. So my suspicion is there is some low level code or specific interface that would need to be tweaked to make it run fine, and they just have no interest in putting out the effort. But with the soon to be proliferation of other Arm based PC platforms as soon as next year I don't think the effort would be wasted. But not my nickel.

Ultimately I don't really care, I agree with you, in my opinion if audessey wants to play at the same level as Dirac, they'd best be working on a native Arm MacOS version. They're halfway there since the IOS app works well, and under the hood there's not a lot of difference between IOS and MacOS. And hey, if they can do a Unix version, how hard would a Linux version be?
 
Yes, use the mic which came with your AVR.

The UMIK can not be directly used as you can’t hook it up to the AVR nor tell the AVR it’s calibration. Use the UMIK with REW.
So a $200 PC-based software package can't use a microphone connected to the PC with a calibration file?
 
So a $200 PC-based software package can't use a microphone connected to the PC with a calibration file?
No because that's not how it works. The PC app analyses the data recorded and then sent by the ARV, does whatever processing it needs in the PC, and sends the results back to the AVR. The system is designed to work with the calibration hardware and software built into the AVR.

If the sound was analysed by the app in the PC what would it do with it? The output of the app is only going to work with an AVR with the Audyssey firmware built into it and they all have calibration mics and associated hardware.
 
No because that's not how it works. The PC app analyses the data recorded and then sent by the ARV, does whatever processing it needs in the PC, and sends the results back to the AVR. The system is designed to work with the calibration hardware and software built into the AVR.

If the sound was analysed by the app in the PC what would it do with it? The output of the app is only going to work with an AVR with the Audyssey firmware built into it and they all have calibration mics and associated hardware.
It would do it with a general-purpose CPU like every other program on a computer. Are you suggesting Audyssey doesn't know their own algorithms?
 
No. That’s not how it is designed. Read the manual.

Don’t buy it. Or complain to Audyssey.
I have no intention of buying it when the competing Dirac client is free for Pioneer, Onkyo, NAD, etc. users and works as one would expect.
 
I use the normal MultEQ app with a denon x3400h receiver and 5.1.2 atmos setup.
Midrange compensation off for all speakers, and only room correction under 500hz in small rooms or under 300hz for bigger rooms.
It works great with movies and music for me.
Dyn eq and dyn volume is nice to have, dirac live has not something like that i mean.
 
Anyone willing to comment on this measurement? Suggestions or +/- welcomed. Crossing at 60 obviously. Do I want the cross at 75db, is that right?

Other short thoughts, is that hump at 50/60 normal? I also see all of the measurements converging at 100, might I cross there instead?

It sounds good but I know only enough to be a little dangerous, I don't really know what I'm shooting for, honestly.

1704837893989.png
 
Your subs will sound a bit round with that hump there, best to see if you can reduce that a little with placement and EQ so that you see a gradual rise all the way down to 20 Hz instead of a hump. I also see a problem in the bass region from 120-180 Hz in your right channel. Above that, your left channel is up to 4 dB quieter than your right channel, so I doubt you have a centered stereo image at this point.
 
Your subs will sound a bit round with that hump there, best to see if you can reduce that a little with placement and EQ so that you see a gradual rise all the way down to 20 Hz instead of a hump. I also see a problem in the bass region from 120-180 Hz in your right channel. Above that, your left channel is up to 4 dB quieter than your right channel, so I doubt you have a centered stereo image at this point.
Thank you for the feedback. I'm battling the audio demons and doing the best that I can.

1. Yes, I have a sofa over on the right side near the speaker that is an issue...but nothing I can do there.
2. I will play with getting that hump down. It "may" have to do with the fact that I'm crossing at 60 and Multieq-x will only cut at 80 so there is overlap? Maybe?
3. What is the target in db that I want, 75? No one has ever told me what the SPL target is...but I guess I'm using 75db for white noise calibration...
4. When you mention the 4db difference, you are referring to the frequencies starting around 380?
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the feedback. I'm battling the audio demons and doing the best that I can.

1. Yes, I have a sofa over on the right side near the speaker than is an issue...but nothing I can do there.
2. I will play with getting that hump down. It "may" have to do with the fact that I'm crossing at 60 and Multieq-x will only cut at 80 so there is overlap? Maybe?
It's usually sub placement and its interaction with the walls of the room. At least you don't have any nasty dips (at least, none that we can see from this resolution). Can you run a 15-300 Hz and scale the graph accordingly so we can see your bass region?

As long as you've addressed the big cancellations, Audyssey will bring down the bumps.
3. What is the target in db that I want, 75? No one has ever told me what the SPL target is...but I guess I'm using 75db for white noise calibration...
Well, you're in the Audyssey thread, so target dB doesn't matter. Audyssey will level match all of your speakers and line them up such that Reference Level will output if you set your volume to MV=0. However, it can't do that across the entire spectrum. There is a reference point that it uses, so you can still end up with imbalanced highs causing a stereo image shift, for example.

With that said, I would try to address whatever is causing the imbalance and get them as close together as possible before running room correction, for best results.
4. When you mention the 4db difference, you are referring to the frequencies starting around 380?
Yes, and especially above 3 kHz.
 
Thank you for the ideation. What I'm finding is that what I have to do to hit the crossover (adjusting the speaker level via test tone) to hit X marks the spot for L and R at 60, it creates the 4db speaker imbalance. I think I need to start from scratch with new measurements and then go from there!
 
That looks pretty good to me. The bump centered at 55Hz will not be problematic. It is common to lose energy below 40Hz even with good subs and a good calibration. To tame that bump, you probably need steeper crossover slopes, which are likely not available in your AVR.

Hot tip: You can click the camera/capture button just to the left of the SPL and phase button to create clean graph captures without the rest of the UI showing.
 
Apparently there is some video with steps on how to use REW with the Audyssey systems? I may try this.
Here is it....
 
That looks pretty good to me. The bump centered at 55Hz will not be problematic. It is common to lose energy below 40Hz even with good subs and a good calibration. To tame that bump, you probably need steeper crossover slopes, which are likely not available in your AVR.

Hot tip: You can click the camera/capture button just to the left of the SPL and phase button to create clean graph captures without the rest of the UI showing.
Hi Steve. Thanks for the note. I've got it set for a 2nd order crossover but I can choose 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th order crossovers which look to be steeper. Is that what you were thinking? EDIT: Probably not, that seems to destroy the response in Multieq-x filter view.
 
Last edited:
Hi Steve. Thanks for the note. I've got it set for a 2nd order crossover but I can choose 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th order crossovers which look to be steeper. Is that what you were thinking? EDIT: Probably not, that seems to destroy the response in Multieq-x filter view.

Yes. I was thinking of experimenting with 3rd or 4th order (not necessarily the same for each curve if possible). What the editor shows and what you measure in room do not necessarily match, so it might be worth trying. Still, I do not think what you see there will be objectionable.
 
Back
Top Bottom