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

[Acerun]

I'd also be curious on opinions as to where I should cut the EQ. I've tried 250, 1000, and 2000. Do I want to try to knock down those humps up to 1000? I've heard people say to only EQ to 250 or 500 max too.

 

[Palmspar]

I'd also be curious on opinions as to where I should cut the EQ. I've tried 250, 1000, and 2000. Do I want to try to knock down those humps up to 1000? I've heard people say to only EQ to 250 or 500 max too. View attachment 341066

Looks good to me, try 300 and let the speakers do their thing.
For music dont eq to high indeed.

 

[Jpert]

I'm sure this is old news to this crowd (I haven't scrubbed the forums), but one of the major benefits I've found in MultiEQ-X is the ability to measure channels individually at each position. Since the microphone has a 90-degree calibration file, I've found improvements setting up the mic aimed 90 degrees from each speaker tweeter using a laser and doing individual measurements. The difference is not trivial like I thought it would be, and is very impactful for height channels if you plan to correct them to 20 kHz . I am even enjoying listening to my mains running full-band correction. (Edited with correct graphic: Top Left Front speaker w/ mic in vertical config (left) and 90 degree config (right))

 

[Theriverlethe]

Any chance a version of Audyssey could integrate moving mic method? I'll see myself out.

 

[kejar31]

So wanted to share what I did.. Sorry if this has been discussed but thought it was pretty awesome and gave good results..

Created a 90 degree calibration file for my Audyssey mic

• I plugged my Audyssey mic into my Mic input on my PC that has REW.. with that I tool a measurement with both my UMIK-1 mic and another with the Audyssey mic (being sure to keep them far enough away from the speaker to get a good summation without any major dips etc. Double checked the measurements for proper placement by checking the impulse response to ensure they were basiccly exact. Both were on mic stands so this was a bit easer but still took multipe tries.. Was sure to also take a super long 4M measurement (0 to 24khz) of each mic..
• After this I followed the guide over on OSA's youtube channel (This Is How I Calibrated My Stock Audyssey Microphone)
  • Set the Full Display Window (FDW) in IR to 4 cycles (apply and keep refrence time)
  • SPL align the two mesurements (agerage at 1khz center with 5 octave alignment span)
  • Last but not least used a simple tracearithmic A / B (Audysee mic / UMIK-1 mic) to get the difference
  • Exported the A to B measurement to text in REW saving the file for 20 to 20000 hz
  • This export is my new calibration file. (see attachment for an image)
  • Sanity check: Tested the mic's one after another to ensure the calibration file created the same results (they did)

Now that I had my mic calibrated I used OCA's guide (Audyseey Art) on youtube to pull down my measuments from MultEQ-X and calibrate and EQ my setup the only difference is that I adjusted all the measuremnts using my calibtation file, another simple tracearithmic A / B (measurment / calibration file) before starting the spl or time aligments.

Then when I was done with REW I uploaded the finalized files to MultEQ-X using them as target curves on each speaker (also be sure to disable all measurements) see pics below

When all was said and done the results are pretty spot on with the predicted ones from REW

Anyways I thought this was both cool and powerful.. If anyone wants to know more or wants pointed in the right direction, I will do my best to do so.


Basically when all was said and done I was able to allow MultEQ-X to take all the measurements of my speakers including the hight ones, get those measurmemts and apply the correction curve myself, then EQ to my harts content in REW.. After that I was able to force MultEQ-X to implement those filters which returned results that align with what I expected by measuring with my UMIK-1 when all was said and done.

 

[kejar31]

I'd also be curious on opinions as to where I should cut the EQ. I've tried 250, 1000, and 2000. Do I want to try to knock down those humps up to 1000? I've heard people say to only EQ to 250 or 500 max too. View attachment 341066

I am pretty sure the point is.. Anything below 200 - 500hz or so you are mostly hearing the room and not the speaker. Anything above 500 and you have now reached an area where you hear both the speakers and reflections of the room. Your brain has the ability to filter this very well, the microphone not so much. It is possible to EQ for higher frequencies but you should probably use a gated measurement for that. (time window to capture the measurement before it has time to reflect off walls and return to the mic) This can be done in REW but not MultEQ-X

 

[kejar31]

Any chance a version of Audyssey could integrate moving mic method? I'll see myself out.

lol you can def do your own moving mic measurements in REW, EQ and upload either the PEQ or use the reverse house curve method.. But yes, I agree it would be great if MultEQ-X allowed for single point measurement at the LP to get distances etc.. Then enable a MM measurement to be used for EQ. But again while great it would be excessively difficult to walk people though the method lol..

 

[Datec]

So wanted to share what I did.. Sorry if this has been discussed but thought it was pretty awesome and gave good results..

Created a 90 degree calibration file for my Audyssey mic

• I plugged my Audyssey mic into my Mic input on my PC that has REW.. with that I tool a measurement with both my UMIK-1 mic and another with the Audyssey mic (being sure to keep them far enough away from the speaker to get a good summation without any major dips etc. Double checked the measurements for proper placement by checking the impulse response to ensure they were basiccly exact. Both were on mic stands so this was a bit easer but still took multipe tries.. Was sure to also take a super long 4M measurement (0 to 24khz) of each mic..
• After this I followed the guide over on OSA's youtube channel (This Is How I Calibrated My Stock Audyssey Microphone)
  • Set the Full Display Window (FDW) in IR to 4 cycles (apply and keep refrence time)
  • SPL align the two mesurements (agerage at 1khz center with 5 octave alignment span)
  • Last but not least used a simple tracearithmic A / B (Audysee mic / UMIK-1 mic) to get the difference
  • Exported the A to B measurement to text in REW saving the file for 20 to 20000 hz
  • This export is my new calibration file. (see attachment for an image)
  • Sanity check: Tested the mic's one after another to ensure the calibration file created the same results (they did)

Now that I had my mic calibrated I used OCA's guide (Audyseey Art) on youtube to pull down my measuments from MultEQ-X and calibrate and EQ my setup the only difference is that I adjusted all the measuremnts using my calibtation file, another simple tracearithmic A / B (measurment / calibration file) before starting the spl or time aligments.

Then when I was done with REW I uploaded the finalized files to MultEQ-X using them as target curves on each speaker (also be sure to disable all measurements) see pics below

When all was said and done the results are pretty spot on with the predicted ones from REW

Anyways I thought this was both cool and powerful.. If anyone wants to know more or wants pointed in the right direction, I will do my best to do so.


Basically when all was said and done I was able to allow MultEQ-X to take all the measurements of my speakers including the hight ones, get those measurmemts and apply the correction curve myself, then EQ to my harts content in REW.. After that I was able to force MultEQ-X to implement those filters which returned results that align with what I expected by measuring with my UMIK-1 when all was said and done.

Yea I wanted to do the same thing. Any info would be helpful.

 

[kejar31]

Yea I wanted to do the same thing. Any info would be helpful.

What would you need help with? MMM, REW, how to import PEQ into MultEQ-X?

 

[Dovydas]

Are there any rumours when and if they are going to add UMIK-1 support for MultEQ-X?

 

[Fahzz]

Does the license still cost $199?

 

[Reverend Slim]

Are there any rumours when and if they are going to add UMIK-1 support for MultEQ-X?

They aren't, because they have to use the in-AVR tone generation for timing. If you want to use the UMIK-1, exclude your measurements with the Audyssey mic, take measurements with the UMIK-1 in REW, then create inverse filters for import into MultEQ-X.

 

[dlaloum]

They aren't, because they have to use the in-AVR tone generation for timing. If you want to use the UMIK-1, exclude your measurements with the Audyssey mic, take measurements with the UMIK-1 in REW, then create inverse filters for import into MultEQ-X.

I could be wrong, but I assume if you use that approach, you will invalidate any impulse response correction that Audyssey does, and will have only the frequency response EQ....

 

[kejar31]

I could be wrong, but I assume if you use that approach, you will invalidate any impulse response correction that Audyssey does, and will have only the frequency response EQ....

What impulse response correction? The only thing they would do with the impulse response is align them which you can do in REW.. I mean I may be wrong but outside of volume matching and time aligning what else is Audyseey doing other than PEQ?

 

[Chromatischism]

Impulse response is frequency response

I think he meant timing reference

 

[kejar31]

Impulse response is frequency response

I think he meant timing reference

Well the impulse response is used to help time align for distances so yeah pretty sure that is what he was talking about.

 

[kejar31]

Again time aligning using the impulse response is really easy now with REW and cross correlation.. Also volume matching is pretty easy..

Not that any of that matters because you can always just take one measurement from your MLP and exclude it to get all that done automatically in MultEQ-X

 

[KenMasters]

I see the new MultEQ-X 1.8 update has a new option in Filter Settings.

Under the "High Frequency Limit" we have the option to Limit All, Limit Measured and now Limit Smoothed?

I understand the first two, but don't know what the difference between Limit All set to max and Limit Smoothed is - anyone know?

 

[Reverend Slim]

I see the new MultEQ-X 1.8 update has a new option in Filter Settings.

Under the "High Frequency Limit" we have the option to Limit All, Limit Measured and now Limit Smoothed?

I understand the first two, but don't know what the difference between Limit All set to max and Limit Smoothed is - anyone know?

View attachment 369646

It adds an additional parameter that you can use to smooth the filter. So up to the right next to the frequency, you can now put a number for how much smoothing you want applied just to the filter. Try putting 20 in that box and you can see what it does.

Not sure why you'd want that in practice, but... there it is.

 

[KenMasters]

It adds an additional parameter that you can use to smooth the filter. So up to the right next to the frequency, you can now put a number for how much smoothing you want applied just to the filter. Try putting 20 in that box and you can see what it does.

Not sure why you'd want that in practice, but... there it is.

Ah, okay. I suspected it was something like that, but missed that an additional parameter is opened up - thanks!

EDIT: Playing with it now - it's a pretty cool feature. What would be even more useful if you could set an additional high frequency limit for the smoothed filter,