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

[KenMasters]

Very cool! I plan on testing it this weekend. Were you able to hear differences?

No, just a synthetic test to compare differences.

 

[Koo]

Has the feature for disabling the rear speaker level boosting with Dynamic EQ been implemented yet? They promised it years ago.. they don't seem to publish good changelogs so gotta ask here.

 

[Sal1950]

Has the feature for disabling the rear speaker level boosting with Dynamic EQ been implemented yet? They promised it years ago.. they don't seem to publish good changelogs so gotta ask here.

Good question. It is my #1 gripe with Dyn EQ and and the thing I could never begin to understand the "why" of ?
Have you tried some digging in the Audyssey threads on AVS? It was the only place I ever found it discussed.

 

[tjcinnamon]

so ran some runs today to re-calibrate using a method to allow DEQ at my main listening volume where I:

1. Exclude the measurements from the speaker,
2. Import a blank filter with DEQ on at the volume that I listen at (-18dB)
3. Measure with REW Moving Mic Method for a position
4. Create the filters to taste and disable narrow filters above 200Hz
5. Save filters as measurement
6. Then upload Target Curve to the channel

I put it side by side with Dirac and they are basically the same as my Dirac calibration which had the crown over the last few months. I missed DEQ. The phase response post measurement actually looked slightly better in MQX.

I use MSO so the bass is the same no matter what platform I use.

So premium results with no bugs and leverage REW's filters and calibrated mic. I love the flexibility.

Spline looked better than fractional octaves BUT this method sounded and measured much better than both.

 

[dlaloum]

so ran some runs today to re-calibrate using a method to allow DEQ at my main listening volume where I:

1. Exclude the measurements from the speaker,
2. Import a blank filter with DEQ on at the volume that I listen at (-18dB)
3. Measure with REW Moving Mic Method for a position
4. Create the filters to taste and disable narrow filters above 200Hz
5. Save filters as measurement
6. Then upload Target Curve to the channel

I put it side by side with Dirac and they are basically the same as my Dirac calibration which had the crown over the last few months. I missed DEQ. The phase response post measurement actually looked slightly better in MQX.

I use MSO so the bass is the same no matter what platform I use.

So premium results with no bugs and leverage REW's filters and calibrated mic. I love the flexibility.

Spline looked better than fractional octaves BUT this method sounded and measured much better than both.

My short form interpretation.... lots of work (& time), confirming that the relatively quick and easy Dirac version did the job...

BUT - you now have DEQ which was not available with Dirac.

 

[tjcinnamon]

My short form interpretation.... lots of work (& time), confirming that the relatively quick and easy Dirac version did the job...

BUT - you now have DEQ which was not available with Dirac.

I’d say that should be true but Dirac took me about 6 runs to not get the “bad measurement error”, had to try 3 different versions and an experimental version and then a few runs to get what I wanted. Also, I haven’t been able to replicate that Dirac measurement which is a bummer, so I just gotta hope that the AVR doesn’t reset it and now that I have front wides, I can’t load it again. Also, 9.1.4 on Dirac takes a long time because the measurements take a long time compared to Moving mic method and standard audyssey for surrounds.

I have control over my result/filter, and it works well with my nearfield subs because I can exclude the measurement.

So Dirac should be easier to get the best result. Because out of the box, when it works, I was able to get a better result with Dirac. I was able to the best result with a bunch of work with MQX.

I’m excited for ART. I’m hoping it lives up to the hype I’ve applied to it!

 

[Newman]

I’m excited for ART. I’m hoping it lives up to the hype I’ve applied to it!

I can comfortably predict a flood of super-happy owner reports, all plagued by placebo effects and level-matching issues....

It's gonna be a licence to print money!

 

[tjcinnamon]

I can comfortably predict a flood of super-happy owner reports, all plagued by placebo effects and level-matching issues....

It's gonna be a licence to print money!

On some level I won’t fully doubt that! I’ve seen calibrations get wiped out and people not realize it.

I can comfortably predict at least 6 months until it’s remotely stable.

 

[ChrisB]

How many filters would you recommend for the bass - up to 300hz?
I correct the frequency response with REW and import the filters into MultEQ-X. It could be ten filters or 30 filters, dependent how I choose the settings in REW.

 

[ChrisB]

Has the feature for disabling the rear speaker level boosting with Dynamic EQ been implemented yet? They promised it years ago.. they don't seem to publish good changelogs so gotta ask here.

No, it is not implemented yet.

 

[tjcinnamon]

How many filters would you recommend for the bass - up to 300hz?
I correct the frequency response with REW and import the filters into MultEQ-X. It could be ten filters or 30 filters, dependent how I choose the settings in REW.

I do something similar but I’ve found it to be way easier. I exclude all of the measurements for the speaker I’m correcting. In REW, I do Create Measurment from filters. I save that measurement, then import that to a target curve in MqX. You go from 20 filters to 1 per speaker. It’s much easier to manage.

 

[ChrisB]

I do something similar but I’ve found it to be way easier. I exclude all of the measurements for the speaker I’m correcting. In REW, I do Create Measurment from filters. I save that measurement, then import that to a target curve in MqX. You go from 20 filters to 1 per speaker. It’s much easier to manage.

Seems to be a good way either. The overview in the filter tab in multeq-x is way more structured. But does it create the same results as using filters? Think I will check it with additional REW measurements.

 

[tjcinnamon]

Seems to be a good way either. The overview in the filter tab in multeq-x is way more structured. But does it create the same results as using filters? Think I will check it with additional REW measurements.

I was thinking that myself. I'm wondering what their FIR filter creates relative to the REW filters. I wonder if the REW filters have some "magic" to them where it provides and doesn't provide changes?

 

[Acerun]

I just set up a pair of Revel F226Be speakers with two 15" sealed Rythmik subs and performed a new configuration of MultiEQ-X and then measured and tweaked a little bit with readings from REW. Here are the readings below. I am only applying multieq-x at 500 and below as that is where my room issues reside. On the other hand I thought there was going to be more of a fall off on the higher end of the spectrum but I'm not seeing that. Does anyone have any suggestions for tweaking the filters to provide even better results?

 

[theREALdotnet]

Does anyone have any suggestions for tweaking the filters to provide even better results?
View attachment 373505

The subwoofer integration looks fine, at least the amplitude part of it. I’d be investigating the 8dB difference between 500Hz and 1kHz, that can’t be good.

 

[Acerun]

The subwoofer integration looks fine, at least the amplitude part of it. I’d be investigating the 8dB difference between 500Hz and 1kHz, that can’t be good.

Hmm. Thanks. I suppose I could extend the EQ to 1k or above and see what that does. Would you say that's most likely a room mode that is affecting the frequency response?

 

[theREALdotnet]

Would you say that's most likely a room mode that is affecting the frequency response?

Hard to tell with the smoothing applied. Look at it with 1/12 octave or less smoothing. The group delay graph should also give a clue.

 

[tjcinnamon]

Hard to tell with the smoothing applied. Look at it with 1/12 octave or less smoothing. The group delay graph should also give a clue.

How would group delay show that? Not questioning; trying to learn on my end. I don’t understand group delay.

 

[theREALdotnet]

How would group delay show that? Not questioning; trying to learn on my end. I don’t understand group delay.

Spikes and excursions in the group delay chart usually indicate regions you shouldn’t try to EQ.

 

[tjcinnamon]

Spikes and excursions in the group delay chart usually indicate regions you shouldn’t try to EQ.

What is the reason for that?