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

[theREALdotnet]

What is the reason for that?

See here, section 16 “Minimum Phase”. That explains it much better than I could.

 

[KenMasters]

@Acerun - I've noticed when curtaining with MQX, the corrected region can be raised in relation to the rest of the speaker range.

Open MQX and reconnect, then shift the range of the correction to see how it's affecting the volume level, try checking or unchecking "Disable Auto-Leveling" to see if that improves anything if there is a problem, or see if you can't find a curtain point that better maintains the volume balance.

This for me was an issue and partly because of it I ended up sticking with manual correction through MQX only.

 

[Acerun]

@Acerun - I've noticed when curtaining with MQX, the corrected region can be raised in relation to the rest of the speaker range.

Open MQX and reconnect, then shift the range of the correction to see how it's affecting the volume level, try checking or unchecking "Disable Auto-Leveling" to see if that improves anything if there is a problem, or see if you can't find a curtain point that better maintains the volume balance.

This for me was an issue and partly because of it I ended up sticking with manual correction through MQX only.

By "curtain" you mean the EQ'd frequencies, correct?

 

[KenMasters]

By "curtain" you mean the EQ'd frequencies, correct?

Yes, EQ'd frequency range.

 

[Acerun]

Yes, EQ'd frequency range.

I have found in the past, in my room, that I if I use tilt or a bass boost, I run into trouble if I include the subwoofer for that boost in MultiEQX. I "think" my subs are so good + room effects that I simply don't need the boost there and adding it seems to add bloat. I am playing with that now to try to tame things and find the right crossover and room response. Unclicking the Sub button for the extra EQ, but keeping the LRCS.

 

[Acerun]

Yes, EQ'd frequency range.

Btw, I always disable auto leveling, and add headroom. Looking more carefully at some of my previous measurements there may have been a little bit of user error so I am back and retest. Quick and dirty is looking like 60 may be the best cut over. That was where I crossed my m126be's as well.

 

[KenMasters]

Btw, I always disable auto leveling, and add headroom. Looking more carefully at some of my previous measurements there may have been a little bit of user error so I am back and retest. Quick and dirty is looking like 60 may be the best cut over. That was where I crossed my m126be's as well.

I wasn't referring to your subwoofer or crossover settings, but to the lift from about 1K down. I've noticed MQX can introduce this when curtaining the response, so what I was suggesting is that you look at what the effect is of dragging the curtain across the range.

 

[KenMasters]

Would anyone be able to clarify Atmos enabled speaker distance settings for me.

In the Denon menu you can set distances for individual speakers, but in the case of Atmos enabled speakers there is an additional setting for distance to ceiling. Am I right in assuming this distance is then summed with the physical distance for appropriate delay?

 

[Reverend Slim]

Would anyone be able to clarify Atmos enabled speaker distance settings for me.

In the Denon menu you can set distances for individual speakers, but in the case of Atmos enabled speakers there is an additional setting for distance to ceiling. Am I right in assuming this distance is then summed with the physical distance for appropriate delay?

View attachment 381039

Not summed with the distance from MLP to speaker. They do a basic calculation of what the third length of that triangle (the point sound hits ceiling to the MLP) would be given the assumption of the typical upfiring speaker's baffle angle per Dolby, then use that distance plus the distance to ceiling as the expected arrival time.

Whether they get it right is questionable. It's definitely closer than the first round of Atmos receivers that just assumed 9 foot ceilings and the customary "seated ear level" as a makeshift average, but I would still recommend tweaking that parameter with demo material on a loop to listen for which setting snaps the imaging into place... or better yet, using the Speaker Pairs tests on the Spatial Audio Calibration Toolkit to isolate each upfirer and its corresponding ear-level speaker so you can nail the delays. Upfirers can actually work pretty well if you get them lined up right, but most auto-cal doesn't quite get there.

 

[Hayabusa]

Not summed with the distance from MLP to speaker. They do a basic calculation of what the third length of that triangle (the point sound hits ceiling to the MLP) would be given the assumption of the typical upfiring speaker's baffle angle per Dolby, then use that distance plus the distance to ceiling as the expected arrival time.

Whether they get it right is questionable. It's definitely closer than the first round of Atmos receivers that just assumed 9 foot ceilings and the customary "seated ear level" as a makeshift average, but I would still recommend tweaking that parameter with demo material on a loop to listen for which setting snaps the imaging into place... or better yet, using the Speaker Pairs tests on the Spatial Audio Calibration Toolkit to isolate each upfirer and its corresponding ear-level speaker so you can nail the delays. Upfirers can actually work pretty well if you get them lined up right, but most auto-cal doesn't quite get there.

You would expect Audyssey to also to capture the reflection and do its calculations based on that?

 

[dlaloum]

You would expect Audyssey to also to capture the reflection and do its calculations based on that?

No, capturing reflections seperately from the steady state room "curve" is tricky... that's where more sophisticated methods including DLBC and DLART come in.

 

[Reverend Slim]

You would expect Audyssey to also to capture the reflection and do its calculations based on that?

To be fair, Audyssey is outdated where Atmos is concerned, in a lot of ways. Doesn't compensate for the differences in grazing incidence to the mic with heights, even in a general way. Throws off Atmos imaging when you use DEQ because of how they alter surround/height levels (which they have no supporting data for as far as heights because their research was done pre-Atmos). They basically shoe-horned makeshift solutions into their existing product. There are things you can do on your own to account for these things, but if you're expecting Audyssey to actually do anything other than iterate on what they already have out there, keep holding your breath.

 

[Hayabusa]

To be fair, Audyssey is outdated where Atmos is concerned, in a lot of ways. Doesn't compensate for the differences in grazing incidence to the mic with heights, even in a general way. Throws off Atmos imaging when you use DEQ because of how they alter surround/height levels (which they have no supporting data for as far as heights because their research was done pre-Atmos). They basically shoe-horned makeshift solutions into their existing product. There are things you can do on your own to account for these things, but if you're expecting Audyssey to actually do anything other than iterate on what they already have out there, keep holding your breath.

indeed I had to manually change the atmos levels quite a bit to make it sound reasonably ok.
The AV10 can also do Dirac, would it do better with the atmos channels?

 

[Reverend Slim]

indeed I had to manually change the atmos levels quite a bit to make it sound reasonably ok.
The AV10 can also do Dirac, would it do better with the atmos channels?

If you're using upfirers, make sure MultEQ-X is putting the Dolby curve on those so that it doesn't undo any in-speaker frequency shaping. As far as Dirac, I have no hands-on experience with it.

 

[Oddball]

To be fair, Audyssey is outdated where Atmos is concerned, in a lot of ways. Doesn't compensate for the differences in grazing incidence to the mic with heights, even in a general way. Throws off Atmos imaging when you use DEQ because of how they alter surround/height levels (which they have no supporting data for as far as heights because their research was done pre-Atmos). They basically shoe-horned makeshift solutions into their existing product. There are things you can do on your own to account for these things, but if you're expecting Audyssey to actually do anything other than iterate on what they already have out there, keep holding your breath.

To be fair, Audy does many things right, and many things wrong. It is up to you to figure out the balance. DEQ is not feature you have to use, it is clearly optional.

What Audy offers is much more than many other EQ systems at similar pricing levels for the hardware. Some of premier theatres with D&M hardware don't use Dirac, but rather Audy with some REW filter support. Actually some of the Storm based premier theatres also fall back to PEQ and REW.

 

[Acerun]

I've got a question. I have a Denon x8500h. It only has one profile setting.

I'm finding that the settings that I need for 2.2 music and for home theater are completely different. (I watched The matrix last night with my music settings and was appalled).

The only way I can think of rectifying this is to keep two different configuration files on my computer, one for home theater and one for music and upload the proper configuration file when switching between the two.

Does that sound right? Am I missing anything that I could be doing better or more efficiently?

 

[Chromatischism]

I'm finding that the settings that I need for 2.2 music and for home theater are completely different. (I watched The matrix last night with my music settings and was appalled).

This should not be the case.

In my systems, when I dial in the perfect sound for music, it applies equally well across all movies.

Can you describe the issue(s) you are hearing? Maybe we could help figure out if something is off somewhere.

Also list your speakers and subs. Thanks.

 

[Acerun]

So I've been at this for 30 years with plenty of years off in between. Coming back.

I had a system 30 years ago with Rotel amplifiers, a Sony av processor and a HSU Subwoofer. I know the sounds of The matrix.

When the helicopter comes down and the machine gun blows into the building it should hit your chest.

My current setup is Denon x8500h with Purify outboard amplifiers, two Rythmik sealed 15 in subwoofers, Revel C126Be center and F226Be mains.

My system of 20 years ago smoked this setup for watching The Matrix.

I am also using Audyssey MultiEQX and REW.

 

[Acerun]

With this system I have to turn off all tilt and bass enhancements because it's just too much. It's perfect without touching anything...for music. Sucks for movies.

 

[peng]

The only things that solve for this are two configuration files, but shockingly they can't even hold a candle through the way that movie used to blow through my chest. With all the highs and all the lows.

Something is not right, likely settings and Audyssey related. Even my near bottom of the line x1800h can do an excellent job in 2.1 up to 7.1, as good as my main system. The 8500 is a flagship model, should be abe to do a much better job. Does it do better with Audyssy off?