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

[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)

We all understand that incorrect position. There is no miscommunication. Have you tried taking confirmatory measurements properly - same area, random sample points? Incorrect position, aping measure point? He's only talking about an apples to apples comparison in a specific sense. You are...

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)

We all understand that incorrect position. There is no miscommunication. Have you tried taking confirmatory measurements properly - same area, random sample points? Incorrect position, aping measure point? He's only talking about an apples to apples comparison in a specific sense. You are...

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)

We all understand that incorrect position. There is no miscommunication. Have you tried taking confirmatory measurements properly - same area, random sample points? Incorrect position, aping measure point? He's only talking about an apples to apples comparison in a specific sense. You are...

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)

We all understand that incorrect position. There is no miscommunication. Have you tried taking confirmatory measurements properly - same area, random sample points? Incorrect position, aping measure point? He's only talking about an apples to apples comparison in a specific sense. You are...

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.

 

[dlaloum]

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.

Sure - show me the app that works with Onkyo and Integra Audyssey AVR's?

 

[bodhi]

Sure - show me the app that works with Onkyo and Integra Audyssey AVR's?

Why is the serious hobbyist buying some budget AVR?

He didn't know that the app works only with Denon/Marantz AVR? He knew about Audyssey, but not the app? Or he didn't know about whole room correction thing but is critical hobbyist. Yeah, I don't see it.

It's kind of unfortunate that you need either the mobile or desktop app to really get everything out of Audyssey, but then again the things you use the apps are really only useful if you like to tinker. I have wasted too many hours with the Windows app and any custom fiddling with curves and filters barely improve anything.

Something that might be considered useful is making the downward slope in high frequencies caused by the room little less steep, but it's close call. Now that I had my fill of the app I would gladly take my money back, set the curtain to 300Hz from the mobile app and never touch anything again.

 

[jhaider]

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.

I’m not sure how you reach that conclusion. Audyssey without some means to unwind the bad decisions in its stock target curve has been demonstrated as worse than no EQ in blind testing.

 

[dlaloum]

Why is the serious hobbyist buying some budget AVR?

He didn't know that the app works only with Denon/Marantz AVR? He knew about Audyssey, but not the app? Or he didn't know about whole room correction thing but is critical hobbyist. Yeah, I don't see it.

It's kind of unfortunate that you need either the mobile or desktop app to really get everything out of Audyssey, but then again the things you use the apps are really only useful if you like to tinker. I have wasted too many hours with the Windows app and any custom fiddling with curves and filters barely improve anything.

Something that might be considered useful is making the downward slope in high frequencies caused by the room little less steep, but it's close call. Now that I had my fill of the app I would gladly take my money back, set the curtain to 300Hz from the mobile app and never touch anything again.

My previous AVR's were flagship onkyo and then integra, 2008, 2013, both with Audyssey.

Current equivalent is the recently released onkyo RZ70 and integra 8.4
These were decent value, but far from " budget ".

There was no app available for these.

And after being disappointed with audyssey twice, I chose dirac for my next try... the results have totally justified that choice!

 

[dlaloum]

I’m not sure how you reach that conclusion. Audyssey without some means to unwind the bad decisions in its stock target curve has been demonstrated as worse than no EQ in blind testing.

Have to agree with this, even without the issue of the default curve, the default of having mrc on, is a major flaw.
And can only be remedied via the app ! ( should really be an option on the avr )

 

[jhaider]

Have to agree with this, even without the issue of the default curve, the default of having mrc on, is a major flaw.
And can only be remedied via the app ! ( should really be an option on the avr )

The midrange error is part of the default curve in my view.

It also boggles my mind that it has taken Audyssey this long to address the problem of matching levels at the splice of their bifurcated target curves. Cleaving the target curve of a bass managed speaker into two parts* in the first place is self-evidently very stupid, as opposed to the sensible approach of applying a target curve to a whole channel. But to mess that up and then screw up levels at the splice too…I’d been asking Audyssey about that since the iOS app came out and never got a straight answer as to why there was so much fiddling required post Audyssey to get the blend right with a normal target curve. I guess it’s good they’re finally addressing that.

*Yes, Dirac does the same thing until you upgrade to DLBC.

 

[tjcinnamon]

Why is the serious hobbyist buying some budget AVR?

He didn't know that the app works only with Denon/Marantz AVR? He knew about Audyssey, but not the app? Or he didn't know about whole room correction thing but is critical hobbyist. Yeah, I don't see it.

It's kind of unfortunate that you need either the mobile or desktop app to really get everything out of Audyssey, but then again the things you use the apps are really only useful if you like to tinker. I have wasted too many hours with the Windows app and any custom fiddling with curves and filters barely improve anything.

Something that might be considered useful is making the downward slope in high frequencies caused by the room little less steep, but it's close call. Now that I had my fill of the app I would gladly take my money back, set the curtain to 300Hz from the mobile app and never touch anything again.

I’d say most AVR’s are consumer AVR’s and they sound great. Much better than buggie Arcam, Anthem, Monoprice, NAD, Rotel…. The best spot to get a good AVR is larger company’s that have large teams to work on the firmware.

With Pre-Out mode and external amps, you basically have a pre-pro. Then it’s all about the Room Correction. Which levels the playing field in terms of what’s out there (maybe 5 flavors)

I like Audyssey DEQ but have been doing the EQ and phase adjustments (for my LR) externally with Equalizer APO. I may get a minidsp flex and run it from there.

 

[bodhi]

I’m not sure how you reach that conclusion. Audyssey without some means to unwind the bad decisions in its stock target curve has been demonstrated as worse than no EQ in blind testing.

By knowing the standards on general user population and of course testing myself.

Unfortunately I cannot say out loud that I believe many hobbyists exaggerate the importance of smaller details to even themselves. With audible difference question there are blind tests but how can we test does some minor differences in high frequencies that can be detected actually matter at all to people, would they hear them if they weren't trying to?

 

[bodhi]

I’d say most AVR’s are consumer AVR’s and they sound great. Much better than buggie Arcam, Anthem, Monoprice, NAD, Rotel…. The best spot to get a good AVR is larger company’s that have large teams to work on the firmware.

With Pre-Out mode and external amps, you basically have a pre-pro. Then it’s all about the Room Correction. Which levels the playing field in terms of what’s out there (maybe 5 flavors)

I like Audyssey DEQ but have been doing the EQ and phase adjustments (for my LR) externally with Equalizer APO. I may get a minidsp flex and run it from there.

I was exaggerating there. By budget AVR I meant something that doesn't have the app compatibility. I have Denon's 4700 which I guess is somewhere in the middle of the models. I could have bought 3700 just as well but they didn't have that on the shelf, right then.

BTW I have liked DEQ very much until just recently. Maybe it's the temperature, maybe it's in my head, but I have been having a feeling that it boosts the lower bass too much, even with max adjustment. I'll have to wait couple of months and see if the feeling passes.