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

[chych7]

Hi

Quick question. My miniDSP2x4HD died, was my own mistake, long story.
I want to use the 2 subs in the system. Will MultEQ-X (Windows app) be able to calibrate the 2 subwoofers properly? Taking care of the different delays and EQ parameters for each subwoofer, a la MSO? I have one sub in the front and the other in the back.


Peace.

MultEQ-X will time align different subs (delays), but will still EQ them together. Same as without MultEQ-X. MSO is needed for independent EQ to the subs.

 

[depechefan]

I have 2 subs, my receiver is a Denon AVC-X8500HA which supports 2 subs. MultEQ-X works perfectly in this scenario

 

[chych7]

I have 2 subs, my receiver is a Denon AVC-X8500HA which supports 2 subs. MultEQ-X works perfectly in this scenario

The relevant scenario has to do more with your room layout and how many seats you have. MultEQ-X won't be sufficient to optimize bass across multiple seating rows, or for effectively combining different types of subwoofers together, for example. Something like DLBC/MSO is needed to get better integration.

However for most cases of dual identical subs and a single seating row, MultEQ-X is likely sufficient to get good bass response.

 

[fieldcar]

Hi

Quick question. My miniDSP2x4HD died, was my own mistake, long story.
I want to use the 2 subs in the system. Will MultEQ-X (Windows app) be able to calibrate the 2 subwoofers properly? Taking care of the different delays and EQ parameters for each subwoofer, a la MSO? I have one sub in the front and the other in the back.


Peace.

Bump!
?

It should be able to. Timing and volume are independent for each RCA subwoofer output, and the correction is shared between all subs. I'm sure there are pitfalls to this implementation, and it seems like the way to get around it is to add a miniDSP to correct each sub, and then re-run audyssey on top of it to add the final polish. EDIT: Though, it's probably not necessary unless you're overly concerned about fixing nulls in each sub. Multi-sub fixes nulls, so that's why I believe that audyssey corrects for all subs with a single EQ.

 

[krabapple]

I have 2 subs, my receiver is a Denon AVC-X8500HA which supports 2 subs. MultEQ-X works perfectly in this scenario

Doesn't the Audyssey in your AVR already do what -X does, for subs?

 

[depechefan]

Probably. But I hear a clear difference with MultEQ-X. Bass has more slam. Feels more precise and "tighter"

 

[krabapple]

hmm, ok, another sighted report without comparative measurements. Is there a known technical reason why the two would EQ the subs differently?

For sure, it would hard to do a 'proper' A/B comparison sighted of this, much less blind. You'd have to make sure the mic was placed in exactly the same places during both calibration runs, and then have a way to quickly switch between MultiEQ and MultiEQ-X results.

 

[depechefan]

I think that the extra headroom combined with the ability to disable auto leveling and adding a house curve have a lot to do with the better result. At some point I will do some REW measurements

 

[fieldcar]

Is there a known technical reason why the two would EQ the subs differently?

The only technical thing I can think of is mixing subwoofers of substantially different output capability. The other is to pre-flatten the sub out so that tacticle transducers wont have a wonky correction (newer AVR's will be coming with outputs specifically for transducers, so thats nice). I don't personally worry about it though. I know some obsessive types usually add in a minidsp on top of audyssey, but in the end they may just be over-driving subs at difficult nulls.

 

[krabapple]

The only technical thing I can think of is mixing subwoofers of substantially different output capability. The other is to pre-flatten the sub out so that tacticle transducers wont have a wonky correction (newer AVR's will be coming with outputs specifically for transducers, so thats nice). I don't personally worry about it though. I know some obsessive types usually add in a minidsp on top of audyssey, but in the end they may just be over-driving subs at difficult nulls.

Not sure I understand how this describes a difference between MultiEQ loaded in the AVR, and using the MultiEQ app instead.

 

[fieldcar]

Not sure I understand how this describes a difference between MultiEQ loaded in the AVR, and using the MultiEQ app instead.

Ah. Nevermind. I thought you were responding to my post asking why people would EQ outside of audyssey with something like a minidsp.

 

[chych7]

Not sure I understand how this describes a difference between MultiEQ loaded in the AVR, and using the MultiEQ app instead.

There isn't a difference, it's the same. Although MultEQ-X by default puts in the 0.87 distance correction factor for pre-2022 Denon/Marantz AVRs, which would come out as a sonic improvement (of course you can manually put this in without MultEQ-X).

But MultEQ-X lets you increase the headroom for correction, and disable auto levelling, which makes it a lot easier to set a subwoofer target curve (that Audyssey will actually follow).

 

[dlaloum]

I've found that this is all I need to get what I want.

1. Delete both Theater HF rolloff and Midrange compensation.
2. Add a Tilt and apply a -0.8dB -0.9dB/octave slope (equivalent to a harman 3dB/decade slope), though you can play with this to find your preference.
3. Check "Disable Auto-Leveling" on the subwoofers.

Another cool thing is that If you want to leave the Theater HF Rolloff, just make sure it's set for the reference Type and Set the Tilt type to flat. Then you can switch between both targets on the AVR quickly.

EDIT: Oh yeah, also make sure you take 8 measurement points no further than 6" from the center of your main listening position. I usually cross everything over at 80Hz, and up the subwoofer by a few dB on my HEOS input. You can trim input specific speaker trims by pressing the options? button to the top right of the arrows and going to channel levels or similar.

So this is not about XT32, but all about the target slope you have set - you have changed the "voicing" of your room...

Have you also changed the MRC setting?

 

[depechefan]

I'd recommend viewing these 2 videos. There is some good information especially about the extra headroom and disabling auto-leveling

 

[fieldcar]

So this is not about XT32, but all about the target slope you have set - you have changed the "voicing" of your room...

Have you also changed the MRC setting?

Right. It's the "house curve" as many people label it. My feelings are that multEQ's default targets are flawed. I would assume you mean voice intelligibility during movies? I don't quite know what voicing is. My goal is for my home theater to sound like my nearfield studio monitor setup with minimal room interaction and near perfect FR. This is what most studios use to make the music and movies we are listening to, so why would I deviate? If these audyssey EQ tweaks of MRC and non-tilted Flat+HF rolloff were part of a speakers natural in-room estimated FR, then it would be an objectively poor speaker with a headless panther.

I haven't really changed anything with the overall tonality or "voicing" of my speakers in my room. My JBL 590's measure raw, in-room, very similar to the -3dB/decade Harman in room target if you ignore the room modes on the raw measurements.

As far as MRC(aka BBC dip), I deleted it. I'm puzzled why it's enabled by default. From what I gather, the BBC dip was created for ancient speakers with poor off-axis FR/directivity using a first order butterworth crossovers with a 2.0KHz +3dB hump (basically not using a proper linkwitz Riley crossover). Any modern and objectively well regarded speaker is worse off using MRC. What about 3-ways or my compression driver having a low crossover point of ~1.2KHz?

Sean Olive:
"Many poorly designed 2-way loudspeakers already have dips in the sound power response in the cross-over range 1-3 kHz where the directivity of the woofer is too high compared to the directivity of the tweeter at those frequencies. As a result, this produces a notch in the sound power response of the loudspeaker, usually followed by a peak. Depending on the bandwidth and depth of the notch, it is the peak that is often heard as sounding objectionable (harshness, hardness or excessive brightness)."

In the end, I'm open to new ideas if you've got some compelling information to go against what I've found. Please, share.

Right now, I'm really interested in playing with my subwoofer placement to flatten the peaks and nulls before any room correction just by moving them in the room. So far, it hasn't been easy (monolith THX 13=heavy as hell), and the REW room simulator has limitations, but it's a good starting point. I'm really really excited for the next generation of room correction (spatial room correction?) using every speaker to deaden reflections or something to that effect.

 

[dlaloum]

Right. It's the "house curve" as many people label it. My feelings are that multEQ's default targets are flawed. I would assume you mean voice intelligibility during movies? I don't quite know what voicing is. My goal is for my home theater to sound like my nearfield studio monitor setup with minimal room interaction and near perfect FR. This is what most studios use to make the music and movies we are listening to, so why would I deviate? If these audyssey EQ tweaks of MRC and non-tilted Flat+HF rolloff were part of a speakers natural in-room estimated FR, then it would be an objectively poor speaker with a headless panther.

I haven't really changed anything with the overall tonality or "voicing" of my speakers in my room. My JBL 590's measure raw, in-room, very similar to the -3dB/decade Harman in room target if you ignore the room modes on the raw measurements.

As far as MRC(aka BBC dip), I deleted it. I'm puzzled why it's enabled by default. From what I gather, the BBC dip was created for ancient speakers with poor off-axis FR/directivity using a first order butterworth crossovers with a 2.0KHz +3dB hump (basically not using a proper linkwitz Riley crossover). Any modern and objectively well regarded speaker is worse off using MRC. What about 3-ways or my compression driver having a low crossover point of ~1.2KHz?



In the end, I'm open to new ideas if you've got some compelling information to go against what I've found. Please, share.

Right now, I'm really interested in playing with my subwoofer placement to flatten the peaks and nulls before any room correction just by moving them in the room. So far, it hasn't been easy (monolith THX 13=heavy as hell), and the REW room simulator has limitations, but it's a good starting point. I'm really really excited for the next generation of room correction (spatial room correction?) using every speaker to deaden reflections or something to that effect.

View attachment 291300

What I mean by "voicing" is the process whereby one subjectively alters the "sound" or "voice" of a setup - at its most basic, it is the trebble and bass knobs on vintage gear.... nowadays we prefer to mess with the much more complex "target curves" - but it really amounts to the same thing.

I asked about the MRC - because by default it is turned on, which is (IMO) a major flaw, and I believe one of the biggest single gains in sound quality from an Audyssey setup, is simple to turn MRC off (!!).
(and yes - why they still have it on by default is completely beyond me.... incomprehensible)

I also believe that standard target curve approaches are ultimately flawed, as aiming for a proper flat FR should be the goal from the direct sound from the speakers - as long as reflections are more than circa 5ms ( off the top of my head... would need to look that up!) delayed from the direct signal - our minds will sort it out - but in room terms, those reflections are not seperated out.... that makes the target curve a very blunt tool!.

I would like to see the measurement and room EQ tools show both the direct sound contribution (via time gated measurements) as well as the overall "room curve" which incorporates both direct and reflected sound... and most of the EQ applied should be focused on correcting the direct sound contribution ....

If wishes were fishes...

 

[chych7]

As far as MRC(aka BBC dip), I deleted it. I'm puzzled why it's enabled by default. From what I gather, the BBC dip was created for ancient speakers with poor off-axis FR/directivity using a first order butterworth crossovers with a 2.0KHz +3dB hump (basically not using a proper linkwitz Riley crossover). Any modern and objectively well regarded speaker is worse off using MRC. What about 3-ways or my compression driver having a low crossover point of ~1.2KHz?

There are lots of modern speakers that have dips in sound power and directivity errors around the crossover. Wouldn't these benefit from some kind of MRC? Examples:

Klipsch RP-500M (~1.8 kHz):

Measurements for speaker Klipsch RP-500M

www.spinorama.org

KEF Q650 (~1 kHz):

Measurements for speaker KEF Q650C

www.spinorama.org

Revel W553 (~2.2 kHz):

Measurements for speaker Revel W553L

www.spinorama.org

But the default 2 kHz -3 dB makes no sense, since speakers can vary quite a bit from that point.

 

[dlaloum]

There are lots of modern speakers that have dips in sound power and directivity errors around the crossover. Wouldn't these benefit from some kind of MRC? Examples:

Klipsch RP-500M (~1.8 kHz):

Measurements for speaker Klipsch RP-500M

www.spinorama.org

KEF Q650 (~1 kHz):

Measurements for speaker KEF Q650C

www.spinorama.org

Revel W553 (~2.2 kHz):

Measurements for speaker Revel W553L

www.spinorama.org

But the default 2 kHz -3 dB makes no sense, since speakers can vary quite a bit from that point.

If the EQ system is doing the right thing, it should pick these up and correct for them - the MRC still does not make sense

 

[chych7]

If the EQ system is doing the right thing, it should pick these up and correct for them - the MRC still does not make sense

AFAIK, EQ systems like Audyssey just try and fit the direct measured sound to a target curve, and ignore reflections. Hence the reasoning for an MRC, to avoid over EQing regions of poor directivity, which can worsen reflections and overall tonality. Maybe other EQ systems can do better than that (i.e. Trinnov with its multiple mic array), but I don't think Audyssey can.

 

[dlaloum]

AFAIK, EQ systems like Audyssey just try and fit the direct measured sound to a target curve, and ignore reflections. Hence the reasoning for an MRC, to avoid over EQing regions of poor directivity, which can worsen reflections and overall tonality. Maybe other EQ systems can do better than that (i.e. Trinnov with its multiple mic array), but I don't think Audyssey can.

Yes - one of the weaknesses with most EQ systems, is that they do not differentiate between direct and reflected sound - and the EQ should only be applying to the direct sound....

Which of course means that "target curves" for such systems (most of them!) - are a completely flawed objective.

It would be nice to get a setup where the software can seperate out the direct from reflected sound, and the user then gets the choice of where and on what to apply the target curve.

Trinnov must have the ability to differentiate in that way.... and in theory so should Dirac-ART. (based on what those systems are doing...)

But no one is providing a Multeq-X or Dirac like interface where you can apply a target curve to direct rather than overall room response.

Come on guys - it cannot be that hard!!