Difference between Audyssey Multeq VS Multeq XT Vs Multeq XT32

[Trell]

How can a REW measurement be valid if not measured in SweetSpot?

Why should it not be valid to show what XT and XT32 does, along with the difference? The result will be the same for other speakers as well.

The calibrations, I assume, where taken from the same position, presumably from MLP. A REW measurement will more or less show the same difference as in the measurements above.

So which calibration to trust the most? The XT calibration implies that the center speaker is flat below 100Hz before correction, something that is very unlikely in domestic rooms.

 

[Flageborg]

The XT calibration implies that the center speaker is flat below 100Hz before correction, something that is very unlikely in domestic rooms.

The XT32 calibration and the XT32 Pro and the new Pad version all implies "flat" response, but that is not true for any of Audyssey products or other brands as well. That is why it is important to check calibration in real life with REW measurement of front speakers from SweetSpot....

 

[GalZohar]

The XT32 calibration and the XT32 Pro and the new Pad version all implies "flat" response, but that is not true for any of Audyssey products or other brands as well. That is why it is important to check calibration in real life with REW measurement of front speakers from SweetSpot....

While I agree that the effectiveness of the correction should be checked (and there is a review for XT32 by Amir on this site that shows it for XT32 at least), in the case of XT the existing graphs already show you that it doesn't actually do anything in the bass frequencies, which means it also won't do anything for the REW results. If you don't change the signal you won't get a difference in the listening position. If you do change the signal, then you should verify at the listening position that the change was actually beneficial.

 

[Trell]

The XT32 calibration and the XT32 Pro and the new Pad version all implies "flat" response, but that is not true for any of Audyssey products or other brands as well. That is why it is important to check calibration in real life with REW measurement of front speakers from SweetSpot....

Room EQ can only do so much as some things are not fixable with room EQ alone, so the calibration to a target curve (might or might not be flat) is more of a wish than a reality. Those making the room EQ knows this, of course.

As for a direct comparison between XT and XT32 the above measurement is one of the very few I've seen. You'll find many REW measurements of calibrations results (before and after) but almost never any direct comparison among various room EQ systems.

 

[Flageborg]

...in the case of XT the existing graphs already show you that it doesn't actually do anything in the bass frequencies...

This is a XT measuring in SweetSpot of my front speakers and it looks like there are some more adjustments than nothing at all...?

 

[Trell]

This is a XT measuring in SweetSpot of my front speakers and it looks like there are some more adjustments than nothing at all...?

Appears to mostly be a global level change. Below is my front left speaker, with and without XT32 used. For the XT32 I use Reference target.

 

[Flageborg]

...there is a review for XT32 by Amir on this site that shows it for XT32...

Is this the test you are referring to?

Audyssey Room EQ Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Audyssey Room Equalization. Audyssey is standard technology in a number of Audio/Video Receivers such as the Denon AVR-X3600H I recently reviewed. The standard version in the AVR is mostly all or nothing so I downloaded the Marantz/Denon...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Flageborg]

Appears to mostly be a global level change. Below is my front left speaker, with and without XT32 used. For the XT32 I use Reference target.


View attachment 181048

And this is your Front Left Line Output?

 

[Trell]

And this is your Front Left Line Output?

No, this is measured from MLP. Below is front right, and then center. As you can see XT32 does quite a lot in the bass. When I calibrate using XT32 I use 8 positions at most 30cm from MLP.

To go back to your measurement earlier, have you enabled Audyssey? From your label it appears that you are using Direct, is that correct? In that case Audyssey is disabled.

 

[Flageborg]

...this is measured from MLP. Below is front right...

View attachment 181060

View attachment 181061

Why not measure both speakers together in MLP?

 

[CeeQuu]

There is a reason related to speaker positioning and room relations why these usually are shown separately. But here is my limited measurement with IMM6 and laptop soundcard that caps at 7.5K. @MLP with both together. The 3,7k peak is left speaker problem when measured alone right channel does not show this peak. As you can see XT does noting to the ~1.1k dip, makes the 3,7k peak more pronounced and annoying and the BBC dip does not help at all here. Only positives are the minor peak removed around 7k and dip ~2.5k

Top graph is L+R direct with my Marantz SR7005 for "0 point"
"aa" = audusey on
"WOdeq" = witout dynamic eq
"deq" = with dynamic EQ
"flat" = audesey flat

I'm planning to buy Umik-1 to get better results to see if i can improve these with better speaker positioning and manual EQ rather than relying on the XTs poor performance. My next AVR for sure has XT32.

 

[Flageborg]

I'm planning to buy Umik-1 to get better results to see if i can improve these with better speaker positioning and manual EQ rather than relying on the XTs poor performance. My next AVR for sure has XT32.

Speaker positioning is difficult if WAF is low....even if you have XT32 available.

 

[Putter]

Low Q (narrow) filters that try to fix very local effects and/or measurement errors rather than real acoustic issues. XT32 tries to do more of a general tone control with wider filters, which may also be good or bad depending on the room and how the measurement was done, but at least it works for some. The XT way is, as far as I know, always a bad idea. Personally I got slightly better sound limiting the correction frequency to 700Hz. But as XT doesn't do much at the bass frequencies that means it almost doesn't apply any correction to my speakers. At least it does some correction to my subwoofer, although I have some peaks it is unable to handle that supposedly XT32 might be able to deal with.

I've used the Bypass L/R setting NOT recommended by Audyssey since my Infinity Primus 150 speakers measure fairly flat. Regular Audyssey settings apply to the surrounds and center. This seems to bring a small improvement albeit without measurement and it maintains the subwoofer correction.

Another item not mentioned is the measurement protocol. Since I'm using my Marantz SR 5007 which has Audyssey XT in a desktop setup, there seems little reason to measure at different points throughout the room. Instead I measure at various seating positions nearer and farther away from the desk. Similarly in an AVS forum thread, it was advised to use a more localized set of measurements around the primary seating position particularly if you were not concerned about other listeners.

Having stated all this, I'm considering trying to find room for the Denon AVR-X3300W with XT32, which is in the man cave where it gets much less use.

 

[creamygarlicdip]

It's a bit silly to have all these different levels of room correction under one brand I mean c'mon just give everyone, xt32

 

[Putter]

It's a bit silly to have all these different levels of room correction under one brand I mean c'mon just give everyone, xt32

I gave it a like, but it occurs to me that you need extra computing power in the AV receiver to use the highest level of Audyssey.

 

[Everett T]

I gave it a like, but it occurs to me that you need extra computing power in the AV receiver to use the highest level of Audyssey.

Precisely.

 

[GalZohar]

I gave it a like, but it occurs to me that you need extra computing power in the AV receiver to use the highest level of Audyssey.

Yes, but the question remains whether XT can't take a more sensible approach for using the existing processing power.
In any case it doesn't seem like we can expect any changes to Audyssey in the near future, with the PC-interface being their "major upgrade"? So either XT32 or get something more expensive.

 

[jeffw_00]

Guys - I'm looking to replace my Onkyo TX SR607 from 2009 (w/Audyssey 2EQ - no XT or XT32 - just "Audyssey") for my 11' x 14' 5.1 (PSB bookshelf speakers, Sunfire Sub). I get that Audyssey is the gold standard - which points me to Denon, but I'm looking at the X1700 for $700 vs $1600 for the X3700, just to get XT32 instead of XT. I see a lot of fine point debate here that I can't totally follow - but, I mean, is the XT evil? Will it be worse than what I have? Do I -need- to spend $900 more to have a reasonably good system (I was somewhat the audiophile 40 years ago, but not sure my ears are still quite that sharp, although I do know bad sound when I hear it). Many Thanks!

 

[GalZohar]

No idea what's on that old receiver, but if it's XT32, going to XT will be worse, otherwise not... XT as you can see in the demonstrations posted is quite a bit worse. If it's worth the extra cash and whether you'll hear the difference is a different topic. But compared to other home theater investments it's a rather small investment compared to what you get. Also, x1700h and x2700h weren't measured here, no idea how they compare to the x3700h in terms of dacs and amps.

 

[jeffw_00]

It was just basic Audyssey 2EQ. From the chart posted at the beginning of this thread it looks like MultiEQ XT will be a big step up. Perhaps enough of a step for my non-audiophile system. Another option for $1100 is Dirac Live on the Onkyo TX-NR7100, but I'm not really sure I will notice much difference from the XT (just as it doesn't make much sense to put a porsche engine in a Subaru, although I also don't want a chevy engine ) Thanks