Dirac > Audyssey XT32 ... Sure, Always?

[Andrej]

Any preference for a "target" curve response is intimately tied to the loudness level. I have found that I personally prefer flat response in my listening spaces, ranging from a heavily treated room, to no acoustic treatments (but both speakers and myself away from the walls and the listener relatively close to the speakers). I am a big fan of DSP, and that includes the automatic approaches like Audyssey (I have had several XT32 receivers, as well as XT) and Dirac (a friend has the PC based version). On his system we both also prefer flat target curves.
However, in order to get satisfactory perception of "realism" in the reproduced sound, I found that I needed the volume to be at reference level, or having some form of dynamic equalization engaged. In general I aim for "fidelity" rather than "personal preference", and so I inherently find preference where I find accuracy, ie. flat response (which I then modify with the DEQ)
When I build a new 2-way satellite pair of speakers my favorite first listen is with an inexpensive old Onkyo XT32 receiver with a built in digital crossover (those were manufactured for only a short amount of time). All I need is a pair of speaker boxes, bass units, tweeters, and, if so desired, a subwoofer. Everything else is done by the receiver, which can be bought used for less than $400. Cannot beat that value for money.

 

[peng]

That doesn't explain how adding a dip to the target curve helps Audyssey better correct the peak it failed to correct earlier. Unless that dip isn't fixed due to spatial averaging (that is, it doesn't consider the dip as it's only in 1 place). If we just measure in the same spot, can you still get any flatter response by setting a non-flat curve? How does that actually work?

I understand your point and I do not know the exact reason why it works, just know that it works for me and some others who tried. I do have some ideas, just educated guess but it will take too long to get into the details. I can use a quick numerical example here though, just to illustrate my logic (can be wrong obviously). Let's say in the case of just using 3 mic positions and without REQ, REW shows the following dips and bumps at 100 Hz:

Obviously again, the following are all made up, not real results, and all my assumptions could be wrong, or partially wrong but I could be partially right too. I actually did discuss my logic with Audyssey, it was a lengthy email exchange.

A) Audyssey off:
MLP: +7 Q=5
12" to the right: -1 Q=3
12" to the left: -3 Q=6

B) Audyssey On:

MLP: +5
12" to the right: + 2
12" to the left: +3

C) Now if we assume the following:

- Audyssey's algorithm is perfect, or close to perfect
- The mic is as good as Audyssey claimed per their factory calibration, and say assume +/- 1 dB (don't remember what it is supposed to be)
- The operator follow instructions to the letter, such as keeping the room quiet, mic point to ceiling at ear height, at least X ft from any walls..et..

If the assumption in C above is true the "corrected" results would be (also assumed):

MLP: + 2.5
12" to right: 0
12" to left: +1

So in this example, Audyssey missed the target for the MLP by 5-2.5 = +2.5 dB and the other positions by +2 dB
Since C) assumes the algorithm is near perfect, the error would be due to:

D) the mic's tolerance, room noise, mic positions, operator related etc..

In this case if I apply a - 2 dB, that approximate the correction needed to improve all 3 positions would be what I call "feedback" to Audyssey that in order to offset the imperfection resulted from error due to D) and the resulting "errors" would be reduced as shown by the new REW graphs.

Finally, I think is is reasonable to assume in addition to D), Audyssey's algorithm is not perfect enough to flatten the dips/bumps at 90 Hz, and in that case, applying the same - 2 dB would still bring down the bump(s) for all 3 positions.

And you are right, doing as described above would mean in order to correct the 90 Hz bump, I would have to put a dip on the target curve. In other words, in order to achieve a flatter frequency response for the corrected range, I would end up using a target curve that is not flat.

Back to my amplifier analogy, for an amplifier to have the lowest possible distortions, a feedback loop is necessary such that measured "error" measured at the output is fed back to the input, and the error signal would thereby "correct" the input signal in order to achieve a less distorted output signal. The advantage the feedback scheme an amplifier has is, obviously it is continuous, i.e. a feedback loop. Doing what I did with Audyssey (App, Ratbuddyssey etc..) is a one off, though I can repeat the process manually if I am willing to spend time on it.

Ratbuddyssey actual shows the measured results by that cheap looking mic, for each position. Below is an example of mine:

So it isn't hard to plot the corresponding "corrected" graphs for all 8 mic positions to see if any positions are "made worse". I typically would just use REW to compare the Audysey on vs off graphs for a bunch of positions by moving the mic and/or point it at different angles to the speaker.

 

[randomer]

My only real complaint with Audyssey XT32 is the default reference and flat curves. If you simply run Audyssey in a Next/Next "wizard" like function, it doesn't sound good. Audisssey's belief appears to be flat frequency response is the desired goal. This belief is flawed as people prefer a downward sloping curve. It basically sounds both bright and no base at the same time. If they would add a better downward sloping default curve (like a harmon type curve) it would make things much easier. My favorite instructions for getting Audyssey to produce good results is via this" https://docs.google.com/file/d/1YH_eNHRCxKFCwXMddi28kzXqnUwYHfrD/edit?filetype=msword

Al least I have had good results with it.

@Dj7675 the file seems to be deleted do you have another link or source? ty

 

[Dj7675]

If I recall correctly ( might not be) I believe they were from user @Jon AA . I haven’t used Audyssey in some time. If I recall correctly he used Audyssey for speaker correction. I think he may be using the pc app now.

 

[Dougey_Jones]

I'm one of the people who tried Dirac Live for Home Theater and eventually went back to Audyssey XT32. It was partially accidental. My RZ50 was having overheating/HDMI issues and having dealt with that BS previously with other Onkyo/Integra products I was just tired of it so I sold the RZ50 and got an x3700h. I used an iPad with the MultEQ app to create custom curves for each channel including both subs that roughly mirror the Harman curve and Dirac Live's default curve. Eg. +6db bass from about 30hz-150hz then flat all the way through, toggle switch off to remove "the dip" and finishing out the FR at -3db @ 20khz. I've found the result to be extremely pleasing for Home Theater while being about 1/4 the effort that Dirac Live was. I still use Dirac Live for the stereo signal chain in my system with my MiniDSP and feel like it's better suited to that job than HT.

One question for Audyssey XT32 users; I see a lot of people saying they like Dynamic EQ, I've found that if I enable Dynamic EQ it makes the surround channels almost cartoonishly loud, to where the front channels and dialogue are totally blown away. I could see someone loving that if they're a teenager and just got into home theater and want to hear nonstop whiz bangs from their surround channels, but it sounds downright clownish in a high end setup.

Am I doing something wrong?

 

[sigbergaudio]

I'm one of the people who tried Dirac Live for Home Theater and eventually went back to Audyssey XT32. It was partially accidental. My RZ50 was having overheating/HDMI issues and having dealt with that BS previously with other Onkyo/Integra products I was just tired of it so I sold the RZ50 and got an x3700h. I used an iPad with the MultEQ app to create custom curves for each channel including both subs that roughly mirror the Harman curve and Dirac Live's default curve. Eg. +6db bass from about 30hz-150hz then flat all the way through, toggle switch off to remove "the dip" and finishing out the FR at -3db @ 20khz. I've found the result to be extremely pleasing for Home Theater while being about 1/4 the effort that Dirac Live was. I still use Dirac Live for the stereo signal chain in my system with my MiniDSP and feel like it's better suited to that job than HT.

One question for Audyssey XT32 users; I see a lot of people saying they like Dynamic EQ, I've found that if I enable Dynamic EQ it makes the surround channels almost cartoonishly loud, to where the front channels and dialogue are totally blown away. I could see someone loving that if they're a teenager and just got into home theater and want to hear nonstop whiz bangs from their surround channels, but it sounds downright clownish in a high end setup.

Am I doing something wrong?

This guide is starting to get a bit old, but may still be relevant:

Audyssey room calibration: Common mistakes

In this guide we go through the basics of running Audyssey room calibration and making sure it is configured for the best possible sound. This is a topic with lots of nuance and edge cases, but if you don't want to spend hours and hours on figuring it all out, this guide should get you off to a...

www.sigbergaudio.com

Dynamic EQ adjusts the tonality, while Dynamic volume applies compression. What you are experiencing sounds more like the latter. Do you have Dynamic Volume turned on as well?

 

[Dougey_Jones]

This guide is starting to get a bit old, but may still be relevant:

Audyssey room calibration: Common mistakes

In this guide we go through the basics of running Audyssey room calibration and making sure it is configured for the best possible sound. This is a topic with lots of nuance and edge cases, but if you don't want to spend hours and hours on figuring it all out, this guide should get you off to a...

www.sigbergaudio.com

Dynamic EQ adjusts the tonality, while Dynamic volume applies compression. What you are experiencing sounds more like the latter. Do you have Dynamic Volume turned on as well?

I know it seems obvious that it would be Dynamic Volume, but I experience the same phenomenon with Dynamic Volume off and Dynamic EQ on. For some reason it just makes the surround channels super prominent, and I already have them turned down about 5db relative to the front soundstage.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I know it seems obvious that it would be Dynamic Volume, but I experience the same phenomenon with Dynamic Volume off and Dynamic EQ on. For some reason it just makes the surround channels super prominent, and I already have them turned down about 5db relative to the front soundstage.

Okay. Haven't experienced that, and I don't have any Audyssey products myself at the moment, so I will leave it to other to try to help you figure it out.

 

[anotherhobby]

I know it seems obvious that it would be Dynamic Volume, but I experience the same phenomenon with Dynamic Volume off and Dynamic EQ on. For some reason it just makes the surround channels super prominent, and I already have them turned down about 5db relative to the front soundstage.

The surround channel boost is a thing that Dynamic EQ does, and is a common complaint about Dynamic EQ. It's why I don't use it.

 

[OCA]

I know it seems obvious that it would be Dynamic Volume, but I experience the same phenomenon with Dynamic Volume off and Dynamic EQ on. For some reason it just makes the surround channels super prominent, and I already have them turned down about 5db relative to the front soundstage.

Dynamic EQ pretty much correctly applies bass and high frequency boost according to the long replaced ISO 226:2003 equal loudness contour ratios. However it boosts surround channels a lot more than FL, C, FR (up to 10dB) for reasons only Audyssey knows. Their explanation is that human hearing from rear is compromised. After the addition of Atmos channels they decided to add half the surround boost to height channels, too. Obviously, this totally ruins the sound object placement of Atmos but who cares about the consumer.

I have made a program for A1 Evo which actively adjusts surround/heights boosts correctly based on AVR volume but you need to run it continuously on a PC while you are using the AVR.

 

[Dougey_Jones]

Dynamic EQ pretty much correctly applies bass and high frequency boost according to the long replaced ISO 226:2003 equal loudness contour ratios. However it boosts surround channels a lot more than FL, C, FR (up to 10dB) for reasons only Audyssey knows. Their explanation is that human hearing from rear is compromised. After the addition of Atmos channels they decided to add half the surround boost to height channels, too. Obviously, this totally ruins the sound object placement of Atmos but who cares about the consumer.

I have made a program for A1 Evo which actively adjusts surround/heights boosts correctly based on AVR volume but you need to run it continuously on a PC while you are using the AVR.

Great post, glad to know I'm hearing properly and that it's not just me experiencing this.

 

[Sal1950]

Great post, glad to know I'm hearing properly and that it's not just me experiencing this.

Yes, you are hearing what you think your hearing. This has been on ongoing complaint about DEQ, there's a bunch of threads about it on the various sights with little help from Audyssey to correct the problems. I use DEQ but introduce around a -3db bass cut in the rear surrounds. Maybe if we continue to make enough noise about this online Audyssey will pull their heads out of their asses on the issue.

 

[Dougey_Jones]

Yes, you are hearing what you think your hearing. This has been on ongoing complaint about DEQ, there's a bunch of threads about it on the various sights with little help from Audyssey to correct the problems. I use DEQ but introduce around a -3db bass cut in the rear surrounds. Maybe if we continue to make enough noise about this online Audyssey will pull their heads out of their asses on the issue.

I think the issue for Audyssey is that “most people” are subjectively thrilled to hear stuff whizzing and buzzing around them in their surround speakers and don’t really care about the enormous channel imbalance.

What they SHOULD do is push an update that adds a “DEQ Reference” or DEQ “Flat” option so everyone can choose what they want.

 

[Hayabusa]

Dynamic EQ pretty much correctly applies bass and high frequency boost according to the long replaced ISO 226:2003 equal loudness contour ratios. However it boosts surround channels a lot more than FL, C, FR (up to 10dB) for reasons only Audyssey knows. Their explanation is that human hearing from rear is compromised. After the addition of Atmos channels they decided to add half the surround boost to height channels, too. Obviously, this totally ruins the sound object placement of Atmos but who cares about the consumer.

I have made a program for A1 Evo which actively adjusts surround/heights boosts correctly based on AVR volume but you need to run it continuously on a PC while you are using the AVR.

can you share your code or adjustment formula? I also would like to do something like this.

 

[OCA]

can you share your code or adjustment formula? I also would like to do something like this.

It's in the Nexus video download folder as an exe file. There's also a Mac version:

Nexus - Google Drive

drive.google.com

It works in connection with the Audyssey .ady file produced by Nexus (reads AVR volume level during measurements done with DEQ on). I can share the node js code, too if you want.

 

[Hayabusa]

I can share the node js code, too if you want.

Yes please!

 

[Sal1950]

What they SHOULD do is push an update that adds a “DEQ Reference” or DEQ “Flat” option so everyone can choose what they want.

I like it! Add a switch to Editor/X like they did for the midrange dip, why not?
But Audyssey has been stubbornly dragging their feet being under the impression that their reasoning/ thinking for boosting rear channel levels when DEQ is engaged is the correct thing to do ??? Once again, we can only hope.
IMHO it's a totally messed up situation, Audyssey's implementation of DEQ is wonky, Dirac has no DEQ, etc etc. When even the most cheap 1960-70 receiver/integrated had a loudness button. LOL

 

[OCA]

Yes please!

Here's the full js code. It needs node because works over telnet. It will find your AVR in the network automatically. The volume compensation to surround/atmos channels is accurate to 0.5dB and it will reset all speaker volume levels to default on exit.

 

[Hayabusa]

Here's the full js code. It needs node because works over telnet. It will find your AVR in the network automatically. The volume compensation to surround/atmos channels is accurate to 0.5dB and it will reset all speaker volume levels to default on exit.

Great! thanks!

 

[Karls_speaker_works]

I use DEQ with the MultEQ-x software and I haven't noticed the excessive volume from the rear surrounds seemingly after a firmware update 2nd half of 2023.

I'm told nothing was changed in the firmware and therefore I just imagined the difference, but the "clownish volume" of the surrounds hasn't returned through relocating rear surrounds, changing overhead speakers etc., no matter the volume setting.