• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Royal EQ Rumble! Objective measurements of Dirac vs Audyssey vs REW+EAPO vs Nothing

Pio2001

Senior Member
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
315
Likes
477
Location
Neuville-sur-Saône, France
No EQ:
Baseline / raw measurements with no EQ:
1622154790454-png.3138798

Hi johnp98,
I'm interested in your results, but I can't read the numbers of the vertical scale of your graphs. How many dB are there ?
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
11,544
Likes
12,278
Location
Riverview FL
Pre (No EQ):
View attachment 132424

Post (with Dirac):
View attachment 132425

Hummm... I also was expecting a larger response. I wonder if it is having a hard time with the subwoofer? Should I just measure the speakers with no sub? Or am I looking at the wrong thing? I feel quite proficient with measurements and the frequency response (and waterfalls etc), but the impulse and step responses I am not too sure how they are typically displayed and with what settings. Curious why there is not a more significant response. Thoughts?


MartinLogan reQuest with AcourateDRC via miniDSP OpenDRC-DI with cheap cheap subs adjacent to the speakers.

Red, raw, Black, corrected

1622330727839.png
 
Last edited:
OP
J

johnp98

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2021
Messages
112
Likes
166
Hi johnp98,
I'm interested in your results, but I can't read the numbers of the vertical scale of your graphs. How many dB are there ?
It is from 100-50dB, so each line is 5db.
I seem to recall that this is the suggested scale for posting measurements (I think from AVS form).
 

Chrispy

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
2,640
Likes
2,060
Location
PNW
FWIW the Audyssey implementation by some/most manufacturers and Audyssey's own recommendations aren't the same thing.
 
OP
J

johnp98

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2021
Messages
112
Likes
166
I just did some more EQ using gated measurements and got even better results!
I posted them and the process on this thread but thought I should post the here as well as they fit with the prior comparisons I did.

Here are the bottom line results:

index.php



Blue = No EQ - MMM at MLP
Purple = Klippel based EQ on my HTM-12v2 doing MMM at my MLP
Red = Global EQ based on MMM at MLP (EQ generated off the above Blue graph)
Blue = Dirac EQ / results - MMM at MLP
Green = Combo of EQs (MMM + Klippel + Gated) - MMM at MLP

So it looks like splicing together gated nearfield measurements, with Klippel measurements, with in room MMM you can get pretty killer results for your own specific speaker!
 

peng

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,266
Likes
1,802
There are 2 pages now so I may have missed some important facts. Is the Audyssey one based on the old XT version?
Using XT32 SubEQHT, it did a much better job for me, based on my REW graphs for FL+FR+two different SVS subs.
 
OP
J

johnp98

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2021
Messages
112
Likes
166
There are 2 pages now so I may have missed some important facts. Is the Audyssey one based on the old XT version?
Using XT32 SubEQHT, it did a much better job for me, based on my REW graphs for FL+FR+two different SVS subs.
Yeah it was based on the MultiEQ older version which is the only version that I have access to.

I was using it prior to getting a measurement mic and learning REW and as you can see from the graphs in the first post I was shocked to see how horrible of a job it was doing.

I certianly hope the new versions are significantly better and it sounds like that is the case but I think it's important for people to realize that the old versions should not be trusted and I would not trust the new versions unless I had a mic and REW to compare pre and post.
 

peng

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,266
Likes
1,802
Yeah it was based on the MultiEQ older version which is the only version that I have access to.

I was using it prior to getting a measurement mic and learning REW and as you can see from the graphs in the first post I was shocked to see how horrible of a job it was doing.

I certainly hope the new versions are significantly better and it sounds like that is the case but I think it's important for people to realize that the old versions should not be trusted and I would not trust the new versions unless I had a mic and REW to compare pre and post.

Thank you, I don't know if XT is that bad (I guess it looks that way based on your results, for whatever reasons), but XT32 is very good for the 20 to 120 (or higher) Hz range. It was so long ago, if I did plot any graphs with REW at the time I can no longer find them. I do have a few manually plotted graphs using a spl meter and those are the ones that gave me the impression that while not that great, XT was still effective. I think for Audyssey to work well, one has to follow instructions to the letter and use all 8 mic positions. The same would go for Dirac Live too, logically speaking. One "bad" thing about Audyssey is that their standard target curve would likely level off bumps in the bass range and most people don't like that and would complain about the thin sound. Some would just bump up the sub levels by a few dB, but with the Editor App, one can now easily customize the curve to get the bass they like, such as Amir's:

Audyssey Room EQ Review | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

1627247884866.png


Below are my pre and pro for the XT32 FR graphs.

1) Audyssey ref (edited with App) vs Audyssey off, HT system
1627241156745.jpeg


2) Audyssey Ref (edited with App) vs off, mlp only

1627247185610.jpeg


3) Audyssey ref (no editing) vs Dirac trial version vs no EQ, 2 channel system (AV8801+LS50)

1627241823127.jpeg



4) No EQ vs Audyssey Ref (no editing) Vs Dirac Trail version, Stereo 2.0, iirr speakers used were the LS50s, could have been the R900 but not likely.
1627242736603.jpeg
 
Last edited:

peng

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,266
Likes
1,802
Playing around with the AVR EQ settings a bit more, I found that you can manually change the 9 preset filters of 63hz, 125hz, 250hz, 500hz, 1k hz, 2k hz, 4k hz, 8k hz, 16k hz yourself. I am not sure what the Q value on these filters are, but it does seem quite wide and based on moving mic measurements an EQ of seemed to be the best. After playing around using these filters (125hz -1(L) -4 (R), 250hz +2, 500hz +1 , 4k +1 8k = -2) I got:
1622154837288-png.3138804


Hopefully this is just because I have an older version, but it was scary how bad vanilla Audyssey made it, and if I did not have a measurement mic then I would be in the dark with how to improve on what Audyssey gave me… wrong crossovers, wrong delays, and wrong EQ. Scary stuff.

I do have questions of this, what preset filters are you referring to? Are you still talking about the SR7002 and Audyssey? As far as I know Audyssey XT does not have any such preset filters, its auto only. It also do not have the "Q" to sorry about, unlike YPAO and I think (AARC too) that are based on IIR filters.
 
OP
J

johnp98

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2021
Messages
112
Likes
166
I do have questions of this, what preset filters are you referring to? Are you still talking about the SR7002 and Audyssey? As far as I know Audyssey XT does not have any such preset filters, its auto only. It also do not have the "Q" to sorry about, unlike YPAO and I think (AARC too) that are based on IIR filters.
If you go into manual mode in my receiver (Marantz SR7002) then it lets you manually change the preset filters. So its semi useful, but nothing compared to new versions of Audyssey or computer based Equalizer APO and what you can do with REW.
 
Top Bottom