• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

Use audyssey MultiEQ or an SPL Meter, which?

nelmr

Active Member
Okay my new receiver has MultiEQ. I have not used any receiver auto calibration before (never had one with it). Will this give better results then simply measuring distances, using an SPL meter, and manually setting speaker size and crossover setting manually? I don't mind doing things manually if it will be better.
 

Zing

Retired Admin
Famous
First of all, welcome!

Secondly, that's not really an apples-to-apples comparison because Audessey does a lot more than merely set levels. That said, I've been witness to two instances where, after running the auto setup, everyone preferred the sound of the manual setup.

If you like to experiment and learn, it'll be worth all the time invested to set everything up manually, then let Audessey do its thing and see which you prefer.

It's my opinion that things like Audessey are for novices and those who don't know (or want to learn) how to set up their gear.
 

Randy

Well-Known Member
Famous
Or, do what I did and let Audessey run and then go in and double check the settings. Then you can make adjustments and fine tune to your liking.
 

Rope

Well-Known Member
Famous
Randy said:
Or, do what I did and let Audessey run and then go in and double check the settings. Then you can make adjustments and fine tune to your liking.

That's excellent advice, but only if you can actually see the settings that have been affected and by how much. The Audyssey setup offered by Onkyo does not allow the user to look at or adjust the settings it has made, it's either all, or none. I run Audyssey to get the SPL's close, disengage Audyssey and get out the rat shack meter, then using full range pink noise, make my adjustments.

The 2005 vintage Yamaha RX-V2500, on the other hand, would let me access the changes it had made using it auto setup program (YPAO) and adjust them as I seen fit.

Rope
 

Yesfan70

I'm famous now bitches! vvvvv
Famous
No offense guys, but why even use Audessy if you're going back to fine tune and/or double check the settings? That just seems like a waste of time to me.
 

Flint

Dog Faced Pony Soldier
Superstar
Audessey also sets EQ's for each output which can only be done manually to the extent by having a high quality RTA setup. Audessey can also take into account multiple measurement locations, whic is difficult with a common RTA setup unless the user is an expert in acoustics.

Personally, I have never heard an Audessey tuned system which could touch the sound of a well tuned manually adjusted system, but if the user is a novice, then Audessey is often (not always) better than nothing.
 

Rope

Well-Known Member
Famous
Yesfan70 said:
No offense guys, but why even use Audessy if you're going back to fine tune and/or double check the settings? That just seems like a waste of time to me.

Damnit, I'm offended, and I'll possibly wake up tomorrow morning with leprosy. :angry-screaming:

Rope :mrgreen:
 

Botch

I.Y.A.A.Y.A.S!
Superstar
Rope said:
Yesfan70 said:
No offense guys, but why even use Audessy if you're going back to fine tune and/or double check the settings? That just seems like a waste of time to me.

Damnit, I'm offended, and I'll possibly wake up tomorrow morning with leprosy. :angry-screaming:

Rope :mrgreen:
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
 

nelmr

Active Member
Flint said:
Audessey also sets EQ's for each output which can only be done manually to the extent by having a high quality RTA setup. Audessey can also take into account multiple measurement locations, whic is difficult with a common RTA setup unless the user is an expert in acoustics.

Personally, I have never heard an Audessey tuned system which could touch the sound of a well tuned manually adjusted system, but if the user is a novice, then Audessey is often (not always) better than nothing.

I think I'll at least try it and see how it sounds. What is interesting what I read at http://batpigworld.com/fadq.html#general:

  • The intent of Audyssey MultEQ system is to calibrate your system to a specified "reference" EQ curve (called the "Audyssey" curve in Denons), which is flat through the bass and mids and then gradually rolls off the highs. It is intended to be a "set it and forget it" solution that, when combined with Dynamic EQ, will give you the "reference" tonal balance that was intended by the mixing engineer regardless of what the volume setting is.

I thought being flat thru the bass and mids and gradually rolling of the highs is the response to shoot for in a room. So the typical Audyssey setup doesn't live up to it's hype/goal in this regard?
 

yromj

Well-Known Member
nelmr said:
...I thought being flat thru the bass and mids and gradually rolling of the highs is the response to shoot for in a room. So the typical Audyssey setup doesn't live up to it's hype/goal in this regard?

The one time I played around w/ Audyssey, manual EQ, and TrueRTA, I was able to do much better than the Audyssey did. It was on Snowman's system and I think I have the curves. I'll look and see if I can post the results.

John
 

Flint

Dog Faced Pony Soldier
Superstar
In general, EQ causes a change in the sound which most people can recognize. I once did a test where I used two EQs to test the impact of their sound. I put two EQs in series and used one to alter the signal response and the second with an inverse curve to restore the original sound. When compared to a second signal chain using two EQs set completely flat, every listener could clearly hear a difference.

So, while EQ can assist with major acoustic or speaker issues, it also creates an alteration of the sound which not applying any EQ does not create. So, EQ should always be used sparingly, or not at all.
 

nelmr

Active Member
yromj said:
The one time I played around w/ Audyssey, manual EQ, and TrueRTA, I was able to do much better than the Audyssey did. It was on Snowman's system and I think I have the curves. I'll look and see if I can post the results.

John

Well in my case all I have is an SPL meter. How much would I need to spend to get TrueRTA working on my laptop (which version, which mic [can I use the audessy mic?], and if I remember right, you need an external sound card for a laptop, not the built in one?)

This is in essence why I'm curious about manual setup with just a SPL meter vs. Audessay (and checking/tweaking with the SPL meter).
 

nelmr

Active Member
Flint said:
In general, EQ causes a change in the sound which most people can recognize. I once did a test where I used two EQs to test the impact of their sound. I put two EQs in series and used one to alter the signal response and the second with an inverse curve to restore the original sound. When compared to a second signal chain using two EQs set completely flat, every listener could clearly hear a difference.

So, while EQ can assist with major acoustic or speaker issues, it also creates an alteration of the sound which not applying any EQ does not create. So, EQ should always be used sparingly, or not at all.

So you are saying that you used two EQs to produce a flat response and compared to not using EQ at all, there still is a sonic difference? I didn't know that. Thanks for the feedback.

By the way, I still have my OC 703 from several years ago. I still need to build those panels as that would probably be better than EQ stuff. It's the wood construction that has been putting me off for the longest time.
 

soundhound

Well-Known Member
Flint said:
In general, EQ causes a change in the sound which most people can recognize. I once did a test where I used two EQs to test the impact of their sound. I put two EQs in series and used one to alter the signal response and the second with an inverse curve to restore the original sound. When compared to a second signal chain using two EQs set completely flat, every listener could clearly hear a difference.

That's due to phase shifts. Although it is possible to make a digital EQ or filter which does not alter phase, its difficult to do, so most manufacturers just accept the phase shift. Its impossible to create an analog EQ or filter which does not alter phase (at least one which could be sold for a reasonable price).
 

yromj

Well-Known Member
nelmr said:
Well in my case all I have is an SPL meter. How much would I need to spend to get TrueRTA working on my laptop (which version, which mic [can I use the audessy mic?], and if I remember right, you need an external sound card for a laptop, not the built in one?)

This is in essence why I'm curious about manual setup with just a SPL meter vs. Audessay (and checking/tweaking with the SPL meter).

TrueRTA's best version is $100. The MobilePre is somewhere around that, I think (I honestly can't remember).

The question is: Do you want to do full a fledged frequency analysis or just set levels? IMHO, you could use the sound meter and a tape measure to set the levels and everything else in the receiver (besides and EQ) and put the $200 towards first reflection point treatments, etc. and gain more than buying TrueRTA. If you already have some acoustic treatments and/or love to tinker (which I think you do) then TrueRTA can be a lot of fun (mixed with moments of shear :angry-cussingblack: :eek:bscene-birdiedoublered: because it can also be a PITA to get to work sometimes).

John
 

Flint

Dog Faced Pony Soldier
Superstar
I've seen ads for a new Measurement Mic from Parts Express with a built in USB port. If you have a notebook PC to use for TrueRTA, this new mic looks likw and excellent option.
 

PaulyT

Behind the Curtain
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Superstar
Yeah, the MobilePre is a decent device, but I am quite fed up with its software issues, it's never been terribly reliable for me. There are a lot of other choices out there for similar prices... there may be better options for someone starting from scratch.

:text-link:

I haven't tried any of these, but there are a lot of other options.

Flint, are you talking about the Dayton OmniMic system? Looks very cool. Pricey ($300), though really not much different from the combo of separate mic, preamp, software. But most interestingly, looks like it's capable of a lot more than just RTA - like RT60, THD, SPL, phase, impulse response, etc.
 

Orbison

Well-Known Member
I totally agree, Pauly. After reading dozens of enthusiastic posts over a period of several months about the Mobile Pre & TrueRTA use by S&V members I finally bought them. Followed the instructions that came with the products and the writeups that S&V members posted, only to run into all kinds of problems. Inconsistent results which didn't remotely resemble what I was hearing or what my other spectrum analyzer showed. Finally I decided that it was a totally worthless, undependable test setup and a complete waste of money.
 

Rope

Well-Known Member
Famous
XTZ Room Analyzer






Rope
 

Towen7

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Moderator
You've mentioned this XTZ before. Have you used it? TrueRTA is supposed to be easy to use but it's a lot more capable than I have the ability to use.
 
Top