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

[Chromatischism]

am not disputing anything you say in this regard. I was disputing or, rather, analyzing the idea of whether the two outputs are independently calibrated.

I don't think anyone was claiming they were independently equalized. When we say independent, we mean it's more than just a y-splitter behind the RCA jacks like most AVRs.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I don't think anyone was claiming they were independently equalized. When we say independent, we mean it's more than just a y-splitter behind the RCA jacks like most AVRs.

OK. Now we are clear.

 

[Soundmixer]

Logically speaking that is the right way to do it because the content dictates that it is just one channel. That's why in my opinion people should not use the term 5.2.4, 7.2.4 etc., some people may have 4 subs, but it should still be X.1.Y, not X.4.Y

BINGO!!!!!!!

 

[krabapple]

Not based against what Dirac charges. $200 for Live to Full, and another $500 for the DLBC bass app.

Most AVR's come with Dirac Live, the downscaled version. If you want the Full app, that will cost you another $200 for the upgrade. Then if you want the DLBM bass management app, that will cost you another $500. As it stands most D-M AVRs come with Audyssey and the Editor update is only another $20.

Currently according to Dirac , for consumers there is just 'Dirac Live' which itself has three tiers of correction, Ready, Limited, and Full:

• Dirac Live Room Correction tiers​

  
  Dirac Live adds value to any sound system, be it an entry-level soundbar, a high-end home theater system, or a professional recording studio. To offer our business partners flexibility for licensing Dirac Live, we’ve developed three tiers.
  
  — Ready: The system is prepared for Dirac Live Room Correction. Just purchase an end-user license to activate it.
  — Limited bandwidth: The system can perform room correction up to 500 Hz, and the target curve can be tailored within this range. This correction is sufficient to deal with the bass and voice areas but not the entire audible spectrum. Upgrade Limited bandwidth to full bandwidth.
  — Full bandwidth: This is the top tier of the room correction feature. It allows the system to be corrected across the entire frequency range while giving you full control of the target curve.
  
  You can choose between the stereo and the multi-channel version if you purchase a Dirac Live Room Correction Suite license that runs on your PC.

Which tier is included (i.e., without extra cost) in which current Onkyo and Pioneer AVRs?

 

[Sal1950]

Which tier is included (i.e., without extra cost) in which current Onkyo and Pioneer AVRs?

Seems everywhere you look you get different answers.
For a NAD 758 V3 here's their deal.

NAD T 758 V3 – Dirac

www.dirac.com

"Your NAD 758 V3 model comes with Dirac Room Correction Limited Bandwidth installed, giving you the ability to address the most common acoustic problems your listening room might have, such as muddy or booming bass. However, to truly enjoy the full quality of your new receiver, we strongly recommend that you invest in the Dirac Live Room Correction Full Bandwidth."

Upgrading to Full on this receiver will cost you another $100.
If this unit has the processing power to handle DLBM, that upgrade would be an additional $500.
I believe Dirac cuts a proprietary deal with each manufacturer for each individual product they make.

 

[Sal1950]

I don't think anyone was claiming they were independently equalized. When we say independent, we mean it's more than just a y-splitter behind the RCA jacks like most AVRs.

OK. Now we are clear.

Picky picky picky. LOL

Seems everywhere you look you get different answers.
For a NAD 758 V3 here's their deal.

Please let's keep this thread focused on the new NG Audyssey.
There's plenty of Dirac threads here already.

Personally I took a long look at the NG demo software and as it sets, it offers little more over the Editor app run on a Android emulator software, I use Bluestacks on my Windoz 10 partition. If there is the equivalent for Mac's, that might be their answer.
I'll have to wait and see if there's any value in a future expanded version of NG that will still be usable on my older AV7703. In any case I'm very pleased with the power I have using Editor. I just upgrade my overhead Atmos/Auro speakers to SVS Prime Elevations and after listening to a bunch of Atmos/Auro encoded Music recordings the subjective results are excellent. I may still try a different overhead location or two before pulling out the Umik and REW for final tweaking.

 

[Sancus]

Logically speaking that is the right way to do it because the content dictates that it is just one channel.

Logically speaking it's the easy way to do it but not the optimal. Yes, you want the subs, playing the same signal, to *sum* to a flat response at as many listening positions as possible. It doesn't follow that the best way to achieve that is to apply the same EQ filters to every subwoofer simultaneously. That's what Audyssey does.

What you want to do is treat "flat response at MLP" and "minimum deviation for all other listening positions" as targets, and then check every possible EQ filter, delay, phase, and gain setting to see which combination produces the best results given your targets. That's what Multi-Sub Optimizer does, and it's also probably the sort of thing DLBC does. This may result in similar EQ settings for each sub in some rooms, but not all, so there's no guarantee Audyssey reaches the optimal solution.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of things like MSO/DLBC. They are trying to reach the same goal Audyssey is, just in a much more effective/complex way. People want to use them because they produce demonstrably superior results in many cases, not a question of methodology or ideology arguments. If you try 'em and they don't work for you, obviously you shouldn't use them.

 

[Chromatischism]

Logically speaking it's the easy way to do it but not the optimal. Yes, you want the subs, playing the same signal, to *sum* to a flat response at as many listening positions as possible. It doesn't follow that the best way to achieve that is to apply the same EQ filters to every subwoofer simultaneously.

I think it does because the subs are combined acoustically. You basically have one source of bass. It doesn't make sense to think about them as two sources – unless they are spread really far apart.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of things like MSO/DLBC. They are trying to reach the same goal Audyssey is, just in a much more effective/complex way. People want to use them because they produce demonstrably superior results in many cases, not a question of methodology or ideology arguments. If you try 'em and they don't work for you, obviously you shouldn't use them.

Your results don't look typical to me, but if you have an issue like that, obviously more tools and time will need to be deployed. Maybe it is something the Audyssey team can think about for the future.

 

[Sancus]

I think it does because the subs are combined acoustically. You basically have one source of bass. It doesn't make sense to think about them as two sources – unless they are spread really far apart.

If your subs aren't somewhat acoustically independent, eg they are triggering different modes, then they're misplaced to begin with. I mean, either you believe the research, or you don't. Even though I think Geddes doesn't provide detailed enough instructions to use his exact approach effectively, his research on the nature of modes and obtaining a smooth response is valuable and correct, so I'll just quote(pg3):

"Basically if I have one source has a variance, V, of the frequency response (the variation of the response from the average or smooth response) of say 6 dBs, that by adding a second source we will reduce this variance by half to 3 dB. Adding a third source reduces this to 2 dB, etc. Basically the variance goes as V/N where N is the number of “independent” sources. A key requirement here is “independent”. If the added sources are close to the first source then they are not independent. And two sources in opposite corners or symmetrical locations are not as independent as two sources placed non-symmetrical locations. It is impossible to have two sources that are completely independent at LFs in a small room, so the effect is never as good as the formula suggest."

Your results don't look typical to me, but if you have an issue like that, obviously more tools and time will need to be deployed. Maybe it is something the Audyssey team can think about for the future.

People are free to use what they want. But IMO there wouldn't have been so much work put into the software if it didn't produce better results, and there's plenty of people finding better results on AVSForum and elsewhere. Not to mention Dirac themselves who have extensively researched it. I would be pretty surprised if Trinnov and others don't use similarly sophisticated approaches, though I don't know as much about their proprietary algorithms.

 

[Dj7675]

I would be pretty surprised if Trinnov and others don't use similarly sophisticated approaches, though I don't know as much about their proprietary algorithms.

Surprisingly I don’t think Trinnov has any multi sub optimization like MSO or DLBC. I wouldn’t be surprised at some point.

 

[Chromatischism]

"Basically if I have one source has a variance, V, of the frequency response (the variation of the response from the average or smooth response) of say 6 dBs, that by adding a second source we will reduce this variance by half to 3 dB. Adding a third source reduces this to 2 dB, etc. Basically the variance goes as V/N where N is the number of “independent” sources. A key requirement here is “independent”. If the added sources are close to the first source then they are not independent. And two sources in opposite corners or symmetrical locations are not as independent as two sources placed non-symmetrical locations. It is impossible to have two sources that are completely independent at LFs in a small room, so the effect is never as good as the formula suggest."

Interesting way of thinking about it, mathmatically.

I tend to have them symmetrically placed as I like the front/back approach to cancel the width modes across my seats, so that would mean they are working as one in certain frequency ranges as described, but not in others. The last sentence is key though: "It is impossible to have two sources that are completely independent at LFs in a small room". This gets to my comment about how it depends on how far your spacing is (and the size of the room) because acoustic coupling is dependent on distance and frequency. My go-to reference for the readers out there: http://arqen.com/acoustics-101/speaker-placement-boundary-interference/. It deals with SBIR but all the physics are the same with 1/4 and 1/2 wavelength interactions.

 

[truwarrior22]

Agreed, but the App does offer one flexibility that MultEQ X doesn't. That is, to EQ each channel separately, example: front left and front right independently, if you use Ratbuddyssey. The Mult EQ X cannot do that, but I assume they can add the feature via an update if they want. For now they said in the video (don't recall which one) that the front left and right channel should be EQ'ed as one, but I think they probably said that because they can't do it separately at the moment.

Seems like a major difference. Maybe this is why some report increased imaging, etc. with Mutlieq-X. Otherwise don’t have much of a explanation…

 

[peng]

Logically speaking it's the easy way to do it but not the optimal. Yes, you want the subs, playing the same signal, to *sum* to a flat response at as many listening positions as possible. It doesn't follow that the best way to achieve that is to apply the same EQ filters to every subwoofer simultaneously. That's what Audyssey does.

What you want to do is treat "flat response at MLP" and "minimum deviation for all other listening positions" as targets, and then check every possible EQ filter, delay, phase, and gain setting to see which combination produces the best results given your targets. That's what Multi-Sub Optimizer does, and it's also probably the sort of thing DLBC does. This may result in similar EQ settings for each sub in some rooms, but not all, so there's no guarantee Audyssey reaches the optimal solution.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of things like MSO/DLBC. They are trying to reach the same goal Audyssey is, just in a much more effective/complex way. People want to use them because they produce demonstrably superior results in many cases, not a question of methodology or ideology arguments. If you try 'em and they don't work for you, obviously you shouldn't use them.

First of all, I was thinking about two subs, or even two groups of two subs, and that the subs in each group are approx. equidistance to the mlps. Secondly, I think to debate this thing will take a lot of work and I don't think this is the forum for it so I will just agree to disagree with you.

 

[peng]

Surprisingly I don’t think Trinnov has any multi sub optimization like MSO or DLBC. I wouldn’t be surprised at some point.

Haha I am not surprised, and I think Trinnov may be smarter than others in that they know people are over thinking, that it wouldn't make noticeable difference either way let known which way is audibly better. I have yet to see any DBT on comparing REQ systems, not saying that we need any.

 

[Dj7675]

Haha I am not surprised, and I think Trinnov may be smarter than others in that they know people are over thinking, that it wouldn't make noticeable difference either way let known which way is audibly better. I have yet to see any DBT on comparing REQ systems, not saying that we need any.

To that point... I wish I would have kept my x8500 so I could have set it up with Audyssey and the Storm MKII with Dirac DLBC and taken measurements and done some testing (even if not able to do it perfectly) to hear and see the differences. All I can go by is less than ideal, unreliable impressions... it just sounds much better to me... unprovable, subjective, and biased opinion
Edit: Maybe if/when this virus gets more behind us, it would be fun to do some blind testing of eq systems calibrated to the same target... it would be very hard but very interesting nonetheless...

 

[dlaloum]

Seems everywhere you look you get different answers.
For a NAD 758 V3 here's their deal.

NAD T 758 V3 – Dirac

www.dirac.com

"Your NAD 758 V3 model comes with Dirac Room Correction Limited Bandwidth installed, giving you the ability to address the most common acoustic problems your listening room might have, such as muddy or booming bass. However, to truly enjoy the full quality of your new receiver, we strongly recommend that you invest in the Dirac Live Room Correction Full Bandwidth."

Upgrading to Full on this receiver will cost you another $100.
If this unit has the processing power to handle DLBM, that upgrade would be an additional $500.
I believe Dirac cuts a proprietary deal with each manufacturer for each individual product they make.

The top two models of the Onkyo / Integra / Pioneer stables all have Dirac Live - full version, no extra costs, but keep in mind that REQ processing is limited to 48KHz - and that Audio streams at over that rate get downconverted.

Onkyo TX-NR7100, TX-RZ50
Integra DRX 3.4, DRX 5.4
Pioneer LX-305, LX-505

It is unknown whether these have the processing power to handle the DIrac Bass Management, or other Dirac extensions - the Sub outputs are not seperate - so effectively single sub.

The company has confirmed they are planning new Flagship AVR's above these to be announced this year (RZ70, R90, DRX7.4/9.4, LX705/LX905) - the features of which are completely unknown.... people are expecting seperate sub outs, and additional DIRAC capabilities... but it is anyones guess.

 

[Sal1950]

It is unknown whether these have the processing power to handle the DIrac Bass Management, or other Dirac extensions - the Sub outputs are not seperate - so effectively single sub.

Thats a shame but I guess at the lower price levels like the Integra DRX 3.4, dual or more sub systems are fairly rare. Also maybe low processing power is part of the issue.

 

[jhaider]

Logically speaking that is the right way to do it because the content dictates that it is just one channel.

Why? The final signal going to the subs is mono, but that does not preclude individual equalization any more than it precludes individual levels or delays.

That's why in my opinion people should not use the term 5.2.4, 7.2.4 etc., some people may have 4 subs, but it should still be X.1.Y, not X.4.Y.

Agree here.

 

[jhaider]

I have yet to see any DBT on comparing REQ systems, not saying that we need any.

Don’t forget the granddaddy, JBL Sound Field Management and it’s precursor BassQ unit. I also think with a few minor updates (balanced I/O, some target curve drawing) a BassQ would sell much better today than when it was released. Audio buyers are a great deal more sophisticated now.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Don’t forget the granddaddy, JBL Sound Field Management and it’s precursor BassQ unit. I also think with a few minor updates (balanced I/O, some target curve drawing) a BassQ would sell much better today than when it was released. Audio buyers are a great deal more sophisticated now.

I agree about this. I am using a BassQ at this time and a modern version (and/or a purely software version of SFM) would be appreciated.