Audyssey MultEQ-X Pro Calibration Results for Marantz AV 10 Processor

[@gbye007]

This is absolutely the most comprehensive and professional presentaion of a MultEQ-X calibration on the web. Thank you so much for this. I've used MultEQ-X with similar good rewsults in room, and double checked with a UMIK-1 and REW to confirm. I thtink with the power of the target curves and the auto levelling switch, Audyssey gets much more satisfying results than previously; so much so that I can ditch plans to buy a Dirac licence.

[@TheReverendSlim]

A few esoteric notes: 1. During the sub level adjustment, I always start with it closer to 78dB than 75 so that it drives the trims down slightly. This is because if you implement any kind of curve in the target curve design that elevates bass, you're feeding more signal through the sub out. Starting a bit louder pushes the initial trim down enough to avoid any clipping issues if you're doing anything crazy like a Harman-style curve. This is especially true if you're going to use any Headroom Expansion (which you probably shouldn't), since that effectively uses trim boosts to bypass Audyssey's max 9dB of boost. 2. Audyssey's method of translating IIR-based filters like PEQ to their FIR paradigm can sometimes not give you the results they've predicted you will get. With the 1.6 release, it seems like doing this as a target curve instead ends up giving closer post-cal results to what you would expect. So if you import EQ filters from REW, you may get results that don't quite line up to the change you'd expect from those filters... whereas if you import a whole target curve, it tracks pretty well. 3. Something I find works really well is doing the first three positions as center, left ear, and right ear and then on the calibration settings screen, select all three of those positions as your trim source. This averages the three and ends up giving a better result when doing post-cal checks with a SPL meter to confirm level-matching. 4. The problem with auto-leveling is that it is based on response at 1kHz, so if you do a tilt to all channels, so long as it's centered at 1kHz as it does by default, you can leave auto-leveling on for the speakers but have to remove it for the sub so that they line up post-cal. If none of your filters or target curve affects 1kHz, it shouldn't matter if you use auto-leveling on the speakers or not because it's not affecting the region where they level match. 5. Audyssey doesn't do any compensation for height speakers being closer to on-axis with the mic capsule, which can cause about a 1-2dB differential on the very high end. It's basically the difference between a 90 degree mic cal and a 45 degree mic cal, so by default, Audyssey will cut highs on height channels a bit more than it should. I've had good results leaving heights a bit flatter if I'm rolling off the ear-level speakers because it gives a better match - especially if doing top front/rear. Front/rear heights won't get as much of a deviation. If you compare the 90 degree and 45 degree cal files for a calibrated mic, you can calculate a filter you can plug in for the heights that essentially eliminates that measurement issue. 6. Enable Precise Trims uses Audyssey's filters to shift the entire curve up/down a bit more accurately than the 0.5dB granularity we have available in the trim controls. So if the actual level matching falls in between 0.5 and 1.0, it will use the more precise filtering to shift it as needed. Would we ever hear that small of a difference in level? Eh... but there's no reason NOT to use Enable Precise Trims since it will be a bit more accurate. 7. A big advantage of MultEQ-X over the in-AVR or phone app version is the correction of timing issues. D&M receivers were using a coarse 1ms = 1ft. The software corrects this so that channel timings are closer to what they actually should be for the actual speed of sound, which you end up seeing as a mismatch in distances measured in MultEQ-X vs. distances applied in the AVR. In Imperial, this will be distance x 0.889 and in metric, 0.875. This is one of the things that people hear as an improvement with MultEQ-X even if not doing any in-depth EQ on your own, but something that non-MQX users can correct themselves using the aforementioned math and it will improve cross-channel imaging and transition to the subs.

[@ts6640]

I would absolutely uncheck ‘maintain relative trims’ in the settings menu unless the user is listening with Audyssey off (Note: problems can occur (with this selection unchecked) if the user is listening with Audyssey “OFF”; however I suspect such is not the norm)

[@TheReverendSlim]

@@ts6640 Agreed, but Maintain Relative Trims only comes into play when you're using Headroom Expansion. If you're just using HE, then it will raise the trims of individual speakers as needed to provide extra boost. If you turn on MRT, it will boost ALL channels by that amount so they remain level-matched with Audyssey off, then use the filtering to bring the channels that didn't need more boost back down to their previous levels. But generally, most people shouldn't be using either. Headroom Expansion, if used at all, should be used very conservatively and you have to keep in mind that the more you use it, the lower the max master volume could be on your AVR (because raised trims reduce the max level, though that's usually over reference anyway).

[@kyle.fredrickson]

Can you elaborate more on #2? In rew I was trying to flatten my sub response. I imported the .text file generated by REW into MultEQ-X and then when I reran the sweeps in REW not only did it not at all resemble the predicted curve... it looked nearly identical to the initial sweep before doing anything. Stuck at this point and I really need to get that sub leveld flat

[@JW-ke6qb]

Since getting it ,its been nothing but an game changer!

[@pulDag]

Thank you Gene and Mathew for exhausting review of Audyssey MultiEQ-X pro. Nicely done. Looking forward to explaining bass optimalizing thru REW Wavelets you were talking in the end of video.

[@SwirlingDragonMist]

Marvelous! I so appreciate the care and consideration around the bass management and phase relationships for full range configurations. These are incredibly valuable insights, and it’s so cool that we have access to this info right at our youtube fingertips. And it’s only because you guys sat down to tell us. This is a huge deal! The advances with Dirac and Audessy and Trinnov are all big deals, but ya know you guys dedicating yourselves to your passion and being bold and organized enough to share it with us is really profound. And I hope you guys suspend your humility enough to appreciate how cool it is what you’re doing with this channel. I’m was planning to go Dirac with my next wave of upgrades, because I found an ambisonic microphone with a dirac profile and was thinking I could get double purpose from it as an immersive audio mic and calibration mic. But this has me excited for Audesy especially hearing Matt say it was getting close to storm and Trinnov. Trinnov is probably my favorite technology I’ve come across in the space , while Pioneer’s MCACC is my irrationally endeared underdog favorite. It would be cool to see all the brand name technologies demystified, especially with the latest lineup of onkyo/pioneer/integra models having affordable atmos packaged with both Dirac and MCACC. And of course YPAO from Yamaha will be making a comeback, because that’s what boomerangs do. But it sounds like the wavelet technique you guys mentioned is probably more compelling than the dusty marketing of now decades old proprietary room correction. It’s good to roll with one’s passion and excitement. The feature of being able to do Dirac from a laptop computer and forgo the cable extensions really sells me on it. Especially in the context of the open source community of microphone profiles. I suspect ambisonic streaming audio is still a few years away, but it might be fun to play with or premiere ahead of the curve. Congratulations on the great response curves! And thanks for the great content, it’s extremely valuable.

[@SwirlingDragonMist]

The Dirac calibrated ambisonic mic I mentioned is the ambiMIK-1 which is first order ambisonic. They partnered with miniDSP and Dirac to make a VST plugin, which I assume could be used to calibrate a Dirac enabled receiver. The em64 Eigenmike is also a notable ambisonic microphone, which is much higher resolution in ambisonic terms at 6th order, but it’s pricy and not Dirac compatible as of yet from what I can tell. I don’t know how to check if it does, or know how the complexity of 64 degrees of freedom would interface with Dirac in it’s current form. I think apple has a huge advantage with their airpod pros each having a microphone in the earbuds. You pop those in and instantly get a binaural head related transfer function measurement right at the exact listening position. Only a matter of time before they integrate that into Apple TV and then the receiver can just sit back and relax. Anticipating this some receiver manufacturers could pass some savings on by not even having room calibration software. Just let the source device calibrate with earbud mics.

[@jeremiahchamberlin4499]

I appreciate the detailed information about getting the measurements. I just bought the miniDSP UMIC-1 microphone and downloaded the REW software. I have taken a single set of measurements and I’m just getting started with the software. I used a video from Matthew to guide me, but I’m still having difficulty accessing all the features offered by the package. I love to listen to you guys talking about dialing in a system, but I’m afraid I’m not able to comprehend most of the conversation because I have little knowledge that relates. I bought a new AVR in Prime Day, a Sony STR-AN1000, which come with its own microphone, so, hopefully an automatic calibration will get me close enough for starters. I looked really hard at offerings by both Denon and Onkyo, but went with the Sony for features it offered that I knew I needed. I expect to learn enough about room acoustics and speaker performance that my NEXT AVR purchase will be optimized for my needs. You guys are extremely helpful in getting my head in the game, even if I eventually call in professional help: I’ll better know what questions to ask, and, more important, be able to recognize ‘snake oil’ when it is offered to me.

[@paulgyro]

I humbly request that you indeed do a video on the wavelets in REW

[@nothingtoseehere93]

Minidsp is essential for BEQ. You lose so much low end because movie mixers refuse to allow frequencies under 30hz they just gut it

[@Audioholics]

You can add boost in Audyssey or use dynamic EQ in those cases.

[@TokeBoisen]

​@@shaolin95it's still just EQ'ing to a preference. In absolutely no cases has BEQ been done on the basis of an actual, factual difference between a theater mix and home mix.

[@Fleskepresk]

Very informative! Thanks! One change i really hope for is the ability to limit maximum boost in the same way you can limit max cut. Currently i have to set the EQ limit to 200Hz to prevent the system trying to fill an acoustical dip in the midrange. You mentioned a similar issue at one point, where the system was boosting excessively. How did you resolve that?

[@erod9088]

I've had Audyssey xt32, Anthem Room Correction, Dirac, and Dirac DLBC. Once i got the hang of Dirac, I was hooked. Best sound I've ever achieved audibly, and the REW curves show it as well.

[@TURBO18TMK4]

Thanks for this. Just an FYI, I have the AVP8805 and the MultEQ-X works via purchasing a license

[@audioschipper]

Do you run MultiEqX on AV8805 or on an 8805A?

[@FURognar]

I'm planning to upgrade to a Denon X6700H soon and will probably upgrade to MultEQ-X when I do. Coupled with REW and the Spatial Audio Calibration Toolkit, I'm hoping to dial my system in pretty tight. Gotta start playing with the time alignment to underatand how it and phase interact. Since I started measuring with REW I have noticed that when Audyssey gets a better phase integration setup, the whole system has a much improved soundstage presentation.

[@trito408]

Does anyone know if the old MultEQ Pro kit will work with the MultEQ-X?

[@kewlbug]

I wonder if the DIRAC issue is a sample rate issue. just throwing that out there.

[@GunnyPhillips]

It astounds me something sold as a "set it and forget it" auto-calibration product seems to require such a huge learning curve and ongoing tweaking to get decent results. This is not directed solely at Audyssey as Dirac Live seems to be about the same. One thing I'll give Anthem is their ARC Genesis product comes very close to actually delivering on the promise. Too bad their on-screen UI appears to have been carried over from the 1990's.

[@Tanquen]

At about 20:09, this is exactly what I have to deal with. My subs power off when there is lower bass. There is a delay of 10 minutes before that turn off but they also make a pop when the come on so they will pop off and on all night. Unfortunately, they do not have an always-on setting. To deal with this I set the gain on the subs low and then the AVR has the levels raised 3 or dB for the subs, this keeps them awake. I'm using Audyssey MultEQ-X and wondering how best to do the measuring. Keep them low is what I've always done, letting the AVR add a few dB. It looks like the Audyssey MultEQ-X Adjust Sub Levels page is not seeing the subs with the added AVR dB setting. After running the measurements the Subwoofer SubEQ HT filter seems ok.

[@lovethebeat111]

Also pretty sure the latest Big Denon AV also has the same options on the presets-

[@Audioholics]

IT does

[@nothingtoseehere93]

Regarding minidsp delay: if you have it in the chain while running audy wouldn’t the calibration compensate for minidsp delay?

[@hifihometheater]

But, I was told EQing flat from 200Hz up like that doesn’t sound good….

[@Audioholics]

You want flat up to very high frequencies with a tapering off like our graphs show. You don't want flat below 200hz. You want to eliminate resonances but have a gradual rise in base, again like our curves show.

[@AdryDoic]

even some boost in 200 250 300 hz is very important if you like a full sound ! many don't care about it but effectively its the most important region to get a full bold sound!!

[@akyhne]

43:44 It annoys me, that Denon doesn't disclose how many PEQ filters, my receiver has. If it only has 5 or 10, theres a chance I can't get a muxh better EQ, by purchasing the MultEQ-X software. My receiver is an AVR-X2400H, with MultEQ XT, and not XT32.

[@miikasuominen3845]

I find the dynamic EQ works quite well on movie-material. But on gaming, it totally trashes the back-, high and center speaker levels. For some reason, it raises the levels for those speakers way too high...

[@elmardietl1249]

100% this…

[@PauloPHGTA]

Can I use umik 1 microphone with multieq-x?

[@Sukotto85]

Hi Matthew/Gene, Thanks for the video. Looking forward to the same topic for Dirac. One question related to mic placement, is it important that the mic has direct sight of all speakers during every measured position? Thanks.

[@Muskyfishn84]

with REW, can you import results from a UMIK-1 instead of the Audyssey mic?

[@bojangles_bonjangles8000]

Do you know any pro calibrators located in San Diego, CA? I have a Marantz SR5015 AVR with Audyssey that's running 5.1.2. Rather have someone calibrate it for me, but want "pro" calibration not what I can already do through the Audyssey Multi-EQ App. Any advice?

[@SpiderMan-aa]

I use the audyssey app all the way up to 20k just so i can control the upper slope. Is this ok? I use rew to check the measurements.

[@Tanquen]

How is the main listening position identified in the MultEQ-X application? It's just the first one you do? What if you delete the position or rename it? Seems like there should be a check mark on the Measure page to select one as the main listening position.

[@Audioholics]

First measurement is considered MLP and all the delays and levels are set accordingly.

[@gbye007]

Go to step 6/Calibration Settings in software and select 'Set Auto Trim/Distance Source' button in top left.

[@lovethebeat111]

I dont know if this was mentioned, but the Marantz AV10 has four [4] presets: Speaker A/Speaker B, then Reference-Flat for each: QTY-4. At least thats what I have been doing [-; BM

[@AmitKumar-ow8ck]

License are necessary or not

[@rasherbilbo452]

Trinnov for the win.

[@cafiveohsrockbandremix9254]

The unfortunate part of Trinnov is that very few enthusiasts will ever get to experience their products. If a consumer can get 90-95% of the performance of a Trinnov Altitude using a Marantz Cinema 50 or Denon X4800 or x6700H plus MultEQ-X, then they could use the ~12K they saved to but more subs, or room treatment, or a decent used car.

[@fieldcar]

What? No midrange compensation? lol.

[@isak6626]

I really appreciate that you found the time to talk about this important topic. Your recommendations do differ somewhat from others who have done comprehensive tutorials on Audyssey. I'm very curious what your view is on the method recommended in this video by OCA (kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4uXnGNqqqaZaNE), particularly with regards to manual time alignment and measurement windowing in REW. OCA has a bunch of introductory videos to Audyssey as well, and he has a different view on microphone positioning than the one you present here (see kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4ipqnx6icpknNk).

[@JuanJose-wt5yj]

Hi On the AV10, have you tested the LPF-LFE at 80-90 Hz, as Mr. Grimani says at minute 42-46 of this video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/a3rHlJ98aLKNbqs He and most people do not recommend setting it to 120 Hz On my Onkyo I use the cascade configuration: Small 80 Hz speakers AVR LPF-LFE 80 Hz and the subwoofer cut at 80 Hz. Is it possible that you make a video about the LPF-LFE? In my opinion there is a lot of confusion on the subject. Written with translator Greetings

[@_Chev_Chelios]

What about using your ears to calibrate it to what sounds best to the actual listener. What if my ears don’t care about how flat a line is on a graph?