Question abot Audyssey(sp?) and MCACC

[Mighty Favog]

So when either of these programs/tests are run from a receiver or similar piece of gear, does the result end in the EQ set to produce a flat EQ output setting?

I’ve never had this done to my living room system and have always done it by ear. But then I’ve run the MCACC program from my Pioneer receivers and the resulting sound is, in my mind, more natural sounding. Given this I can only imagine what the big system would sound like.

Short of buying a Mac MEN220 for a few thousand $$$I was looking into this setup and maybe a small cheap-ish laptop (wonder if it would run on a Windows Surface RT).

http://www.virtins.com/VT-RTA-168.shtml

Edited December 1, 2013 by Mighty Favog

[willland]

I bought an NAD T175HD preamp/processor a little less than two years ago. I set up the speakers by ear and "enjoyed" it that way for over a year. After much "peer pressure" here on the forum, I decided to run the Audyssey MultEQ XT auto setup and the results were just short of spectacular. Almost a night and day difference. The soundstage grew deep and wide and I felt like I was completely enveloped by sound. Very natural sounding with music, be it in stereo mode or NAD's "Enhanced Stereo"(all channel stereo). I really did not expect to notice a huge difference with HT, but again, was very pleasantly surprised.

Running multiple subs can almost always present a challenge and it was difficult(boominess, cancellations) to get it right before using Audyssey. After Audyssey, the boominess was virtually eliminated and I could not detect any cancellation issues. I am sure if my NAD had Audyssey MultEQ XT32 SubEQ feature the results would be even better.

Bill

Edited December 3, 2013 by willland

[ClaudeJ1]

I bought an NAD T175HD preamp/processor a little less than a year ago. I setup the speakers by ear and "enjoyed" it that way for over a year. After much "peer pressure" here on the forum, I decided to run the Audyssey MultEQ XT auto setup and the results were just short of spectacular. Almost a night and day difference. The soundstage grew deep and wide and I felt like I was completely enveloped by sound. Very natural sounding with music, be it in stereo mode or NAD's "Enhanced Stereo"(all channel stereo). I really did not expect to notice a huge difference with HT, but again, was very pleasantly surprised.

Running multiple subs can almost always present a challenge and it was difficult(boominess, cancellations) to get it right before using Audyssey. After Audyssey, the boominess was virtually eliminated and I could not detect any cancellation issues. I am sure if my NAD had Audyssey MultEQ XT32 SubEQ feature the results would be even better.

Bill

I have had great result with Audyssey Multi and will soon have Multi XT on a new Onkyo receiver by next week. I found the best trick is to put the mic about 6 inches in front of where your face would go in the sweet spot and about 1 foot on either side of that. I limit to 3 readings only and this has worked from small to huge rooms equally well. People who take read too many mike positions often end up compromising the sweet spot too much.

[Scrappydue]

Claude you are short changing your self big time. Run all 8 when you can. When you compromise is if you run them all over the place. I run all eight within a few feet of the sweet spot. There are recommendation charts for it. I start with 1 in my spot then 2 and 3 on each side then I movie it up about 9 inches and do 4,5,6 with 4 in the middle then about a foot over on each side do 5, and 6. Then go just a hair behind my spot and do 7 and 8 on each side.

[Scrappydue]

Something like this. I can tell a difference for sure if I cut it at 3 spots vs runnin the full setup

[garyrc]

I have been living with Audyssey MultiEQ XT for about a year, with Klipschorns, a Belle Klipsch center, and Heresy II surrounds. Yes it tries to provide a flat response in the room and, from listener position, it does a pretty good job. The even newer (and more expensive) version, called something like Audyssey MultiEQ X32, is considered to be even better by some, but not all.

With my speakers, in my room, the midrange, treble, clarity and imaging are much better, but the result doesn't seem to have enough bass. A Room EQ Wizard (free online) graph actually shows some bass attenuation. This is a common complaint, with many explanations, but one is that the bass part of the test "bings" ("pings?") vibrate the floor slightly, and the vibration travels up to the microphone, making Audyssey "think" there is more bass there than there actually is in the air, so Audyssey turns it down. Also, unolug your refrigerator, and listen for passing trucks, and redo Audyssey if any alien bass source intrudes. As to the rest of the spectrum, people have suggested gags for the rest of the family. Another reason Audyssey can sound light on the bass, is that what IS flat may not SOUND flat. Many people like a curve that is about 8 to 10 dB high on the bass end, and declining as it moves toward the treble. I used the tone controls to boost the bass about 6 dB and it really helps. By the way, you won't be able to use the equalizer function (virtual sliders) because they will just turn Audyssey off. True tone controls are useable, though.

All in all, Audyssey improved my sound quite a bit.

Google ASK AUDYSSEY.

[CECAA850]

So when either of these programs/tests are run from a receiver or similar piece of gear, does the result end in the EQ set to produce a flat EQ output setting?

Bear in mind that it isn't just EQ. There are adjustments in the time domain as well. I believe thet's where the real magic comes from.

[Mighty Favog]

I understand what you're saying. All my systems are 2-channel though. So would the time delay, etc. only apply to multi-channel systems? My sweet spot is near exact in equidistance from both speakers, but have different barriers near each of them.

[garyrc]

I understand what you're saying. All my systems are 2-channel though. So would the time delay, etc. only apply to multi-channel systems? My sweet spot is near exact in equidistance from both speakers, but have different barriers near each of them.

To the degree they work, the corrections in the time domain would also be valuable in two channel. I believe, to perhaps oversimplify, the time domain adjustments deal with the sound at certain frequences persisting longer in any given particular room than the sound at other frequencies. It would have little or nothing to do with equidistance from speakers or the number of channels involved. ASK AUDYSSEY explains this. I had to read it twice, and still am not sure .... All I know is that Audyssey improves the sound of my system. I can toggle back and forth between Audyssey in and Audyssey out, and the difference is not subtle.

[CECAA850]

I understand what you're saying. All my systems are 2-channel though. So would the time delay, etc. only apply to multi-channel systems? My sweet spot is near exact in equidistance from both speakers, but have different barriers near each of them.

It's ROOM correction, so yes, I would certainly think you'd benefit. The programming is designed to take the negative effects of your room out of the listening experience. It's not a substitute for room treatments but when used with room treatments really makes a difference in what you hear,

[philly0116]

I have Audyssey as well. I tried to use it once but I kept getting an error. I assumed that was because I only had 5.1 hooked up and the receiver is 7.1, I don't know that's why I was getting the error, I'm just assuming. Now however, I am bi-amping the front speakers so maybe I will give it another go.

[McMiRA]

Audyssy on the marantz gives you a few options of which curve you want. After I run mine I always set the fronts to audyssey flat.

[philly0116]

This thread made me finally set up my Onkyo with the Audyssey and magic ensued. I have a new found respect for this middle of the road receiver.