Question about Speakers and Audyssey EQ

[BurtonSnol3o]

With all this work, time and money going into speakers that have a flat frequency plot, how much does using something like Audyssey really effect the speakers? Would it be better to use some higher quality drivers with a sub-par crossover and let Audyssey flatten it out for you? I knew there are some purists here using different amps and do not have that luxury of Audyssey, but for a HT application where Audyssey will be used, what would you all say about letting a receiver flatten response instead of some complicated crossover schematic?

[brucemck2]

I've used Audyssey in three rooms, and it works great. I recently had a Balanced Pro unit upgraded by Reference Audio Mods, and it's really very, very, nice. (Stock it's a basic A/D and D/A with a great PEQ in between, modded it's a great A/D and D/A with a great PEQ in between.)

However, it's NOT a replacement for a great crossover.

A great crossover makes the speaker perform as intended, with a nice frequency response and phase that stays in phase, etc.

Audyssey makes that work as intended in your particular room, particularly peaks/nulls in the lower frequencies (all room, not crossover, dependent) and the overall "tilt" or "balance" over a broad range of frequencies.

Neither one really addresses the problems/issues addressed by the other.

[Paul Spencer]

I'm not a huge fan of automatic EQ systems like Audyessy. I much prefer manual control and my concern is seeing the right things being corrected. As I see it, the ideal setup is like this ...

1. First, treat the room, especially with as much bass absorption as you can get
2. Set up the room with carefully placed speakers, multi subs if needed
3. EQ the peaks down
4. Mains should be designed for a flat and smooth response above 200 Hz aiming for controlled directivity over a 60 degree window - EQ should only be applied based on that window and with suitable gating

I don't actually know how it does it's thing, but from what I hear it seems to use farfield ungated measurements. The problem with these systems is that there are two conflicting requirements. They must be easy enough to use so that a wide range of consumers will use them. They must also meet certain technical standards, which would make it more difficult to use. I don't see an easy solution.

For users that are advanced enough (or patient enough to learn new tricks), you can do the job manually and spend a great deal less. In fact, I'd argue that if you need more EQ ability than you can get with a unit like MiniDSP, then you are probably either trying to correct the wrong things, or trying to over-use EQ.

I currently use 3 large bass traps and DCX as a crossover and EQ solution. Just a couple of bands of PEQ tames a few peaks that remain. My experience has been that bass traps improve the sound quality of the bass more than EQ. I've written about it on the blog.

[sfdoddsy]

I'm a big fan of room EQ, and whilst I have had problems with Audyssey's implementation in the past, it is currently working well for me.

However, I do not think it is a magic bullet for a bad crossover. Audyssey's best use (IMHO) is as a final tweak rather a fix for gross imbalances.

In my system I've spent a lot of time getting the crossovers and speaker EQ right.

Then I corrected the largest room issues in the bass via measuring and the PEQ in my DCX.

Then I ran Audyssey.

After I ran it, I tweaked a few things again.

Like most of us here, I'm unusual in that I can measure and then tweak.

For the average punter, Audyssey or its ilk will make a big difference. For us, less so, but still useful.

[madmac]

@ Paul....."3. EQ the peaks down" ........couldn't agree more !! Thats's paramount in regards to bass management.