My quest to conquer the SSP-800 Room EQ

[AV-OCD]

Hello all -

I thought I would start a thread about my dabblings with the EQ function built into the SSP-800. I was going to hire an acoustician to calibrate the EQ for me, but I’ve recently decided to give it a go my self. I’ve been playing with EQs for the past few years, so I’m pretty sure I can put the EQ in the SSP-800 to good use.

Bear with me as I’m a bit rusty at using the audio analyzing software needed to measure the in-room response. I also need to pick up a decent measurement microphone and mic preamp, so it could take a little while to get some real substance in this thread.

I don’t intend this thread to be a tutorial on using the EQ or on taking in-room measurements, though I hope that if this is your first exposure to such things that this thread piques your interest enough to consider trying your hand at EQing as well. Or even better, if you are experienced with taking in-room measurements and setting PEQ filters, maybe I can learn something from you.

To get things started, I toyed with the SSP-800 EQ last night, using just a Radio Shack SPL meter and a CD with some test tones. I just wanted to see if I could affect some change in the SPL reading by adjusting the “G” (gain), “Q” (filter width) and “F” (frequency) settings within the SSP-800.

I assume that most everyone here know what the gain and frequency are, but the “Q” may be unfamiliar. “Q” is the width of the filter. The lower the number the broader the filter. The higher the number, the more narrow the filter.

Below is a table that Tom with Classe was kind enough to provide me on the bandwidth values for the “Q” setting in the SSP-800 EQ.

http://www.mediafire.com/?imhyjmiiw4m

The table is quite self explanatory but, the Q value is the X axis, and the frequency is the Y axis. For instance, applying a Q value of 6 on a 120Hz frequency will have a filter bandwidth of 20Hz, which is +/-10Hz from each side of the 120Hz frequency. So lets say you have a peak in the upper bass with a center point at 120Hz. The peak is 6dB and it spans from 110Hz to 130Hz. You would set the filter for -6dB, with a Q of 6 and a center frequency of 120Hz to cancel the peak.

The tricky part is getting accurate measurements of your in-room response so that you can notch out all of the peaks.

If you want to get started in building your knowledge about measuring the frequency response of your room, I recommend that you check out the “Room EQ Wizard” (REW) audio analyzer software.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/

It’s free and there are a bunch of end-users that hang out on the www.hometheatershack.com forums. Read the help file in REW from start to finish and do a google search for “EQ House Curve”.

Cheers,

- Tim

[Kal Rubinson]

Another option for the measurement/EQ filter calculations is the XTZ Room Analyzer.

Kal

[AV-OCD]

Thanks for the referal Kal. Have you used this software?

I'm a little leary of the accuracy of the mic.

Their specs state:

"Microphone: USB-microphone - Adjusted to flat frequency response between 16Hz-20kHz (± 3dB)"

The margin for error seems a little broad don't ya think?

[Kal Rubinson]

Yes, so it seems but the results seem to match well with what I get from REW with a more tightly-calibrated mic.

Kal

[AV-OCD]

Yes, so it seems but the results seem to match well with what I get from REW with a more tightly-calibrated mic.

Kal

I'm certainly open to trying it out if your think it compares well to REW with a calibrated mic. Speaking of, which mic and preamp do you use with REW?

[Kal Rubinson]

I'm certainly open to trying it out if your think it compares well to REW with a calibrated mic. Speaking of, which mic and preamp do you use with REW?

M-Audio MobilePre and a Superlux ECM-999 (individually calibrated by Ray A. Rayborn). I also use a the calibrated mike that is part of the TEF-25 system.

Kal

[sikoniko]

I contacted that company 3 times and couldnt get them to sell it to me.

[Srrndhound]

Tim,

Thanks for the good info on SSP-800 PEQ. Could you provide a little more about it?

1) So, each band can be set across the full spectrum as in the Q table--even OK to overlap them?

2) Boost/cut range and step size

3) If an Aux output is defined as a 2nd sub output, it offers PEQ?


Thanks!

[AV-OCD]

Tim,

Thanks for the good info on SSP-800 PEQ. Could you provide a little more about it?

1) So, each band can be set across the full spectrum as in the Q table--even OK to overlap them?

2) Boost/cut range and step size

3) If an Aux output is defined as a 2nd sub output, it offers PEQ?


Thanks!

You betcha.

1) yes and yes. Though when you overlap filters you will get some strange / unpredictable results as the two filters will react with one another. The filters also appear to have a max width of 1 octave, so there is no ability to fake a shelf filter with a 3 octave filter or the like.

2) Boost is maxed at +3dB, cut is more than -15db (I saw no need to go lower than that, so I don't know the actual bottom value)

3) yes, I believe it does, which is nice. The only restrtictions on the AUX channels are as follows: "As many as five filters can be built for each speaker channel, except the Aux channels defined for Bi-Amp or downmix. A Bi-Amp channel assumes the same filters as defined for the Front Left and Right partner channels."

[AV-OCD]

Small update.

Purchased the M-Audio MobilePre mic preamp (thanks Kal), a DBX RTA-M Microphone, and a mic stand yesterday. Ordered on-line from www.zzounds.com, so they should arrive next week sometime.

I chose the M-Audio preamp because it has a USB interface that will make it much easier to set-up with my laptop and Room EQ Wizard (REW) than trying to figure out if my internal soundcard and input / outputs would work. I chose the DBX mic because it was the most accurate for it's price (+/- 1.5dB). Plus I will load mic calibration file into REW to get the measured response even flatter.

I've also been doing some refresher reading on "house curves".

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/96-house-curve-what-why-you-need-how-do.html

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/6818-minimal-eq-target-levels-hard-knee-house-curve-long.html

[sikoniko]

I don't claim to be an expert at EQ, so I would steer clear of the EQ without someone who knows what they are doing.

I had a friend who graduated from Berkley School of Music in Boston and he could EQ by ear. But it takes a lot of training. I did some studio time, and generally we EQ'd to boost a freq range that was getting drowned by other instruments. Other than that, everything was set to a flat response.

I think you will find the people will generally EQ based on their personal preference more so than a right or correct way when it comes to mixing.

Now in HT, I know that the genral concensus is to go for a "house curve". I would imagine you will end up doing more harm than good by trying to change settings without knowing what you are doing though.

This is an aspect that Rebelman and I go round-and-round on. I feel that Classe should offer the Audyssey stuff at a premium. Say $500 to purchase a kit. Perhaps dealer install option. That way people that don't want it won't have it or have to pay for it and people that do can. the DSP supports it.

I personally don't feel that anyone should EQ just because it is there.

[Kal Rubinson]

I feel that Classe should offer the Audyssey stuff at a premium. Say $500 to purchase a kit. Perhaps dealer install option. That way people that don't want it won't have it or have to pay for it and people that do can. the DSP supports it.

This is a big problem. I am not privy to the licensing arrangements or the DSP requirements for Audyssey but I have not yet ever seen a device with AudysseyPro only but without the built-in MultEQ XT. (BTW, that is what NAD is promising with the M15HD but the firmware is installed on all the units, afaik.) Since most installers charge about $500 for an AudysseyPro calibration already, the user would be looking at this on top of whatever it costs to install the firmware on a small number of units. Overall, it doesn't seem practical.

I personally don't feel that anyone should EQ just because it is there.

Dunno. With the Audyssey (or YPAO or MCACC or.......), the committed user can do it without prior training.

[AV-OCD]

SikoNiko –

My goal is not to use the EQ in the SSP-800 to alter the sound of my system to suit my tastes (though I may do a little of that eventually). The purpose of using an EQ like the one found in the SSP-800 is to counter the effects of placing a speaker in a room and to achieve a smoother, more natural sound. A sound that is less obviously affected by the room.

You can take a speaker with perfectly flat frequency response and the moment you put it into the average room, the frequency response will be far from smooth and flat. It is not uncommon to have deviations in the bass response of 12dB or greater.

I believe the reason for using a “house curve” (as opposed to going for flat in-room response) is that when you place a speaker in a room, the measured response trend will be higher in the bass than it is in the treble (how much depends on the size of the room). And this downward trend from bass to treble just so happens to sound natural and balanced when listening to a sound system in a room. But the response still needs to be smooth (free from excessive peaks and valleys), which is where room treatments and EQ come in.

I tend to agree with your position on manual EQ calibration, IF you have no knowledge, experience or interest in working with audio measurement equipment or understanding acoustics. But, you still can’t really go “wrong” with the EQ in the SSP-800 by fooling around with it. Classe has placed a conservative limit on the amount of boost you can apply, so there is virtually no risk of damaging anything. The worst that could happen is that you don’t like the results, in which case you turn off the EQ and go back to the sound dictated by your speakers, room and listening position. And there is the possibility that you might like the sound better with some random tinkering. It may not be more accurate, and it is not the intended use of the EQ, but “if it sounds right, then it is right.”

The truth is, I will probably do most of my EQing below 400 Hz and leave the mids and highs alone, as the room tends to create the biggest problems in the bass. I know for certain that I can do better in the bass in my room with EQ. It may take me a while to get it right, but that is part of the fun of this hobby.

- Tim

[wettou]

How about letting the sub take care of the EQ? JL Audio has an EQ set-up. This way you would not need to mess araound with the Classé SP-800 "Manual EQ"

[sikoniko]

This is a big problem. I am not privy to the licensing arrangements or the DSP requirements for Audyssey but I have not yet ever seen a device with AudysseyPro only but without the built-in MultEQ XT. (BTW, that is what NAD is promising with the M15HD but the firmware is installed on all the units, afaik.) Since most installers charge about $500 for an AudysseyPro calibration already, the user would be looking at this on top of whatever it costs to install the firmware on a small number of units. Overall, it doesn't seem practical.

not quite sure what you are getting at here. Are you for or against? The reason why I say it could be a premium upgrade is because some people don't want it to manipulate the signal at all. For those that do, let them purchase it.

Dunno. With the Audyssey (or YPAO or MCACC or.......), the committed user can do it without prior training.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against EQ, but I think people shouldn't be using it just because it is there. I really feel that it should be left to an acoustician and only used after a room has been treated.

There is this whole thought now that lack of an automated solution makes a product feature in-complete. To each their own, but I guarrantee that 9/10 people don't know what they are doing, or why they are doing it.

remember that game "Lemmings"? Where you could direct all these little purple coat, green-haired things off of cliffs and such? Thats what most people who buy EQ are looking for.

[AV-OCD]

How about letting the sub take care of the EQ? JL Audio has an EQ set-up. This way you would not need to mess araound with the Classé SP-800 "Manual EQ"

The JL "EQ" is a single band parametric that only addresses the largest peak, and IME it didn't do a very good job of taming the 30Hz hump in my room. I also want to use the SSP-800 EQ to smooth bass response of each of the main speakers to get a smoother blend between the sub and the mains.

I'm not sure if this will make sense, but here goes. I know that I have a peak around 100Hz in the right speaker because it is close to the right wall. I can reduce the peak by moving the speaker further back towards the wall behind it, but doing so causes a dip in the response above 100Hz. With the SSP-800 EQ I can move the speaker back out to where 100Hz peak was, use the EQ to knock down that peak and now I no longer have the peak or the dip.

I may be in the minority, but the EQ is one of the reasons the SSP-800 interested me. I had a Lexicon pre connected to an Audyssey pro unit before, so I know how much better the sound can be with proper EQ. The one thing I didn't like about Audyssey at the time was that it changed the character of the mids and highs too much for me, and you had no control over the results. That has since changed and they now let you set a target curve.

[wettou]

The JL "EQ" is a single band parametric that only addresses the largest peak, and IME it didn't do a very good job of taming the 30Hz hump in my room. I also want to use the SSP-800 EQ to smooth bass response of each of the main speakers to get a smoother blend between the sub and the mains.

I'm not sure if this will make sense, but here goes. I know that I have a peak around 100Hz in the right speaker because it is close to the right wall. I can reduce the peak by moving the speaker further back towards the wall behind it, but doing so causes a dip in the response above 100Hz. With the SSP-800 EQ I can move the speaker back out to where 100Hz peak was, use the EQ to knock down that peak and now I no longer have the peak or the dip.

I may be in the minority, but the EQ is one of the reasons the SSP-800 interested me. I had a Lexicon pre connected to an Audyssey pro unit before, so I know how much better the sound can be with proper EQ. The one thing I didn't like about Audyssey at the time was that it changed the character of the mids and highs too much for me, and you had no control over the results. That has since changed and they now let you set a target curve.

I see for me I will have to hire a pro to EQ it properly

[sikoniko]

The JL "EQ" is a single band parametric that only addresses the largest peak, and IME it didn't do a very good job of taming the 30Hz hump in my room. I also want to use the SSP-800 EQ to smooth bass response of each of the main speakers to get a smoother blend between the sub and the mains.

I'm not sure if this will make sense, but here goes. I know that I have a peak around 100Hz in the right speaker because it is close to the right wall. I can reduce the peak by moving the speaker further back towards the wall behind it, but doing so causes a dip in the response above 100Hz. With the SSP-800 EQ I can move the speaker back out to where 100Hz peak was, use the EQ to knock down that peak and now I no longer have the peak or the dip.

I sincerely respect this.

I may be in the minority, but the EQ is one of the reasons the SSP-800 interested me. I had a Lexicon pre connected to an Audyssey pro unit before, so I know how much better the sound can be with proper EQ. The one thing I didn't like about Audyssey at the time was that it changed the character of the mids and highs too much for me, and you had no control over the results. That has since changed and they now let you set a target curve.

You point out the very reason why I think EQing should be left to someone who knows that they are doing. It is also why I respect your reasons. You know when and when not to. Too many people get into EQ because they are lemmings. Not because they know why they need it.

I imagine 4/5ths of the people read a review on Audyssey or any other auto-EQ from Kal or someone else who give an EQ glowing reviews and they take it at face value. They ignore the time Kal has spent to learn and understand EQ and they think they HAVE to have it. they get their AVR/AVP/SSP and enable it and never question it. They brag to their friends "i have audyssey" but they don't really understand what it is doing.

[AV-OCD]

I see for me I will have to hire a pro to EQ it properly

It's certainly the easier route to take. And I had strongly considered doing the same. I was a bit burnt-out after going through several changes to my system over the past 8 months and didn't want to bother with all that is involved with EQing and room measurmentst. But I've got my second wind now. :T

[sikoniko]

btw, I realize it won't technically harm the hardware by messing with the EQ. but it can harm the signal.

[Kal Rubinson]

not quite sure what you are getting at here. Are you for or against? The reason why I say it could be a premium upgrade is because some people don't want it to manipulate the signal at all. For those that do, let them purchase it.

I am not saying either. If you want to use Audyssey and your processor lacks it, there's the SEQ.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against EQ, but I think people shouldn't be using it just because it is there. I really feel that it should be left to an acoustician and only used after a room has been treated.

OTOH, those least experienced in acoustics are the ones most likely to need room EQ, no? So, if the process is simple enough (and I think it is), I think people should use it.

There is this whole thought now that lack of an automated solution makes a product feature in-complete. To each their own, but I guarrantee that 9/10 people don't know what they are doing, or why they are doing it.

What/how is following the instructions. Why is to make the system/room sound better.

remember that game "Lemmings"? Where you could direct all these little purple coat, green-haired things off of cliffs and such? Thats what most people who buy EQ are looking for.

Some mebbe. OTOH, I believe that the vast and overwhelming majority will actually get better sound, even if they do not know how.

[Kal Rubinson]

I imagine 4/5ths of the people read a review on Audyssey or any other auto-EQ from Kal or someone else who give an EQ glowing reviews and they take it at face value. They ignore the time Kal has spent to learn and understand EQ and they think they HAVE to have it. they get their AVR/AVP/SSP and enable it and never question it. They brag to their friends "i have audyssey" but they don't really understand what it is doing.

Yes and no. However, the lengthy 'official Audyssey' thread on AVS is a rich (and official) source of assistance which many have benefited from.

Besides, bragging rights are what sells many products in audio and elsewhere.

[wettou]

Yes and no. However, the lengthy 'official Audyssey' thread on AVS is a rich (and official) source of assistance which many have benefited from.

Besides, bragging rights are what sells many products in audio and elsewhere.

Hey we need to feel happiness, and bragging helps:B

[sikoniko]

Some mebbe. OTOH, I believe that the vast and overwhelming majority will actually get better sound, even if they do not know how.

You actually make a great point. Perhaps those people aren't Classe's target audience?

You have to think when Classe built the SSP, they did their homework when they concluded the Audyssey was not necessary. Perhaps the core of their target audience was more willing to hire a professional than to use an Auto feature designed for the masses?

I'm of the opinion that the SSP-800 was built to grow and change as it needs to. The daughter cards are installed in a way that they can be removed and the back panel is accomodating to that kind of modularity.

I think Classe could go any way they felt the market required. As it is right now, supply can't keep up with demand. I don't think they feel the 'need' to bend to consumer perception at this point - but it doesn't mean they couldn't in the future.

[Kal Rubinson]

You actually make a great point. Perhaps those people aren't Classe's target audience?

I was not addressing the Classe market but the more general one. OTOH, the typical room images I see posted on AVS (where they are common) show untreated, poorly arranged rooms with really expensive equipment of Classe's class, more or less.

You have to think when Classe built the SSP, they did their homework when they concluded the Audyssey was not necessary. Perhaps the core of their target audience was more willing to hire a professional than to use an Auto feature designed for the masses?

Mebbe. I guess we will have to see how it plays out.

[Gump]

Ok, so if a technological village idiot like myself was game to take a crack at this, what exactly is "the process"? What's the first step?

I haven't been able to find any "EQ'ing For Dummies" literature anywhere...

[sikoniko]

I was not addressing the Classe market but the more general one. OTOH, the typical room images I see posted on AVS (where they are common) show untreated, poorly arranged rooms with really expensive equipment of Classe's class, more or less.

I don't disagree. I think automated eq has its place. I'm neither for nor against it. I just don't think that the lack of it should mean a product is not competitive.

[AV-OCD]

You have to think when Classe built the SSP, they did their homework when they concluded the Audyssey was not necessary. Perhaps the core of their target audience was more willing to hire a professional than to use an Auto feature designed for the masses?

I tend to have a more skeptical view of Classe's choice of EQ. It is known, thanks to RebelMan's original SSP-800 thread, that Classe is using a Momentum Data Systems DSP board. It just so happens that this board comes in three, off the shelf configs. One of those includes the EQ solution in the SSP-800. My guess is that Classe went with the EQ they did because it was the only option available for the DSP board they chose.

An automatic solution like Audyssey would be preferable, given that they include the new Pro version that allows you to adjust the target curve.

[AV-OCD]

Ok, so if a technological village idiot like myself was game to take a crack at this, what exactly is "the process"? What's the first step?

I haven't been able to find any "EQ'ing For Dummies" literature anywhere...

A good place to start is learning to EQ just the sub channel. You can do the measurements with a RadioShack SPL meter, a piece of graph paper, and a test tone CD (that you can make yourself).

The files and instructions for making your test tone CD and measuring the in-room response of your sub are in the link below.

http://realtraps.com/test-cd.htm

If you know how to use Microsoft Excel, you can enter the measurement results into a spreadsheet and create a graph. Just create a table with the frequency values along the top and the dB levels in the cells just below each frequency.

Once you have your measurements plotted, let me know and I'll explain how to set some of the filters in the SSP-800 to take care of the peaks you are likely to find.

[wettou]

I tend to have a more skeptical view of Classe's choice of EQ. It is known, thanks to RebelMan's original SSP-800 thread, that Classe is using a Momentum Data Systems DSP board. It just so happens that this board comes in three, off the shelf configs. One of those includes the EQ solution in the SSP-800. My guess is that Classe went with the EQ they did because it was the only option available for the DSP board they chose

Either that or they didn't want to pay more?

An automatic solution like Audyssey would be preferable, given that they include the new Pro version that allows you to adjust the target curve.

Yes that would have been very nice, but according to Classé Audyssey is crap and is not worth it?

[sikoniko]

I tend to have a more skeptical view of Classe's choice of EQ. It is known, thanks to RebelMan's original SSP-800 thread, that Classe is using a Momentum Data Systems DSP board. It just so happens that this board comes in three, off the shelf configs. One of those includes the EQ solution in the SSP-800. My guess is that Classe went with the EQ they did because it was the only option available for the DSP board they chose.

An automatic solution like Audyssey would be preferable, given that they include the new Pro version that allows you to adjust the target curve.

I don't claim to know the answer of why they did or did not include it. I think people are more upset that Classe chose for us than anything.

Over at AVS, people think that if a product does not have Audyssey, it is inherently inferior in all aspects. Apparently audyssey is pixy dust that can make it fly. Even Kal says I don't "get it". I get it all right. its a club and anyone who is neither for nor against is an outcast of the club.

they jovially laugh with each other while they take their turns kicking me, just like Alex and his crew in a clockwork orange! I don't think they are smart enough to get my references. They call me a "classe fanboy" because I've found something I like and I stick with it... and they admittedly change products with the wind to whatever has the latest and greatest... all while calling me a snob. they laugh and allude to the Denon as being the most infalliable product EVER created... or they snicker and snide and say that I'm an elitist and people that buy classe only do so for name brand.

I generally feel sorry for these people. I am not a wealthy person and I work very hard for everything I have. I make sacrifices in some areas to enjoy things in others.

sorry guys.. I just needed to vent.

btw, IMO Kal - I really see no point in you evaluating the SSP-800. if you haven't read by now... it doesn't have Audyssey. Its clearly inferior and really a waiste of anyones time. The king is the Denon and we should all follow like mindless zombies.

[beden1]

I don't claim to know the answer of why they did or did not include it. I think people are more upset that Classe chose for us than anything.

Over at AVS, people think that if a product does not have Audyssey, it is inherently inferior in all aspects. Apparently audyssey is pixy dust that can make it fly. Even Kal says I don't "get it". I get it all right. its a club and anyone who is neither for nor against is an outcast of the club.

they jovially laugh with each other while they take their turns kicking me, just like Alex and his crew in a clockwork orange! I don't think they are smart enough to get my references. They call me a "classe fanboy" because I've found something I like and I stick with it... and they admittedly change products with the wind to whatever has the latest and greatest... all while calling me a snob. they laugh and allude to the Denon as being the most infalliable product EVER created... or they snicker and snide and say that I'm an elitist and people that buy classe only do so for name brand.

I generally feel sorry for these people. I am not a wealthy person and I work very hard for everything I have. I make sacrifices in some areas to enjoy things in others.

sorry guys.. I just needed to vent.

btw, IMO Kal - I really see no point in you evaluating the SSP-800. if you haven't read by now... it doesn't have Audyssey. Its clearly inferior and really a waiste of anyones time. The king is the Denon and we should all follow like mindless zombies.

I don't get why you felt compelled to post this? I don't see anyone here saying the SSP-800 is inferior because it does not incorporate Audyssey. I see individuals like me with open minds who are interested in learning what new technologies can offer.

I also appreciate the OP's initiating this thread, as I'm interested in learning about how one can work with the EQ system in the SSP-800. So far however, all I have been reading is how he shouldn't even attempt to try using it. I find this totally counter productive.

I am also very much looking forward to reading Kal's review whenever he has the opportunity of performing his in-home audition.

Can we please stay on subject, and discuss how the SSP-800's EQ actually works!

[sikoniko]

I don't get why you felt compelled to post this? I don't see anyone here saying the SSP-800 is inferior because it does not incorporate Audyssey. I see individuals like me with open minds who are interested in learning what new technologies can offer.

I also appreciate the OP's initiating this thread, as I'm interested in learning about how one can work with the EQ system in the SSP-800. So far however, all I have been reading is how he shouldn't even attempt to try using it. I find this totally counter productive.

I am also very much looking forward to reading Kal's review whenever he has the opportunity of performing his in-home audition.

Can we please stay on subject, and discuss how the SSP-800's EQ actually works!

actually, its non-sequitor to this thread. I'm venting for something that went on over at AVS. sorry. sometimes we all need to vent.

as far as Kal is concerned... I'm no longer convinced he will judge it in an unbiased manner based on its capabilities, with or without Audyssey, since it is lacking Audyssey and his apparent strong opinions towards it.

I'm sorry guys. perhaps some are right. I am a problem child and dont deserve to participate on any board at any capacity any longer.

[beden1]

I have a question regarding the EQ system in the SSP-800. Does it have the same capabilities as a system such as Audyssey or AudysseyPro if calibrated properly by a professional (understanding that it is a manual system)? And if not, can you use AudysseyPro with the SSP-800 and get the same results as say the Denon AVP that has the base Audyssey system built-in?

[Srrndhound]

I have a question regarding the EQ system in the SSP-800. Does it have the same capabilities as a system such as Audyssey or AudysseyPro if calibrated properly by a professional (understanding that it is a manual system)?

Not even close. Totally different animals. But which one you prefer is not a foregone conclusion. More below.

And if not, can you use AudysseyPro with the SSP-800 and get the same results as say the Denon AVP that has the base Audyssey system built-in?

Same or better results, since Pro allows more flexibility.

My experience with Audyssey is based on one mid-line Denon AVR in my second system. I ran it multiple times, and it never sounded as good as I wanted (it did not help the surrounds blend better with the fronts, for example)--but I could not make any tweaks since it allows no user access to the applied EQ. All I could do was "re-interpret" the curve to the Denon's GEQ filter bank, then tweak from there--thus losing the Audyssey EQ's frequency resolution. The one thing it did well was time align the sub to the mains, which helped a lot. I first thought it was crazy for thinking the sub was 17 feet away (it was 3 feet behind the L/C/R), but it worked acoustically.

My interest in the SSP-800 is largely based on it's EQ capability. I like to use EQ to fix small timbre differences between C, L/R, or surrounds/fronts, and I always use 1 PEQ to remove the primary subwoofer/room resonance. That's an easy and dramatic improvement to any system.

What I like about the SSP-800 PEQ is that you can use as little as you want. It's minimally invasive. Audyssey is an "all or nothing" proposition--the whole spectrum is touched, or it's off. A bit hamfisted, IMHO. My current Tag McLaren AVP32BP has zero user tone controls, so I've been using vintage external analog GEQs for minor touchup, but I want to avoid those extra electronics in my new system. The PEQ in the SSP-800 is just what I have been hoping for in a processor (not to mention all the other attributes of the Classe product).

Not to change the subject, but if you want to campaign for Classe to provide a room EQ system, you might seriously want to consider the Trinnov option. I have not heard it myself as yet, but the feedback I've gotten from trusted ears makes it a contender.

[Hberg]

I don't get why you felt compelled to post this? I don't see anyone here saying the SSP-800 is inferior because it does not incorporate Audyssey. I see individuals like me with open minds who are interested in learning what new technologies can offer.

I also appreciate the OP's initiating this thread, as I'm interested in learning about how one can work with the EQ system in the SSP-800. So far however, all I have been reading is how he shouldn't even attempt to try using it. I find this totally counter productive.

I am also very much looking forward to reading Kal's review whenever he has the opportunity of performing his in-home audition.

Can we please stay on subject, and discuss how the SSP-800's EQ actually works!

I say this at the risk of fueling the fire, but I don't see the point of "venting" on this board since it is not AVS.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, and this includes yourself. Kal's opinion is just as valid as yours, but our individual evaluation of equipment is what really matters - not another person's evaluation. Yes, as individuals we hold some evaluations in higher regard, but that does not lessen the evaluation of others.

The reason I frequent HTGuide Form is due to the more insightful input of the contributers. When it comes to AVS I would only ask that it be left on AVS - These are two different communities and I value the HTGuide community.

Personally, I enjoy the Classe' equipment that I have in my rack, and I will probably expand upon what I currently have in my rack. However, it is purely my own personal preference.

[AV-OCD]

I have a question regarding the EQ system in the SSP-800. Does it have the same capabilities as a system such as Audyssey or AudysseyPro if calibrated properly by a professional (understanding that it is a manual system)? And if not, can you use AudysseyPro with the SSP-800 and get the same results as say the Denon AVP that has the base Audyssey system built-in?

The technology that Audyssey uses to correct the in-room response is more advanced than the solution that Classe is using, but as Srrndhound has mentioned, the user level version of Audyssey found in all AVRs is an all or nothing approach that can change the character of the sound too much to these ears. You need, IMO, the ability to adjust the target curve, and/or the ability to adjust the amount of correction applied as well as the ability to set a frequency range or cut-off for the correction.

For instance, lets say you run Audyssey and it corrects the entire response from 20Hz to 20KHz and you like what it has done for the bass but not the mids and highs. With the above flexibility, you could instruct the EQ to apply full correction from 300Hz to 20Hz and only a low level of correction to the mids on up, or none at all.

The latest firmware for the Audyssey Pro stand-alone unit does allow for the user / installer to adjust the target curve, which is a huge change of heart for Audyssey. For quite a while they took the position that there was only one "right" response curve.

But the theoretical "problem" with using the stand-alone Audyssey EQ processor is that it has to redigitize the analog output of the prepro and then convert it back to analog before the signal is passed to the amp. Kinda defeats the purpose of owning the SSP-800 if you bought it for its DACs and analog output stage.

The 5 bands of PEQ per channel in the SSP-800 provide a workable solution and in the hands of an acoustician or experienced user I think that you can affect some very positive changes / improvements to the sound of your system. It just takes more work and I wish that Classe would have given us more like 8 filters per channel. Parametric filters are also technically a bit old school compared to the time and phase perfect FIR filters used by Audyssey. Still, you have to consider that PEQ filters were the standard just a few years ago and as long as you don't overlap too many of them, I think that advantage of FIR filters is one of those things that looks better on paper than actually sounding noticeably better.

[sikoniko]

I say this at the risk of fueling the fire, but I don't see the point of "venting" on this board since it is not AVS.

I don't claim to be perfect, or infalliable. I don't pretend to know everything. I never have and I never will. Why am I venting? because I need you guys to knock some sense into me!

The difference between AVS and here is that AVS is over-populated with people that feel that anything beyond $500 on a processor is a waiste of money - unless its the Denon AVP, with Audyssey.

The general premise is if it has Audyssey, it can turn crap into a rose garden. They know everything. You are either with them or against them. They want to pounce on anyone who thinks differently.

I foolishly tried to engage in a conversation about the Denon vs the SSP. Their comments were basically that the Classe can't compete because it doesn't have Audyssey and it can't decode onboard. No amount of logic or reason would allow them to move past that. I called them on the FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

The general consensus was that anyone who buys classe does so solely for name brand and that features are the most important aspect to an SSP/AVP/AVR product.

so, I'm sorry to bring AVS over here, but where do I take it? to AVS? So they can pounce? My wife won't know what I'm talking about. I brought it here so you guys could say... ya... you've been right wrong or indifferent at times... but relax.. blow off the steam and move on.

As far as my bringing up Kal, I should have taken it directly to him. I was wrong about that. What frustrated me was he sided with the Audyssey folk arguement. I can make 5 points and god forbid I say something about Audyssey and the middle ground he likes to take is blown out of the water.

I don't want to alienate Kal. Others can have their own opinions. At this point I personally could care less if he ever listens to the SSP. I don't feel he will give it a true evaluation. decoding, or no decoding... multi-channel audio... EQ, no EQ. When I read someone who evaluates products, I expect them to have an open mind. To be as unbiased as humanly possible. I know his bias and I don't think he is capable of not injecting his bias at this point.

I can see it now... "I reviewed the SSP-800, and while it was potentially one of a handful of the greatest sounding pro-pro's I've heard, lack of Audyssey made it less of an incentive to buy than an integra."

I hope it never gets Audyssey. I want nothing to do with the people that gather around that product. They are self-righteous dicks.

so there. I'm done venting. I'm down guys. beat me up if you will. tell me I'm a self-righteous ass. at the end of the day, it isn't going to bring Audyssey to the SSP. Its not up to me. does that make the SSP a bad product? only you can decide.

happy thanksgiving...

btw, thank AV-OCD for taking the time to explain pros and cons to audyssey. At least someone has a level head on it and isn't claiming it to turn water into wine.

[AV-OCD]

Niko -

I feel your pain, and I certainly don't subscribe to group think. I too feel that there is a mob mentality that tends to prevail on that other forum and a fair number of people buying into the hype without really determining if they really like the results.

I'm cool with you venting here, though I would like it if would could stay reasonably on track.

At this point, I don't think that either Audyssey or the PEQ in the SSP-800 are optimal, but I like the flexibility of the SSP-800 solution and I think I can get results that are more pleasing to me with it over the all-or-none Audyssey solution.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water though. Just because you have found that most people that are vocal about Audyessy are "dicks", doesn't mean that something like Audyssey should be shunned by association. I drive a BMW, and frankly most that do where I live are selfish a-holes. Still, I like the drive, style and build quality of the car.

If Audyssey makes your system sound better, who cares what other owners act like. You don't need to hang out with them to use it.

[Kal Rubinson]

Even Kal says I don't "get it". I get it all right. its a club and anyone who is neither for nor against is an outcast of the club.

Really. That comment was about you misunderstanding of the logic behind proper room acoustics (via physical treatment and/or EQ) as the only way to convey what a studio puts on a recording. It has nothing to do with any product per se.

btw, IMO Kal - I really see no point in you evaluating the SSP-800. if you haven't read by now... it doesn't have Audyssey. Its clearly inferior and really a waiste of anyones time.

This is a foolish emotional response resulting from a blatant mischaracterization of my position. I am quite enthusiastic about trying the SSP-800.

As I said to you on the other thread, bye.

Kal

[beden1]

The technology that Audyssey uses to correct the in-room response is more advanced than the solution that Classe is using, but as Srrndhound has mentioned, the user level version of Audyssey found in all AVRs is an all or nothing approach that can change the character of the sound too much to these ears. You need, IMO, the ability to adjust the target curve, and/or the ability to adjust the amount of correction applied as well as the ability to set a frequency range or cut-off for the correction.

For instance, lets say you run Audyssey and it corrects the entire response from 20Hz to 20KHz and you like what it has done for the bass but not the mids and highs. With the above flexibility, you could instruct the EQ to apply full correction from 300Hz to 20Hz and only a low level of correction to the mids on up, or none at all.

The latest firmware for the Audyssey Pro stand-alone unit does allow for the user / installer to adjust the target curve, which is a huge change of heart for Audyssey. For quite a while they took the position that there was only one "right" response curve.

But the theoretical "problem" with using the stand-alone Audyssey EQ processor is that it has to redigitize the analog output of the prepro and then convert it back to analog before the signal is passed to the amp. Kinda defeats the purpose of owning the SSP-800 if you bought it for its DACs and analog output stage.

The 5 bands of PEQ per channel in the SSP-800 provide a workable solution and in the hands of an acoustician or experienced user I think that you can affect some very positive changes / improvements to the sound of your system. It just takes more work and I wish that Classe would have given us more like 8 filters per channel. Parametric filters are also technically a bit old school compared to the time and phase perfect FIR filters used by Audyssey. Still, you have to consider that PEQ filters were the standard just a few years ago and as long as you don't overlap too many of them, I think that advantage of FIR filters is one of those things that looks better on paper than actually sounding noticeably better.

Thanks. Your explanation really helps my understanding between the EQ systems.

My only experience to date has been with the MCACC EQ system within my Pioneer Elite receiver. I did play with this program quite a bit, but was never able to get it to the point of sounding very good. In the end, I preferred leaving the feature off in the receiver, and using the auto EQ for my Velodyne subs to correct bass response within the room.

I didn't really like what the MCACC system did to the mids and highs as they sounded kind of lifeless afterwards, and I would hope Audessey does a better job by comparison.

I'm interested in exploring the EQ system in the SSP-800, and if I'm not able to get a couple of issues corrected in my room physically, I will need this type of additional support.

[wettou]

The technology that Audyssey uses to correct the in-room response is more advanced than the solution that Classe is using.

I could not agree more

The 5 bands of PEQ per channel in the SSP-800 provide a workable solution and in the hands of an acoustician or experienced user I think that you can affect some very positive changes / improvements to the sound of your system. It just takes more work

Yes you need an acoustician to make the SSP-800 sound it's best and you room needs to be well designed to get that last 10%. :B

[wettou]

Niko - I feel your pain, and I certainly don't subscribe to group think.

Neither do I independant thinking even if the masses are against you, "But the world is flat" The Great Inquisition

I too feel that there is a mob mentality that tends to prevail on that other forum and a fair number of people buying into the hype without really determining if they really like the results.

Yes unless you agree with certain people they start creating polls and try to bully you out just like in elementary school, pathetic....

[QUOTE=AV-OCD]At this point, I don't think that either Audyssey or the PEQ in the SSP-800 are optimal, but I like the flexibility of the SSP-800 solution and I think I can get results that are more pleasing to me with it over the all-or-none Audyssey solution.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water though. Just because you have found that most people that are vocal about Audyessy are "dicks", doesn't mean that something like Audyssey should be shunned by association. I drive a BMW, and frankly most that do where I live are selfish a-holes. Still, I like the drive, style and build quality of the car.

Yes, where I live as well 90% of people who drives BMer are a..... maybe it's the car that turns them that way. I know one guy who drive an M5 and he is a nice guy my Classé dealer

If Audyssey makes your system sound better, who cares what other owners act like. You don't need to hang out with them to use it.

This is your set-up, your room, your house so fell free to enjoy without worrying that someone is going to come knocking on your door at 4:00am in the morning because you broke the law, any one seen "1984"

[alebonau]

The technology that Audyssey uses to correct the in-room response is more advanced than the solution that Classe is using, but as Srrndhound has mentioned, the user level version of Audyssey found in all AVRs is an all or nothing approach that can change the character of the sound too much to these ears. You need, IMO, the ability to adjust the target curve, and/or the ability to adjust the amount of correction applied as well as the ability to set a frequency range or cut-off for the correction.

For instance, lets say you run Audyssey and it corrects the entire response from 20Hz to 20KHz and you like what it has done for the bass but not the mids and highs. With the above flexibility, you could instruct the EQ to apply full correction from 300Hz to 20Hz and only a low level of correction to the mids on up, or none at all.

The latest firmware for the Audyssey Pro stand-alone unit does allow for the user / installer to adjust the target curve, which is a huge change of heart for Audyssey. For quite a while they took the position that there was only one "right" response curve.

But the theoretical "problem" with using the stand-alone Audyssey EQ processor is that it has to redigitize the analog output of the prepro and then convert it back to analog before the signal is passed to the amp. Kinda defeats the purpose of owning the SSP-800 if you bought it for its DACs and analog output stage.

The 5 bands of PEQ per channel in the SSP-800 provide a workable solution and in the hands of an acoustician or experienced user I think that you can affect some very positive changes / improvements to the sound of your system. It just takes more work and I wish that Classe would have given us more like 8 filters per channel. Parametric filters are also technically a bit old school compared to the time and phase perfect FIR filters used by Audyssey. Still, you have to consider that PEQ filters were the standard just a few years ago and as long as you don't overlap too many of them, I think that advantage of FIR filters is one of those things that looks better on paper than actually sounding noticeably better.

hi av-ocd, having used 8ch of peq in my velo DD I can tell you yes extremely user friendly giving complete control or full auto and ability to tweak to hearts content and with which could acheive a pretty good response 200hz - 15hz. however running audyssey over that I am trully blown away by the result it acheives particualrly with dynamic eq. you have mentioned some limitations of peq. another benefit audyssey has I beleive is with its multiple measurements gets a better handle of the room and not just for one point that is possible with peq.

One other point, depending on what av processor you, even without utilising the pro capability, audysey do provide you a few curves to choose from.

And I agree with your point in utilising the standalone audyssey, as basically have to introduce another piece of equipment in the chain (not at insignificant cost), with the necessary cabling and the unnecessary ADC/DAC for it to do its thing. Another option is to utilise a processor with pro capability built in if you crave the additional functionality that come with it. doesnt come at much additional cost and getting quite common these days. the beauy being it all gets done in the digital domain, needing no additional ADC/DAC and not needing any additional box.

dis-regarding all that still well worth utilising the peq onboard as you have. like with the sms peq in the velo DD can be particualrly usefull so good luck with things

[Srrndhound]

another benefit audyssey has I beleive is with its multiple measurements gets a better handle of the room and not just for one point that is possible with peq.

The choice of EQ filter type does not limt the ability to use averaging in the measurement process. For example, REW allows multiple measurements and averaging/weighting, from which the PEQ bands can be adjusted. However, it is true that REW does not use the same averaging method as Audyssey.