AVR Audio/EQ settings (Audyssey)

[weekendtoy]

I have made a sincere effort to get through Audyssey setup for this Denon AVR-X4300h and not been successful yet.
1. Incomplete (ran out of time)
2. Complete but whacky results (not careful with mic placements)
3. Incomplete - using measuring tape and mic stand, I got 1-2-3-4 done and suddenly on 5 it started telling me that Right Rear "ambient noise too high or level too low". Tried 5 times with no change. Stone silence in the room and no way to adjust level? I gave up.

In Google search I saw a recommendation to do a factory reset. I don't really want to do that now that I've got everything the way I want it.
What's the verdict? Thanks in advance.

Take your time first of all. I usually crack a beer and have the game on my laptop whilst doing an Audyssey calibration.

I use a tripod boom stand when taking measurements which can be used for both Audyssey and REW. This will ensure increased consistency and accuracy during your measurements. Personally, I do not prefer placing the mic behind my MLP anytime during the calibration. Keep the mic to the L/R and front.

I've never run into an "ambient noise too high" situation, even in a fairly noisy room. The fact that you state the room was very quiet is somewhat concerning. It could be a bad mic or indeed the AVR needs a reset.

AVS has a comprehensive Audyssey FAQ which you may find useful

 

[mandrix]

Having the time to do it is paramount, as the guys have said.
Really helps if there is not an Air Force base around that places you in range of frequent low-level flights (I get them sometimes from the base out at Eglin AFB, a good ways away)

With Dirac Live, I DO take measurements behind, but that's a conversation for another thread.

 

[DuncanS]

I have found that my new Denon X8500HA with Audyssey tends to boost the rears so that they are about 2.5dB higher than the fronts, yet the measurement Mic was in my seating position - so closer to the rears. It got all the distances correct as I checked, so why boost the rears, doesn't make sense. It also seems to have boosted the Bass, and I have 4 Monitor Audio Silver RS8 floorstanders (so quite a bit of low freq), a Silver RS centre, and 4 small B&W M-1s for the heights now. So I got a sound level meter, sat in my seat and adjusted manually using the Denon tones (pink noise I think) to give the same sound level for all speakers at my seat, seemed better. But the Amp didn't remember the settings, so next power on back to the old Audyssey settings.

Is there a bug in Audyssey reported anywhere?

 

[ar surround]

I have found that my new Denon X8500HA with Audyssey tends to boost the rears so that they are about 2.5dB higher than the fronts, yet the measurement Mic was in my seating position - so closer to the rears. It got all the distances correct as I checked, so why boost the rears, doesn't make sense. It also seems to have boosted the Bass, and I have 4 Monitor Audio Silver RS8 floorstanders (so quite a bit of low freq), a Silver RS centre, and 4 small B&W M-1s for the heights now. So I got a sound level meter, sat in my seat and adjusted manually using the Denon tones (pink noise I think) to give the same sound level for all speakers at my seat, seemed better. But the Amp didn't remember the settings, so next power on back to the old Audyssey settings.

Is there a bug in Audyssey reported anywhere?

It is my understanding (as reported on this forum by others as well) that Audyssey always boosts the surrounds by 3 dB. After calibration, I felt that the surrounds were too loud.

I checked all the channels with a SPL meter and my surrounds were indeed 3 dB too loud. So just reduce your surround levels by 2.5 dB.

Regarding the bass boost, you should be using the Audyssey App ($21) and have the program do its thing no higher than 300 to 500 Hz.

 

[timothyemerson]

For what it's worth:

I too remember dropping my surrounds after Audyssey did it's thing too. In my room, they're usually:
-4dB for 5.1 music
-6dB for quad music
+5dB for movies

Bass was a huge improvement after Audyssey too. Blends it nicely so that most of the time, I can't pinpoint where it is in the room.

 

[Albert Dagger]

It is my understanding (as reported on this forum by others as well) that Audyssey always boosts the surrounds by 3 dB. After calibration, I felt that the surrounds were too loud.

I checked all the channels with a SPL meter and my surrounds were indeed 3 dB too loud. So just reduce your surround levels by 2.5 dB.

Regarding the bass boost, you should be using the Audyssey App ($21) and have the program do its thing no higher than 300 to 500 Hz.

Audyssey should only boost the surround and height speakers if Dynamic EQ is set to ON. In my experience, the channel levels are accurate as long as Dynamic EQ is set to OFF. I double-checked the Audyssey results using an accurate SPL meter, listening to pink noise in the 500Hz-4KHz band (Audyssey calibrates the trims at 1KHz). I also checked the levels using REW and a UMIK 1. Even though the results were accurate, I did some listening and decided to lower the surrounds of about 1dB, it felt more cohesive, but the results were okay.

Using Dynamic EQ is a very personal choice. For me, it's always OFF. I like listening to the same volume most of the time, and since I listen to music more than movies, having to deal with changing the reference level to -5, -10, -15 on a regular basis is frustrating. Many people like it, though, and find that having Dyn EQ on, with a reference level of -10dB is pretty much what's needed for most 5.1 and recent Atmos mixes. In that case, some adjustments of the rear and height channel levels are mandatory. Keeping Dynamic EQ on raises another issue of choosing a target response curve. It seems that Dyn EQ on works well with the standard reference/flat curve. But if Dyn EQ is off, it's probably best to add a 5dB low shelf below 150Hz.

May I suggest double-checking all settings with REW and a calibrated UMIK1? It's the only way to make sure the settings are doing what they are supposed to do.

I've also used this tool to calculate room modes: amroc pro - THE Room Mode Calculator for non-rectangular rooms, and I double-checked the results with the waveforms I got from MultEQ-X and REW.

 

[stereoptic]

A few general questions. My surround system is completely in-wall and in-ceiling as it is in an open and high ceiling family room. I have no noise cancelling, etc. but to compensate for that, I have plenty of glass!. So I use MULTI XT32:Reference with Dynamic EQ: on and Dynamic Volume:OFF, offset db:5db. to tame the sound a bit.

If using Audyssey downsamples anything above 48kHz to 48kHz, what is the reason why if I play a FLAC file 192kHz or 96kHz with Audyssey ON, the statistics on my Marantz Settings>General>Information>Audio displays the original sample rate (192, 96, 48) the same info when using Direct or Pure Direct it shows the correct (expected?) sample rate.

 

[pat bateman]

My AVR supports 2 presets. I A/B tested one preset set with midrange comp off and the other on. I've also tried the same A/B test with corrections capped at 300hz, 500hz, not capped at all - gun to my head, I'm a dead man if asked which sounded better. I could hear the differences, but after driving myself crazy, I just settled on one and moved on. Audyssey turned completely off however, the difference is extremely noticeable. I much prefer the room corrections it does, but you can easily get lost in the minutiae.

I feel the single biggest difference you can make in a room is room treatment, ie sound panels. In my old room, I bought crappy foam squares as an experiment, and put them on my back wall and the difference was huge in-regards to multi-channel separation. I have a new room and I'm debating on making my own panels vs buying them.

 

[paligap]

A few general questions. My surround system is completely in-wall and in-ceiling as it is in an open and high ceiling family room. I have no noise cancelling, etc. but to compensate for that, I have plenty of glass!. So I use MULTI XT32:Reference with Dynamic EQ: on and Dynamic Volume:OFF, offset db:5db. to tame the sound a bit.

If using Audyssey downsamples anything above 48kHz to 48kHz, what is the reason why if I play a FLAC file 192kHz or 96kHz with Audyssey ON, the statistics on my Marantz Settings>General>Information>Audio displays the original sample rate (192, 96, 48) the same info when using Direct or Pure Direct it shows the correct (expected?) sample rate.

Where did you read that Audyssey downsamples anything above 48kHz to 48kHz?

 

[stereoptic]

Where did you read that Audyssey downsamples anything above 48kHz to 48kHz?

I saw. several posts scattered across the internet when I was looking for something else. Sites like Audio Science Review, Audio Karma. Maybe there's no truth to it? I dunno?

https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/

 

[paligap]

I saw. several posts scattered across the internet when I was looking for something else. Sites like Audio Science Review, Audio Karma. Maybe there's no truth to it? I dunno?

https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/

That link didn't work for me, but a simple search showed that there is evidence to support the claim. As for your original question about why your receiver displays the higher sample rate, I suppose that's because it's showing the input signal.

 

[pat bateman]

A couple quotes from a guy who works at Audyssey regarding 48khz downsampling.

Audioholics: The top frequency for correction is 24kHz, implying that Audyssey is functioning at a 48kHz sample rate. Does this mean that high resolution content (for example 192kHz or 96kHz sample rate PCM) will be downmixed?

Chris Kyriakakis: There are two parts to this answer. A loudspeaker does not reproduce acoustic energy above about 24-30 kHz even if it was in the content (with the exception of super-super tweeters), and a microphone cannot capture acoustic energy above that range. So if there is no information captured then, there is nothing for the filter to do up there.

Now, there is content encoded at higher sampling rates of course. We offer MultEQ at 96 kHz and even higher if needed so that the content can be processed without downsampling, even though the MultEQ filters above 24-30 kHz (adjustable) would be doing absolutely nothing. The issue is that doubling the sampling rate also doubles (roughly) the processing requirements needed. This is true for any kind of digital processing not just MultEQ. The AVR makers would have to add significant cost for more DSP processing and they have chosen not to do that. So they decided to use Audyssey at a max of 48 kHz. From an acoustic point of view this makes perfect sense for the reason I explained above.

Chris Kyriakakis: Some AVRs downsample and others pass it to Audyssey as is. Unfortunately I don't know of an easy way to check that. Perhaps their tech support guys would know. Or maybe it's hidden in the manual somewhere.

But let’s not forget some basic things: There is no loudspeaker that can reproduce frequencies above 30 kHz (I’m being generous here). There is also no mic that can capture frequencies above 30 kHz. So an algorithm that is in the business of measuring sound from speakers using microphones receives information up to 30 kHz (did I mention I was being generous?).

That would imply that there is no need for this algorithm to do anything beyond 60 kHz sampling rates per Nyquist’s Theorem. There is no information from the room that would tell the filters what to do up there.

So, yes, MultEQ will process high-resolution signals without having to downsample them. It’s just that it won’t be doing any “correction” at such high frequencies because there is nothing to correct.

https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/audyssey-room-eq-interview
https://www.avsforum.com/posts/29406666/

 

[mandrix]

Audyssey & Dirac Live both down sample to 48 kHz when "room correction" is being used.
I can bypass the Dirac Live filters by using either Pure Audio or Direct modes on my Onkyo, though I don't see any need for it as I'd rather have the room correction intact on playback.

I saw a test awhile back where audio engineers were exposed to 192 kHz and lower sample rate music and I don't think any of them scored above 50% - If that, which could be totally random.
There are reasons for recording/processing at high sample rates, but as far as if you can hear a difference between very high and lower sample rates in reality? Maybe some have super hearing, IDK. I won't tell you that you can't but I'm doubtful.

 

[DuncanS]

Audyssey & Dirac Live both down sample to 48 kHz when "room correction" is being used.
I can bypass the Dirac Live filters by using either Pure Audio or Direct modes on my Onkyo, though I don't see any need for it as I'd rather have the room correction intact on playback.

I saw a test awhile back where audio engineers were exposed to 192 kHz and lower sample rate music and I don't think any of them scored above 50% - If that, which could be totally random.
There are reasons for recording/processing at high sample rates, but as far as if you can hear a difference between very high and lower sample rates in reality? Maybe some have super hearing, IDK. I won't tell you that you can't but I'm doubtful.

Absolutely, and its not to reproduce sounds to annoy bats, cats & dogs

I wanted to try and detect the bats in my garden (we're lucky here in that in this area there are most of the British native bats, plus the odd migrant in summer) so I went looking for microphones that can work above 20kHz to 60kHz to use in a bat detector I was going to design, I only found specialist mics (that didn't cover the human hearing range) and they were way beyond the price I was willing to pay.

The higher sample rates makes it easier to design and manufacture the low pass reconstruction filters, also you don't need such a sharp roll-off with frequency, and that appears to be beneficial to a few listeners. It also helps as there are more samples going into the reconstruction filter, you are sending to the filter zero hold levels, so like a series of up & down flights of steps. There is a possible advantage in sending a 192kHz sample rate signal into a 22.1KHz reconstruction filter as found for CDs.

As for high sample rates capturing and reproducing those frequencies above the human hearing range of 20kHz, firstly I'd be very surprised to find a studio microphone that goes much above 20KHz and even then its going to be rolling off, so if you have a synthesiser yes it could produce frequencies above that, but secondly, every piece of kit in a recording studio will have low pass filters to limit the high frequencies.

The Shure KSM137 for mic'ing up instruments is quoted as 20Hz-30kHz and is flat to 20kHz - but won't be flat to 48kHz (96kHz sample rate)

The most expensive Shure Vocal Mic KSM353/ED Premier Bi-directional Ribbon Microphone at £2695 is quoted as 30Hz-15kHz and is rolling off after 10KHz!

 

[stereoptic]

Thanks for the replies! @paligap, @mandrix, @pat bateman

​

 

[mandrix]

I know that this thread is about Audyssey, but all / any room correction processes are important, at least up to the limit you can perceive. Some folks go all out it with a decent mic, might even use REW and do a lot of sampling.

It was mentioned in an earlier post I believe, that after the process is run, he could not identify where his sub placement was. That's of course a good thing! Blending the sub in seamlessly with the other speakers is very nice indeed.

To extrapolate that further, I don't concentrate on "where" sounds are coming from, i.e. individual speakers, so much as I want to hear the detail in the music, which especially with multichannel music I think is important. I want to be in the middle of it and not think, well, the drums should be coming straight at my MLP from right front....in fact I don't want to think about it at all.
I'm not talking about having a "wall of sound" type thing Phil Spector often employed, nor do I need to identify what sound comes from which speaker (if something is way off you'll know it).

My audio/pc room is also a fully functioning bedroom, with a Queen bed, double dresser and a night stand, and is only about 8.5 x 12.5 ft. So I sort of have a bass trap. lol.
I did not know what I was missing until I calibrated the system with Dirac Live, and when/if I rearrange anything of size around I do another calibration as soon as I can with a UMIK-1 mic instead of those "hockey puck" mic's often provided with the AVR.

Also I'm not dissing Audyssey, I just have no experience with it.