Audyssey MultEQ-X Q&A with Jeff Clark  

I'm not sure. I would guess it's the same.

They have 100ft USB extension cables

Same here. Got an Arcam AVR850 but want a receiver with hdmi 2.1 and auro3d. Only reason i decided arcam at the time was sound quality and dirac, but seeing the measurements of the denon 8500 on asr in combination with this announcement really gives me the upgraditis

I'd your AVR works with the Editor App, it will work with this

Nearly all room correction just takes a before measurement and predicts the after response. You would need REW to confirm. I have a new app coming out (Magic Beans) that does allow you to do an after measurement from the same app.

Also...what this really lacks (IMHO) is: a) a measurement of the actual response after the correction has been applied (what we use REW/CARMA for right now) to evaluate the success b) an option to tweak DynEQ by keeping the bass and treble adjustments but not applying the level adjustment to the Surround/Rear/Rear Height Channels.

Yeah I think of it mainly as a large filter bank. For that use-case alone, I think it's worth it for what I use it for. I can get my system sounding awesome with it.

Only products that work with the $20 Editor App

I did all my measurements and PEQ correction in REW and manually input them into MULTEQ-X

It depends on what you want to do and your experience level

No, only it only shows a predicted target.

@@joentell they should add at least Impulse response and waterfallchart in this software.

You could just put in the PEQ filters that will give you the target you're looking for but only up to 500hz or whatever your max frequency is. Then you just put in that dip at the higher frequency.

I believe this functionality has recently been added.

Please watch the video if you can. All of that is answered

Yes, I use rear heights. I made an entire video about it

Wasn’t there something about setting rears as surrounds? I set up my atmos/auro to front heights and rear heights, also don’t have surround backs just sides, the question is am I good to go?

@@nomorepictures7673 You are good to go. As long as you see an option for Auro-3D, and if you have your speakers in the proper place.

I've only tried the R200 so I can't say. Why not try them all and return what you don't like

@@joentell In India such option is very limited!!

Jeff Clark from Audyssey says they're working on individual EQ for each speaker. He said it's very doable and you can actually do it if you know how to read and edit the text file. Even Dirac doesn't EQ the left and right channels individually

@@joentell What text file do you mean? The save file from the app is json, but the measurements data is encoded and cannot be edited without knowing how to decode/encode. It would be really great if they could add the feature to EQ individual speakers and to import the PEQs from REW :) It would be even greater, if REW would support this as one of the EQ targets and generate as many PEQs as Audyssey XT32 supports.

@@kotolows when you save the config file, you can open that in a text editor

The app got an update. Diffrent curves for left and right are now possible.

I think auto calibration is the same

@@joentell I'm asking because there is different functions in multeq and multeq xt32, such us filters resolution and sub equalasing. Question: is multeq x app brings features of high-end devices to chipper ones?

@@sashaem5508 unfortunately not. I think the software reads your amp and knows it's capabilities. It doesn't add functionality that the hardware isn't capable of.

Yeah, I decided to do it maybe 20 minutes prior, so not very structured. I apologize. Jeff told me he wanted to join not long after.

I definitely was waiting for this one . Joe has been so excited to talk about it.

I don't think it would make a difference for auto EQ. I would recommend this to someone who wants to do a manual tune.

@@joentell so you’re doing this is basically going back bumping and cutting frequencies to get the yellow after line as close to the 0dB as possible? Seems like that’s basically what you’d be doing to perfect the sound and changing the (Q) width to best align the yellow graph. I’ve always felt like it’s more to be had with my Marantz 8805 sound wise.

@@JoseGonzalez-zq7bn not exactly, but you're on the right track. I think people will have their own approaches.

@@joentell man that would take a lot of work for sure! I mean I think that’s what the goal would be is to best align to yellow line (after) and smooth it best as possible. I’m glad audyssey came out with this. I think I’m willing to give it a try, I was definitely considering going to Anthem when the avm90 comes out. I still might but I think this may have solved the somewhat lack of dynamics that was still being desired. This should allow me to get what I’m after. Only thing now is sending it in to get the 8k board and I’ll be a happy camper.

Hmmm how much would you charge to do the tuning? If you was to? I’m sure lots of people would pay to have you fine tune their systems. I probably would 😏

More control only

@@joentell I thought so. Thx

I try to cut rather than boost most of the time, but I think it's easy to take that to the extreme. Some people apply huge cuts which causes you to lose headroom and when you turn it up, it's equivalent to boosting anyway. Ideally, you want to EQ in to a reference point where it's mostly cuts, but a tiny bit of boost here and there in the proper locations won't hurt it. You just have to know where.

@@joentell That is clear, but my question comes from what you say in the video that you have spent several hours testing Audyssey MultEQ-X. I put a screenshot taken from the internet to better understand my query. Seeing this screenshot, my equalization (response curve the same for example as the Audyssey forecast) would be between -3 or -5 dB and not at 0 dB. Just look for the moment at the valley between 60-70 Hz pre Audyssey, raise this valley then almost + 9 dB, it will be noticeable to the ear even if it is a narrow valley. As of today, we can set the MultEQ-X target in dB below 0 dB (default reference). Do you understand my question ? www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/audyssey-room-eq-before-and-after-app-results-png.59656/

@@JuanJose-wt5yj that 70hz dip is very common in rooms. I think it's caused by the ceiling height and the corresponding 70hz wavelength. I see that all the time. I don't do any measurements in Audyssey. I do it all in REW where I can set the target level. I just input all my PEQ into MULTEQ-X.

@@joentell What I mean is that Audyssey should in future updates (if it can't now) give the option to lower the target from 0 dB (75 dB which is the Reference level that it equalizes) to what we are interested in, just as it can be done with Dirac Live and ARC Genesis. I have been EQing manually for years with Equalizer APO using the REW RTA ( I don't use REW in automatic ) and always at the end I leave the ear tests of the most complicated part from my Schroeder frequency up to 300-400Hz, EQing filter by filter with its subsequent ear test. I was just curious about the possibility of lowering the target in dB below 0 (default 75 dB reference level). Can you do this test with MultEQ-X as of today?

I don't know about their future plans

same here :)

Was only for alexa and amazon music the update.

If you know how to manually calibrate, I think it can be better than Dirac. Dirac is just so easy and it does a very good job.

@@joentell thanks Joe, I’m gonna start to tinker with manually calibrating , need to get a umik-1 first. But if it’s better then Dirac I’ll just stay put with Denon. Yes simplicity is a real bonus for sure, that’s what people are after now a days

@@Kenny_Edmonton I'm working on creating courses showing how I do manual calibration. avmasterclass.com

@@joentell oh that’s awesome, I signed up

I don't know about that. It depends on the directivity of the speakers. DSP has its limitations. Physics still apply.

Yes, I've talked to them about this. It sounds like they're considering alternatives.

@@joentell Does it mean it could be worth to hold on with buying the app until they perhaps allow license transfer or lower the price?

@@kotolows that's your call. For me, MultEQ-X is extremely worth it.

I watched the infomercial on Sound United channel and thought $200 was overpriced. Somehow they failed to mention that it worked on more than the base 7 channels. The Sample AVR in the software is also limited to 7 channels. Working on height and wide channels, I totally agree is well worth the $200. I can sell $1000 in DSP gear now :)

@@georgespiggot8502 I'm pretty sure Joe mentioned it worked on all channels multiple times in this stream, and how you'd need 2x DDRC-88A? to do it before. It's also much nicer having one unit do everything. That's worth $200 to me lol.

@@andrewskaterrr Yep. Much more info in this stream even though it didn't go for as long. Helps when the host doesn't cut the guest off constantly to uptalk their product and get distracted from the point of the stream. I'll be buying the software for sure now I know it works for all channels. $200 is a bargain replacing all other DSP. Will just keep my mini DSP just for subs.

No, not yet. Unless you have an Intel Mac and you use Bootcamp or a virtual machine.

@@joentell Okay thanks…. That’s disappointing.

Yes, I can see how it's confusing. They made this targeted towards professional calibrators and hardcore enthusiasts. The answer to your question is that I might not like the measurement methods or the corrections that Audyssey came up with. I prefer to use my Umik-1, take measurements using various techniques in REW software, and come up with my own correction filters. But I still need a way to input those filters into the AVR and this is how I'm using MultEQ-X. Alternatively, a hardware device that's capable of accepting all those filters for all of my channels would cost over $1200.

@@joentell Ok, that clears it up a bit. Thank you!

At the end of the day, it has to make business sense for the businesses involved. Anthem and Denon and Marantz/Audyssey probably have a different deal. It may suck for us consumers, but what can you do?

I can get much better results for various reasons when I do it manually. Auto-EQ is made mostly for simplicity. I don't know of any processors that allow you to put 10+ PEQ filters for each channel. I think about this thing as a giant filter bank. Kind of like a built-in MiniDSP. It's definitely not for most people, just some crazy folks like me.

Yeah, I have no idea.

Not much. I would say this is for advanced users that want to get the most out of their systems and are willing to spend the time to do it.

Yeah, that would be cool if I could do all the things I do in REW. REW is calculating the PEQ filters based on a target curve. The fact that it's free is awesome. I would be happy if I could just import filters the way I use a MiniDSP.

And that's why i don't understand the 200 dollar price point. Anyone who would buy multeq-x obviously would already have REW that can do leaps and bounds more than "x". They should have brought more features to the table at launch instead of saying "we could do that in the future".

@@williamkramer9069 That's true, REW does a lot more. But if you want to manually correct using PEQ, where will you put those correction settings?

With a more robust editor app (on the pc with a mouse) you could shape your target curve to hopefully get closer to what you are trying to achieve through an extra PEQ .Why do you need this if audyssey is delivering the expected results? You already have to use REW to check the results of audyssey anyway, just reshape the target. I don't think they added enough value over the 20 dollar app. Being on PC is worth about 20 bucks. Getting to customize both flat And reference is worth about another 20. You should have all of your positional EQ stuff figured out with REW before running audyssey. You can use rew to see that some seats shouldn't be included in the audyssey process because they are too detrimental the average.

@@williamkramer9069 I don't think this is for everyone. If you don't see a particular use-case for it, it might not be worth it.

You can use it with Bootcamp if you have an Intel Mac. They're still working on M1 compatibility.

To me, it's enables you to do manual EQ of your system which most people won't do. It's for those people who do.

Yes, it is my channel and I was planning to do a live stream and he decided he could join me the last minute when I called to let him know I was going to go live. I am using MultEQ-X in ways even Jeff might not have considered, and my point was to share my findings. I've been using this for months, so I am coming at this from a user's perspective. He would approach it from a developer perspective. A lot of feedback about changes are from me! It sounds like you're assuming I don't know much about this app when I've spent the time to learn a lot about it. Ask Jeff. If I put in the hours, I'm entitled to talk. I don't like someone basically telling me to shut up on my own video. There will be many opportunities for you to listen to Jeff in the upcoming Sound United Training videos.

I am sure if you asked Jeff he would prefer to let Joe talk. Jeff is clearly not the marketing guy. Joe has developed a different use case for this product than Audyssey intended it for. That was the main point of this video. Joe is the expert in using it in that manner, not Audyssey and not Jeff. Several times Joe gave Jeff the opportunity to describe how Audyssey intends the product to be used. Joe allowed Audyssey to use his platform to promote a product that quite frankly very few people if any heard about even with their announcement today. Audyssey generally doesn't know how to promote their products because they usually aren't a direct to consumer business, their product is sold via another brand's product. The creative folks at Sound United craft the marketing material to showcase Audyssey on Sound United products. So I am quite sure Jeff and Audyssey appreciate Joe doing the heavy lifting with promoting this product today. Jeff spoke plenty.

@@keepingupwiththejones2933 Correct! Also, to the OP, I haven't spoken about this because I was under an NDA staring December 2020! A whole year! Jeff and have talked for hours on end numerous times. I asked a few people if they understood where you were coming from with your initial comment and they helped me understand. Basically, it's like, "why have the guy who made it on when you're going to do the talking?" The thing is, I was planning on doing the talking to begin with. I didn't have my laptop ready with the app open by coincidence. Him being there was a plus because he could verify whether what I was saying was correct. My job is to talk on camera, it's not really Jeff's even though he does it. I just wanted to make sure he was comfortable as my guest.