This is a great series of reviews, and valuable to those of us who are using these products on other platforms. One big difference with Dirac is that - unlike Audyssey - they do impulse response correction. I suspect that accounts for much of the difference that you hear ... even though the frequency response can be made to look so similar. Could you compare the impulse response measurements of the two systems? Of course this really should be done with a single channel - not L+R - but it would be interesting. And also C50 and C80 Clarity. Thanks!
Thanks for this. I actually just got MultEQ X over the weekend and ran a standard 3 point measurement calibartion across my couch and imported the Harman curve. Everything sounds a lot better than the phone app. One thing I plan to do when I get time is to EQ my speakers individually going back and forth with MultEQ X and REW. I plan to use the Import Filters function rather than the Import Curve function. I've seen that gives better results. One thing Audyssey could really do to improve the experience is to allow users to use a calibrated UMIK as a lot of people have them for subwoofers already.
Good experiments Jon. From my extensive testing of Audyssey, I find that the issue starts with the initial measurement it takes and the corresponding correction it makes to flatten that at MLP. The correction is too precise in the higher frequencies making the it likely that overcorrection will occur. This can be seen in a nearfield measurement with REW where it often makes the response of a speaker worse than without any EQ applied. Keep in mind that that is the starting point with which it is making corrections. Adding a target curve doesn't undo their initial correction unless you choose to ignore their measurement methods completely and simply use it as a filter bank for PEQ corrections created from a third-party app. The fluctuations in the response were odd in that those changes aren't directly related and yet the measured response was different. It's possible that the Marantz wasn't receiving the calibrations or not applying them correctly. It could be a variation in the measurement, but I assume you kept that static. It's odd for sure, but not the first time I've seen Audyssey do odd things.
So nice to have the calibration expert weigh in here. Thanks for taking the time to assess my results. Where in MultEQ-X do you "choose to ignore their measurements methods completely"? Is it by removing all measurement positions or setting the curtains to exclude all frequencies and then setting the high limit to "limit measured"?
@@ripewave on that measurement page, there's a button to exclude measurements. Thanks for calling me an expert. I'm just insane enough to spend tons of time doing calibrations and testing the results using objective measurements. I don't know if that qualifies as expert or nut. 😂
An expert nut? No, with experience comes expertise and you have it. Thanks for confirming the "exclude measurements" button is the approach to ignore measurements completely. It seems that with full "exclude" the MultEQ-X tool then limits its function to become just the delivery mechanism for loading external filters into the Denon/Marantz receivers/processors.
"it often makes the response of a speaker worse than without any EQ applied." I started to gravitate towards this thinking and at one point just set all distances to minumum and it's fine for me.
Thanks Jon for the comparison measurements. One thing to bear in mind with Dirac and delays/distances is that Dirac also does impulse response correction which, by it's nature introduces additional delay into the system, so you cannot use the Dirac delays converted into distances in Audyssey. (Even if you'd have a Dirac-only AVR, like my previous NAD T758v3, if you'd try to use the delays from a Dirac Slot for a non-Dirac manual calibration, you'd end up with a much fuzzier, much less precise soundstage.)
Very thorough review and comparison between the two systems. Thank you very much! Unfortunately it looks like the 3x higher priced system performs better. But such it is with most things! Can't wait to hear your final review of the unit, particularly how it stacks up on your SQ chart.
Thanks for the feedback and glad the info is helpful. While we would prefer the lower cost option to produce the best results, we would then really call into question why Dirac is setting such a large price for their license. Sound quality by model is coming and will include new Marantz Cinema 30 - which arrives this week. -Jon
Looking at the difference in price i think i would give MultEQ-X a go unless ART in the future will give Dirac a big advantage. For the lower end receivers like the 3800 Dirac is just to expensive. For a 6800 its a harder decission. I currently have a X4400H with the app its not to bad made some manual level adjustments but i know there is more gain to be had. I might upgrade to a newer AVR in the future but since the 6800 is not better compared to the 6700 in all aspects im still waiting a bit longer. The price of the 6800 also needs to come down compared to the 6700.
Just awesome stuff! One clarification, you indicated the best FR is Cutoff + Bass Mgmt + Curtain, but the best curve was actually Cutoff + Bass Mgmt. Can you please confirm/verify? Thanks!
I think you are right. The Cutoff+Bass Management lined up very close. With the curtains added, it began to deviate from the Dirac result. Good catch. -Jon
People on AVS forums seem to be split. Some like Dirac, some like MultEQ-X. There seems to be a lot more support for Dirac over there but thats because there are more prestige processors and receivers that use Dirac. Plus its easier to get a good result with its fine control of phase alignment. Apparently Audyssey can also get there, but as you found out, requires a whole lot more work. But I think it has the potential to outperform Dirac, but only in the hands of an expert calibrator who knows how to use all those tools to the fullest.
I think your analysis is correct. I have a connection at Audyssey now and will try to learn details which could make it easier to get the best outcomes in addition to advance techniques to share.
Distances impact how the signal is delayed so that each speaker reaches your ears at the same time. It is really a delay setting, but delays are directly related to distance. With subwoofers, distances can vary more from actual distances to get the timing right as low frequencies are slower. -Jon
These are all great Videos with lots of informative content, but one thing that is suspiciously lacking is REW measurements of the Subwoofers after running the various forms of Dirac and Audyssey. I would really appreciate if you could provide just those LFE measurements for each of the Audyssey and Dirac (Basic, Full Range, Bass Management and Bass Control) for us in a new Video. Thanks!
Thanks John! Wondering how much better the new Marantz Cinema 30 will be over the 6800. Does anyone think Marantz will also release a Cinema 20 ( their version of the Denon A1H) ?
I will have a Cinema 30 this week to directly compare. I have heard nothing of a Cinema 20. I suspect Marantz won't have a matching model for the Denon A1H. I believe we are more likely to see a Marantz AV20 - a step down from the AV10 processor separate. -Jon
Hi from the UK. Bottom line is nothing beats manual EQ. I use REW for all the heavy lifting and MQX as a vessel for implementation. Perfect combo to achieve optimum speaker integration and system set up. Yes it requires a lot of work and knowledge but that is the consequence over convenience using the always flawed AUTO EQ. Flavours such as RoomPerfect are superb but again surpassed by adopting a manual approach. So, you have your choice, effort v convenience. EQ should only be the icing on the cake having dealt with fundamentals of speaker placement and room treatment and not over used to the detriment of said speakers sonic signature. Remember 'you can't make a bad speaker sound good, but you can make a good speaker sound bad'. And, always be prepared to accept compromises!
True. Thanks for those thoughtful comments. I agree that a manual calibration, executed by a knowledgeable calibrator, can produce superior results. A good room and good speakers can only be compensated so far. The point I need to make on these videos is that these tools are for those that don’t have the patience, ambition or capability to properly execute a manual calibration. My complaint about Audyssey MultEQ-X is that doesn’t deliver much to the novice or person who wants to avoid manual calibration. Dirac does much better for them. For the manual calibrators using REW or similar, Audyssey MultEQ-X serves only as a tool to carry to results from the manual calibration into the Denon/Marantz unit. For being only a delivery mechanism Audyssey get their $199 fee while REW (where the work is done) can be used at no cost. -Jon
@@ripewave 100% agree Jon. Realised I was detracting from your target audience but I find it a little frustrating that users expect A/V Nirvana via auto calibration and are often tempted into spending hard earned money for poor return. My point is that optimum results are achievable if one has the time, will, patience and tenacity to learn. By the way, i'm not a professional calibrator, I've just gone through many years of a very steep learning curve. I think what you are portraying is superb for those that you are targeting but must be met with appropriate expectations. One of, if not the best, presentations of room correction tools I have seen. I will follow with interest 😁👍🏻.
Is Dirac worth the upgrade over the Cinema 50's built in Audyssey implementation for a 5.1 system? If so what version of Dirac would be the best ROI in that situation?
Full bandwith correction for Audyssey and Dirac is a sc@m! It isn't mathematically possible to correct above 500Hz with a unidirectional mic! Just get the Dirac basic + DLBC for best results!
As a hobbyist I love all this stuff. But as a movie fanatic..I wonder if I would notice a difference worth 300 to 500 euro in movies. Sigh..I guess I have to buy to know :P. You need to do a lot of tweaking to get the graphs right. I hope I do not get lost in graphs..but let my ears win . But what is good sound? And when does it stop when you can adjust so many options?
Yours is a great debate. It can be overwhelming with all the options to tailor the sound. Given that you don't have a direct feedback with changes you make in Dirac Live or MultEQ-X, you have send the filters to the receiver, which takes a while, then listen. Unless you move only 1-2 parameters at a time, it is hard to know what change produced the positive impact. -Jon
There is no way I'll take up this subset of the hobby, I'd have much more fun watching a movie for a couple hours than tinkering with this college math class, haha. Happy for those who do enjoy it.
Wow what a great video. Here's a question for anyone who may know the answer....Why does John's software show Sub Front and Sub Rear while mine shows Subwoofers 4 (SubEQ HT)? I have 4 subwoofers, just wondering why it lumps all mine into one graph and not individual like John's.
Okay that is odd. And I can assume that all 4 are configured as such in the X4800 speaker configuration. Did you select the “directional” option? That could be it if you didn’t. -Jon
No, they are not directional. They are just setup as 4 subs (2 in front L &R position, one on each side). Could that be the reason? Does DLBC set them up (by default) as directional?@@ripewave
I have my 2 subs setup as directional in the Denon first. Dirac and MultEQ-X simply import whatever speaker configuration is present in the receiver at time of calibration startup. If you don’t select directional, then the AVR sends the same signal to each. You are not getting the “independent” benefit your receiver is capable of. -Jon
I noticed that you already have 2 videos out on the new Marantz Cinema 30. Is there a Part 7 and/or 8 coming out to conclude this review of the X6800H?
Yes, I do have more parts on the Denon AVR-X6800H planned. What remain may be produced in combination with the Marantz Cinema 30. For the sound comparison video, it makes sense
@@ripewave Cool, thanks, John! I understand the results of such a comparison would be affected by whatever speakers we, the listener, are using, but is it possible for you to actually play some music tracks and movie clips on the Denon and Marantz so that we can hear the differences? I've noticed that almost no reviewers do this and I've always wondered why. It would be really interesting to hear the Sony vs Denon vs Marantz vs Onkyo, for eg.
In your detailed reviews it would be nice to see head to head comparisons between Denon and Marantz comparable models, ie X6800H vs Cinema 30. There's lots of hype about Marantz being more musical due to HDAM and filters, along with some pixie dust but does it justify the premium price? RUclips reviewer don't seem to address this. The general consenses on forums like AVS is the difference is minimal to most people and does not justify the Marantz's premium price tag. I'm currently using the AV7703, prior to that I had the AV8802, and am looking to down size.
Does your model allow you to select “Directional” as a choice when configuring subwoofers? If so, I have another trying that to resolve, but his is current generation with four subs. -Jon
I just did a comparison with Dirac Live standard curve and Harman curve 4dB and it is blatantly obvious that the Harman curve overdoes the bass. It is unusable with my setup. I can't imagine what the higher output curves would should like. As far as the comparison of Dirac Live to Audyssey, Dirac wins hands down. Odyssey beats Dirac Live with the Harman curve. I just use the results Dirac and Odyssey give me. Why spend that much money for Dirac Live and then try to second guess it by tweaking it here and there? That makes no sense to me. Audyssey was set up with the iPhone app. I have not tried REW.
Audyssey need to reinvent to be on pair or better than Dirac if they still want to continue have precense in the Home Theater AV receiver /processor market
This is a great series of reviews, and valuable to those of us who are using these products on other platforms. One big difference with Dirac is that - unlike Audyssey - they do impulse response correction. I suspect that accounts for much of the difference that you hear ... even though the frequency response can be made to look so similar. Could you compare the impulse response measurements of the two systems? Of course this really should be done with a single channel - not L+R - but it would be interesting. And also C50 and C80 Clarity. Thanks!
Thanks for this. I actually just got MultEQ X over the weekend and ran a standard 3 point measurement calibartion across my couch and imported the Harman curve. Everything sounds a lot better than the phone app. One thing I plan to do when I get time is to EQ my speakers individually going back and forth with MultEQ X and REW. I plan to use the Import Filters function rather than the Import Curve function. I've seen that gives better results.
One thing Audyssey could really do to improve the experience is to allow users to use a calibrated UMIK as a lot of people have them for subwoofers already.
Good experiments Jon. From my extensive testing of Audyssey, I find that the issue starts with the initial measurement it takes and the corresponding correction it makes to flatten that at MLP. The correction is too precise in the higher frequencies making the it likely that overcorrection will occur. This can be seen in a nearfield measurement with REW where it often makes the response of a speaker worse than without any EQ applied.
Keep in mind that that is the starting point with which it is making corrections. Adding a target curve doesn't undo their initial correction unless you choose to ignore their measurement methods completely and simply use it as a filter bank for PEQ corrections created from a third-party app.
The fluctuations in the response were odd in that those changes aren't directly related and yet the measured response was different. It's possible that the Marantz wasn't receiving the calibrations or not applying them correctly. It could be a variation in the measurement, but I assume you kept that static. It's odd for sure, but not the first time I've seen Audyssey do odd things.
So nice to have the calibration expert weigh in here. Thanks for taking the time to assess my results.
Where in MultEQ-X do you "choose to ignore their measurements methods completely"? Is it by removing all measurement positions or setting the curtains to exclude all frequencies and then setting the high limit to "limit measured"?
@@ripewave on that measurement page, there's a button to exclude measurements.
Thanks for calling me an expert. I'm just insane enough to spend tons of time doing calibrations and testing the results using objective measurements. I don't know if that qualifies as expert or nut. 😂
An expert nut? No, with experience comes expertise and you have it. Thanks for confirming the "exclude measurements" button is the approach to ignore measurements completely. It seems that with full "exclude" the MultEQ-X tool then limits its function to become just the delivery mechanism for loading external filters into the Denon/Marantz receivers/processors.
"it often makes the response of a speaker worse than without any EQ applied." I started to gravitate towards this thinking and at one point just set all distances to minumum and it's fine for me.
Thanks Jon for the comparison measurements. One thing to bear in mind with Dirac and delays/distances is that Dirac also does impulse response correction which, by it's nature introduces additional delay into the system, so you cannot use the Dirac delays converted into distances in Audyssey. (Even if you'd have a Dirac-only AVR, like my previous NAD T758v3, if you'd try to use the delays from a Dirac Slot for a non-Dirac manual calibration, you'd end up with a much fuzzier, much less precise soundstage.)
Very thorough review and comparison between the two systems. Thank you very much! Unfortunately it looks like the 3x higher priced system performs better. But such it is with most things! Can't wait to hear your final review of the unit, particularly how it stacks up on your SQ chart.
Thanks for the feedback and glad the info is helpful. While we would prefer the lower cost option to produce the best results, we would then really call into question why Dirac is setting such a large price for their license. Sound quality by model is coming and will include new Marantz Cinema 30 - which arrives this week. -Jon
Looking at the difference in price i think i would give MultEQ-X a go unless ART in the future will give Dirac a big advantage.
For the lower end receivers like the 3800 Dirac is just to expensive. For a 6800 its a harder decission.
I currently have a X4400H with the app its not to bad made some manual level adjustments but i know there is more gain to be had.
I might upgrade to a newer AVR in the future but since the 6800 is not better compared to the 6700 in all aspects im still waiting a bit longer. The price of the 6800 also needs to come down compared to the 6700.
Yes, that difference it price is an issue. No work yet on the future path to ART for Denon. Sometimes it is good to wait. -jon
Just awesome stuff!
One clarification, you indicated the best FR is Cutoff + Bass Mgmt + Curtain, but the best curve was actually Cutoff + Bass Mgmt.
Can you please confirm/verify?
Thanks!
I think you are right. The Cutoff+Bass Management lined up very close. With the curtains added, it began to deviate from the Dirac result. Good catch. -Jon
People on AVS forums seem to be split. Some like Dirac, some like MultEQ-X. There seems to be a lot more support for Dirac over there but thats because there are more prestige processors and receivers that use Dirac. Plus its easier to get a good result with its fine control of phase alignment.
Apparently Audyssey can also get there, but as you found out, requires a whole lot more work. But I think it has the potential to outperform Dirac, but only in the hands of an expert calibrator who knows how to use all those tools to the fullest.
I think your analysis is correct. I have a connection at Audyssey now and will try to learn details which could make it easier to get the best outcomes in addition to advance techniques to share.
@@ripewave awesome. Looking forward to that video
Fantastic reviews thank you! Please review the Marantz Cinema 30. I am now subscribed ☺️
The Cinema 30 has been ordered and may arrive today - thanks for subscribing. -Jon
Can anyone explain how changing distances and trims could affect the response of a single channel?
Distances impact how the signal is delayed so that each speaker reaches your ears at the same time. It is really a delay setting, but delays are directly related to distance. With subwoofers, distances can vary more from actual distances to get the timing right as low frequencies are slower. -Jon
These are all great Videos with lots of informative content, but one thing that is suspiciously lacking is REW measurements of the Subwoofers after running the various forms of Dirac and Audyssey. I would really appreciate if you could provide just those LFE measurements for each of the Audyssey and Dirac (Basic, Full Range, Bass Management and Bass Control) for us in a new Video. Thanks!
Thanks John! Wondering how much better the new Marantz Cinema 30 will be over the 6800. Does anyone think Marantz will also release a Cinema 20 ( their version of the Denon A1H) ?
I will have a Cinema 30 this week to directly compare. I have heard nothing of a Cinema 20. I suspect Marantz won't have a matching model for the Denon A1H. I believe we are more likely to see a Marantz AV20 - a step down from the AV10 processor separate. -Jon
these current class of AVRs have no chance of beating the Yamaha A8A. the BAR has been set too high by Yamaha.
Hi from the UK.
Bottom line is nothing beats manual EQ. I use REW for all the heavy lifting and MQX as a vessel for implementation. Perfect combo to achieve optimum speaker integration and system set up. Yes it requires a lot of work and knowledge but that is the consequence over convenience using the always flawed AUTO EQ. Flavours such as RoomPerfect are superb but again surpassed by adopting a manual approach.
So, you have your choice, effort v convenience.
EQ should only be the icing on the cake having dealt with fundamentals of speaker placement and room treatment and not over used to the detriment of said speakers sonic signature.
Remember 'you can't make a bad speaker sound good, but you can make a good speaker sound bad'. And, always be prepared to accept compromises!
True. Thanks for those thoughtful comments. I agree that a manual calibration, executed by a knowledgeable calibrator, can produce superior results. A good room and good speakers can only be compensated so far.
The point I need to make on these videos is that these tools are for those that don’t have the patience, ambition or capability to properly execute a manual calibration.
My complaint about Audyssey MultEQ-X is that doesn’t deliver much to the novice or person who wants to avoid manual calibration. Dirac does much better for them.
For the manual calibrators using REW or similar, Audyssey MultEQ-X serves only as a tool to carry to results from the manual calibration into the Denon/Marantz unit. For being only a delivery mechanism Audyssey get their $199 fee while REW (where the work is done) can be used at no cost. -Jon
@@ripewave 100% agree Jon. Realised I was detracting from your target audience but I find it a little frustrating that users expect A/V Nirvana via auto calibration and are often tempted into spending hard earned money for poor return. My point is that optimum results are achievable if one has the time, will, patience and tenacity to learn. By the way, i'm not a professional calibrator, I've just gone through many years of a very steep learning curve.
I think what you are portraying is superb for those that you are targeting but must be met with appropriate expectations.
One of, if not the best, presentations of room correction tools I have seen. I will follow with interest 😁👍🏻.
My plan is to first cover what is possible with the automatic solution then explore manual calibrations. -Jon
Is Dirac worth the upgrade over the Cinema 50's built in Audyssey implementation for a 5.1 system? If so what version of Dirac would be the best ROI in that situation?
I believe so. The difference in results is noticeable. -Jon
Full bandwith correction for Audyssey and Dirac is a sc@m! It isn't mathematically possible to correct above 500Hz with a unidirectional mic! Just get the Dirac basic + DLBC for best results!
While I found it was possible to get similar results out of Audyssey MultEQ-X, Dirac Live did so without as much effort.
As a hobbyist I love all this stuff. But as a movie fanatic..I wonder if I would notice a difference worth 300 to 500 euro in movies. Sigh..I guess I have to buy to know :P. You need to do a lot of tweaking to get the graphs right. I hope I do not get lost in graphs..but let my ears win .
But what is good sound? And when does it stop when you can adjust so many options?
Yours is a great debate. It can be overwhelming with all the options to tailor the sound. Given that you don't have a direct feedback with changes you make in Dirac Live or MultEQ-X, you have send the filters to the receiver, which takes a while, then listen. Unless you move only 1-2 parameters at a time, it is hard to know what change produced the positive impact. -Jon
There is no way I'll take up this subset of the hobby, I'd have much more fun watching a movie for a couple hours than tinkering with this college math class, haha. Happy for those who do enjoy it.
Wow what a great video. Here's a question for anyone who may know the answer....Why does John's software show Sub Front and Sub Rear while mine shows Subwoofers 4 (SubEQ HT)? I have 4 subwoofers, just wondering why it lumps all mine into one graph and not individual like John's.
What model Denon or Marantz do you have?
@@ripewave Denon X4800H
Okay that is odd. And I can assume that all 4 are configured as such in the X4800 speaker configuration. Did you select the “directional” option? That could be it if you didn’t. -Jon
No, they are not directional. They are just setup as 4 subs (2 in front L &R position, one on each side). Could that be the reason? Does DLBC set them up (by default) as directional?@@ripewave
I have my 2 subs setup as directional in the Denon first. Dirac and MultEQ-X simply import whatever speaker configuration is present in the receiver at time of calibration startup. If you don’t select directional, then the AVR sends the same signal to each. You are not getting the “independent” benefit your receiver is capable of. -Jon
Is there a "how does it sound compared to the 4800" discussion in any of the 6 parts of the 6800 review?
Coming soon. Maybe part 7. -Jon
I noticed that you already have 2 videos out on the new Marantz Cinema 30. Is there a Part 7 and/or 8 coming out to conclude this review of the X6800H?
Yes, I do have more parts on the Denon AVR-X6800H planned. What remain may be produced in combination with the Marantz Cinema 30. For the sound comparison video, it makes sense
@@ripewave Cool, thanks, John! I understand the results of such a comparison would be affected by whatever speakers we, the listener, are using, but is it possible for you to actually play some music tracks and movie clips on the Denon and Marantz so that we can hear the differences? I've noticed that almost no reviewers do this and I've always wondered why. It would be really interesting to hear the Sony vs Denon vs Marantz vs Onkyo, for eg.
In your detailed reviews it would be nice to see head to head comparisons between Denon and Marantz comparable models, ie X6800H vs Cinema 30. There's lots of hype about Marantz being more musical due to HDAM and filters, along with some pixie dust but does it justify the premium price? RUclips reviewer don't seem to address this. The general consenses on forums like AVS is the difference is minimal to most people and does not justify the Marantz's premium price tag. I'm currently using the AV7703, prior to that I had the AV8802, and am looking to down size.
The Cinema 30 arrived yesterday. There will be a head to head comparison. -Jon
Also, my MultEQ X combines the subs together. How’d you get two separate EQ’s??
What model Denon/Marantz do you have?
@@ripewave SR8015 and AV8805A. Maybe that only works for the newest gen receivers?
Does your model allow you to select “Directional” as a choice when configuring subwoofers? If so, I have another trying that to resolve, but his is current generation with four subs. -Jon
Thanks again Jon!
Have we been able to confirm which DAC chips are in the X6800H?
It was confirmed to be Sabre DACs in a european live stream. I dont remember the exaxt number.
Thanks for weighing in with that detail I didn't have. So far, I have not opened the case. -Jon
You should have turned on individual speaker calibration..
Thanks for the tip.
I just did a comparison with Dirac Live standard curve and Harman curve 4dB and it is blatantly obvious that the Harman curve overdoes the bass. It is unusable with my setup.
I can't imagine what the higher output curves would should like. As far as the comparison of Dirac Live to Audyssey, Dirac wins hands down. Odyssey beats Dirac Live with the Harman curve. I just use the results Dirac and Odyssey give me. Why spend that much money for Dirac Live and then try to second guess it by tweaking it here and there? That makes no sense to me. Audyssey was set up with the iPhone app. I have not tried REW.
Audyssey need to reinvent to be on pair or better than Dirac if they still want to continue have precense in the Home Theater AV receiver /processor market
It is a powerful tool for manual calibration. They need to work on their automatic settings. -Jon
No subwoofer and only 2 Channels. IMHO useless...