Ok so this is a bit of a (LONG) post to put my views out there on a few things and get some feedback. These include Audyssey multi eq xt, as found in some avr's, the dspeaker antimode 8033 and the speakers settings in general. These are things Ive found with my setup so may not be applicable for people with different kit, but may be of interest to some people and get them thinking about their setups.
Well, Ive had the pleasure of a loan antimode for the weekend and must send a big thanks to its owner. I eventually found I'd got a decent response that I was happy with by just using REW, an SPL meter, some placement sussing out and fiddling about with speaker options. Even after all this there was still the odd timing issue with the sub on some tracks that nothing could seem to fix. I found the antimode has cleared these up just nicely. There is ever so slightly less bass but there is still plenty for my taste and everything is probably just more accurate now, at least thats how I see it and I'm very happy now and will probably soon invest in one of these as a result. I can certainly recommend this device anyway although I would say I dont think it has been a night and day change for me. For some perhaps it will be and perhaps self setup has gone some way to reduce the difference Ive seen, but its still done the job it claims to do and done it very well. While thats quite a good result that is now my firm opinion of this device, its not the whole story though and i'll get to that a bit later.
Moving on to Audyssey Multi EQ XT. Ive seen mixed opinions on this and for some time I could see why this was. I couldnt seem to get any huge improvement by using it and music sounded better in Pure Audio mode with Audyssey out of the picture. I have now completely changed my assessment of this but that change has not been easy or straight forward for me. I have found that getting it to work as its claimed it does depends on correct implementation. Where the antimode is easier than breathing to use, Audyssey is not, and it seems to me its very picky about one or two things. Firstly, I'd say about how you use it, mic placement and such. Get it wrong and results can vary from wandering if it has done anything to making things sound worse due to hit and miss results.Then on top of this, I found that getting your sub setup optimal before you use auto EQ also makes a fair old difference. So far it doesnt seem all that upto scratch and doesnt seem to do what it claims very well at all, and Ive seen other people report this, but I didnt give up.
On the other side of the coin I have seen people reporting very good results and I wanted the same. So I got stuck in, I e-mailed Audyssey with my concerns, and while I as waiting for the response got stuck into some proper sub placement experimentation to see how much improvement I could get on my own. I made quite a difference, mainly curing a fair dip in my response and my ears where very pleased with the result. Then I got my reply from Audyssey and gave that another go following their advice. This time things where much better. Bass is very clear and articulate, but still very powerful and is so much closer to how I thought my system should sound. I'm now also very happy with this.
So, multi EQ for me now does indeed do what it says on the tin, but it wasnt straight forward and easy, and the general mix of opinion would seem to back this up. I would also say it doesnt remove the need for self EQ'ing. It may well help if your stuck with a bad position, but IMO there is still no substitute for getting stuck in yourself, learning the process and optimising what you have before EQ. In short, the more you help Audyssey the better it seems to work, and not just generally. I found there was more of a difference between Audyssey being on and off when I had optimised my setup myself, than previous to me doing some setup myslef. Good setup is a good setup after all then, and it would seem its easier to improve a good responding system than a bad one. This to me would seem to have a direct link with dips in response, no matter what you do auto EQ cant remove these and you need to help the system with this. Once you do though the results are much better, and it makes the feature well worth having. I am now happy to listen to music in stereo again rather than Pure Audio mode because of Audyssey working at its best and I'm now much happier.
In summary, Audyssey is a good feature, that does work, but its not without its downfalls as it can give mixed results if not used properly, and it cant work miracles. Help it to do its job properly though and results are in deed very good, and IMO possibly even good enough for some people to not need the stand alone devices.
The last thing I have been playing with lately is the settings on the Onkyo in the search for a better response. Audyssey state speakers must be set to small, as do everyone else. Everything you see tells you to do this and anything that goes against this is frowned upon greatly. Even though this is accepted now, Onkyo seem to set speakers to large and I couldnt stop wandering why. So I got stuck into REW and decided the only way to get to the bottom of this was to find out for myself, no one seemed to have the answers anyway so off I went on one

, and I think Ive found a few interesting things out.
OK, so after I got my setup to the point I have it now I started the digging process. I played with different crossovers, different speaker size settings, various sub tuning modes, Audyssey on and off, Pure Audio modes and plain old doing nothing to what the system wanted. Ive tested the speakers and what Audyssey has done to them, done the same wit the sub, and ran graphs to see what effects the sub and speakers where having on each other throughout these various settings. I now have probably over 50 sets of results, way to many to post them all up but I think I have found my answers. In short, 80 cross over works best, well all those years Dolby and THX spent finding this out cant be argued with can they so thats no surprise I guess. What has come as a surprise is I found that both to my ear, and on the charts, my response is better when speakers are set to large/full range. I mentioned this on a thread and got a rather abrupt but not surprising response.
All my testing points to one thing though, and that is that on the Onkyo at least, speaker size setting isnt affecting the crossover settings. The sub is working exactly as it should and doesnt change when the speaker sizes are changed and I take a sub only reading. The only thing this is changing is the way the speakers work, and this in turn affects overall response. In my case I prefer the augmented response and looking at my response I can see what it is thats changing that I obviously like. The great thing is that Audyssey seems to understand this and take this into account, or perhaps this is something Onkyo are doing I dont know. One thing I do feel is that people who say Onkyos arent very good musically probably dont leave speakers set to large (which I think of as music mode, and small as movie mode). A perfectly flat response, while technically correct, doesnt seem to be my ultimate setting preference. I prefer a slight peak here and there, but it musnt be to much or it starts drowning out other frequencies, its just some slight tweaking but I definitely prefer it.
This got me wandering something I cant really answer. Is Audyssey doing more when its measuring system response than just testing your speakers against your room, is it also figuring out how the subs response affect this too and allowing for this, it certainly seem to but like I say I cant honestly answer this. It seems to listen to your speakers, and your sub, and work out how best to get them to work together once EQ is applied to each speaker. This would mean it calculates things differently for each and every setup, for every conceivable combination or sub and speakers, and uses some clever stuff to work with what ever its given. This for me is beyond what something like the antimode is doing. That device can account for room acoustics, but it cant figure your speakers into this, and cant figure out how the EQ'd responses work together and that for me is impressive, especially considering its a 'free' feature compared to the cost of stand alone devices. This is also why I think Onkyo are using your speakers full range should you choose to, if they are up to the job then why not. This is especially apparent for me with music, using full range speaker setting seems to give a softer slope at the crossover similar to how a high level connection on a sub, and given the music implications of high level connections and my thoughts on full range speakers sounding better especially with music, one or to things certainly seem to be adding up to me.
All in all I now thing Ive got my system as good as it could possibly be. I mentioned above how the antimode is great but there is something else. After I ran it I checked the results of my self and Audyssey set system. On both my graphs and waterfalls I could see little difference, but I could certainly here it. It doesnt seem to do everything, and if you have done a lot of work yourself it seems a lot of what it does wont be anywhere you can see it. The same seems to apply for Audyssey, although what it does is certainly more obvious on the graphs and waterfalls than the antimode is. That said they both seem to benefit from all the help you can give them. Ive also found trusting the Onkyo to set your speakers works better to, both on the graphs and to my ears.
All in all I'm pleased with were I'm at, even if I do seem to be bucking the trend a little compared to what the majority say. Am I weird or showing the way, I dont know, bit I figured I'd pass my thoughts on and see what people make of it. That is if you manage to read this far through the mass of text
Thanks for reading.