xt vs. xt32 - my findings

jonjames

Established Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
811
Reaction score
284
Points
243
Location
Gloucestershire
So I managed to pick up a Denon 3500 for an ok price to replace my 2400. Only set it up this morning. I did some REW sweeps to see what xt32 is all about and I'm not sure it's what I expected. Reading there are 512 filters compared to 128 for bass, and 512 for satellites compared to 16, I probably was expecting to see a much smoother response. These graphs have 1/12 smoothing and +4db added to the sub channel. The calibration was done with the avr, I will try the app next time.

I obviously need to do some more listening as graphs aren't everything. But does this look right? Is there anything more that xt32 does that REW can't show me, or that I should be listening for?

xt32 vs xt.jpg
xt32 vs xt 20 to 200.jpg
 
Does any one have any thoughts on this? Today I tried the sub in a different location to see what xt32 could do and the answer is not a lot.

What is xt32 doing that is better than xt? As going by my REW sweeps, not much more if any?
 
Interesting experiment.

Maybe the smoothing hides the differences in the lower frequencies? Can you repost the 2nd graph without smoothing?

Are you able to hear any differences in real content?
 
Some one in a similar position two years ago.
 
Cheers for posting that up. I also did a calibration with the app and get results like the above. It's only REW that makes the 2 not look much/any different.

After a bit more listening I do think it sounds better but probably not as much as I expected. I'm certainly glad I didn't spend £1150 on a brand new one.

I will post up the un smoothed comparison soon.
 
Does any one have any thoughts on this? Today I tried the sub in a different location to see what xt32 could do and the answer is not a lot.

What is xt32 doing that is better than xt? As going by my REW sweeps, not much more if any?


 
Some one in a similar position two years ago.

Unfortunately that doesn’t really mean too much as Audyssey’s predicted results have, when compared to REW sweeps, proved to be wishingful thinking on many occasions (even miraculously dealing with nulls etc.)

This is a really interesting thread. Maybe this simply proves what it looms like and that, in Jon’s particularly room, the extra resolution of XT32 offers little extra benefit in practice. I would love to see more before and after measurements of different EQ systems in the same rooms.

I have Audyssey XT on a AVR-3312 in my living room system and I must say that I was quite impressed (when measured with REW) how it managed to iron out the peaks in the subwoofer region.
 
Reading there are 512 filters compared to 128 for bass, and 512 for satellites compared to 16, I probably was expecting to see a much smoother response

My understanding was that Audyssey is not just "correcting" the frequency response. It reads and then EQs in the time domain, so I would potentially suggest that when it quotes the number of filters XT vs XT32 it isn't just talking about correction of overall frequency response it is talking about the total number of filters?

This could indicate why there may be little difference in appearance of FR but a clear audible difference (where our ears hear all of the reflected sounds etc).

And, sorry to quote the total obvious, but this is using different amps, pre-amps and DACs. I could hear a clear difference post XT32/sub EQ HT with an x4400 than post XT with an x2300 - but you would hope that the two products should show a difference without EQ anyway.
 
My understanding was that Audyssey is not just "correcting" the frequency response. It reads and then EQs in the time domain, so I would potentially suggest that when it quotes the number of filters XT vs XT32 it isn't just talking about correction of overall frequency response it is talking about the total number of filters?

This could indicate why there may be little difference in appearance of FR but a clear audible difference (where our ears hear all of the reflected sounds etc).

And, sorry to quote the total obvious, but this is using different amps, pre-amps and DACs. I could hear a clear difference post XT32/sub EQ HT with an x4400 than post XT with an x2300 - but you would hope that the two products should show a difference without EQ anyway.
This would make sense, there has to be more to it than just some PEQ's correcting the peaks and nulls. I've tried searching for some answers but can't find anything more.
 
You can tell some of the clever things it seems to be doing with this by switching temporarily to "L/R bypass" so that you've no Audyssey on FL and FR. Do a before and after.

I noticed it particularly in something that has some good panning of sound from fronts to centre and/or around the room to surrounds. Then it kind of sounds like things aren't in sync properly anymore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here are some graphs I did, no smoothing at all.

First one is xt32 vs xt

Second one is xt before and after eq

Third is xt32 but moving the sub to the left of the tv before and after eq, I thought this would get me a good result going by the before, very surprised it couldn't do more, to me it looks like xt does a better job of flattening the response with big peaks.

xt32 vs xt no smoothing.jpg

xt eq and no eq no smoothing.jpg

left of tv eq vs no eq.jpg
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom