TacT, Lyngdorf, Audyssey Pre/Pro, PARC?

The real reason that the auto-correction with the SMS-1 is inferior to the manual correction has very little to do with your analysis, although the choice of crossover does complicate the issue and the Velodyne has some limitations in that regard.

The biggest reason is that, with auto-mode, the SMS-1 will not vary frequency or Q of the 8 filters it has. Thus, in automode, the SMS-1 is little more than a bass-band graphic EQ.

See: http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround/1105mitr/index.html

OTOH, the bass only Anti-Mode 8033 does a dandy auto EQ without any display or tweaking.

Kal

Kal,

I saw that the Velo's auto mode didn't utilize the capabilities of the PEq, hence my first comment that my results might be due to issues peculiar to the Velo's auto correct system. However, I'd love to find any auto system that can optimize all of the crossover settings - points (which may be asymmetrical), slopes (which may be asymmetrical), phase, and polarity (not the same). After that, it must adjust for smoothest response through the crosssover point, so that the transition from mains to woofer is seamless. After optimizing this critical transition, it can then determine which trade offs between ideal response through the crossover versus smoothest overall response are optimal. The latter is tricky because the smoothest transition may occur around a crossover point that is either too high or too low to provide natural octave to octave balance throughout the overall bandwidth of the combined system. If this is the case, it must try again.

BTW, if you reverse the process and try to optimize overall bandwidth balance first, there's a good chance you'll try hari-kiri before you get the subs integrated in a satisfying manner.

Such a system may exist - I'm not remotely familiar with what's out there. I'd just personally prefer the option of tweaking manually - especially if separate subs are involved - just in case the auto system comes up short.

Just a last thought - please do not misunderstand the tone of my last post - (on screen, it looks more aggressive than I intended it to be). I don't want to try to come off as an "expert" here. I'm completely certain that others - and specifically KR -have much broader experience. I've only commented because my own experience was "challenging" and if I can point out some of the obstacles I tripped over...so much the better.

In the end, my personal take on it was that the ability to trade off optimizing overall response vs. optimizing response around the crossover point was the single most important element in acheiving satisfactory results IN MY SYSTEM and FOR MY PRIORITIES. YMMV.

Marty

I do not know of any system which will do all you ask for. It is a task for knowledgeable humans. Of course, some products do make the claim. http://www.neptuneaudio.net/neptuneEQ_silver_p/neptuneeq-b.htm

Kal

You guys have convinced me (also some other professional reviews) -- the idea that you go with a computer's auto-correction and then stop seems a bit antithetical to this hobby.

Many/most of us who psot here try lots of things and go to a lot of effort to get sound that sounds good to us. Even those who eschew endless audiophile tweaking have likely spent serious time and money getting to the point where they are ready to leave it all alone and just listen to the music. Since tweaking the settings on an EQ is a lot easier (physically that is) and less expensive than (e.g.) buying, burning in, and swaping back and forht between cables, it seems that we should be willing to do this to optimize sound so that it is what we want to hear.