AccuEQ Vs Audyssey - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 388Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 1839 Old 08-03-2014, 03:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
turnne1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Indianapolis Indiana
Posts: 4,076
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 735 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post
[/B]

Fanboyism strikes again.

I said probably and not positively a reason for dropping Audyssey.

I could never touch your record for derailing.
LOL....+1

you hit it on the head

some dont like to deal with reality

I know exactly what you mean
I have owned 8 or so Onkyos...6 AVR's and 2 pre pros...all but one( 807) were the thx ultra certified units

At one point I was on a first name basis( and speed dial) with their warranty department
To their credit they have outright replaced 2 units( with newer models) and repaired 3 other HDMI boards in units...as well as several other odds and ends...ir cables..DSP boards etc ..etc


Warren

Rm 1 Samsung 64F8500 Marantz 8801 prepro Sherbourn 5/1500A amp B&W CM10s..CM2 center...CM5's.rears
Rm 2 LG 47LE8500 Denon 4520 Celestion 305 speaker system
Rm 3 Samsung 51E8000 Yamaha A2010 Kef 2005.2 speaker system
Rm 4 Panasonic 50ST50 Onkyo 906 Mirage Omni sat speaker system
turnne1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 1839 Old 08-03-2014, 05:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East
Posts: 5,665
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2381 Post(s)
Liked: 702
1. Prices of AVRs vs SSPs: It's all relative; some great flagship receivers were $6,000+ (Arcam, Lexicon, Denon), and some great pre/pros (SSPs) were from $400 to $1,000 (Emotiva, Onkyo, Outlaw, ...).
- Even today some AV receivers cost over $3,000 and some SSPs cost less than $2,000

2. Regarding AccuEQ vs Audyssey: With Dolby Atmos & Audyssey MultEQ XT32 inside a unit, you need three or four DSP chips.
With AccuEQ and Dolbly Atmos inside a unit, you need two or three DSP chips.

* Denon/Marantz AV receivers and SSPs won't be available till later on; seems they need more time to integrate properly these two technologies together in harmony with each other.

** Onkyo/Integra seems to be ready quicker with a simpler solution from AccuEQ where they've been @ it in experimenting and implementing them together (AccuEQ with Dolby Atmos).

<<>> If Onkyo/Integra are releasing their AVRs and SSPs before Denon/Marantz; they obviously aim @ gaining market share. It is a smart strategy.

And from there the future will determine their next step; possibly by reintegrating Audyssey MultEQ XT32 in their higher end products.

If I was in that business, the Onkyo/Integra strategy would be one I'd certainly adopt.

This is now, and we don't have them products just yet, and so our exposure is extremely limited to only few demonstrations heard by very few people who shared them with us here. ...And I believe Onkyo was one of the AVR or SSP used to demo those Dolby Atmos experiments. ..And Pioneer is also pushing like Onkyo on the Dolby Atmos speakers front.

For some of us who have experience with Audyssey MultEQ XT32, it is tough to digest that the front channels (and sub channel?) won't receive any EQ from AccuEQ. That, doesn't ring right @ all because we all know that inside our rooms all our speakers need some smart equalization, and particularly our two front mains, and the subwoofer channel. The room is not what the sound masterminds intended us to hear, so it has to be neutral, short of acoustic room treatments.

The new Dolby Atmos speakers rely on new dispersion patterns and reflections from the ceiling to be effective at their best. ...And there is more happening with Dolby Atmos, and all 'objects' are delivered all around, not just from overhead. It's a new ball game, and requires smart implementation with them EQ systems we are used to.
And with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 some new adjustments are required indeed; x-overs, phase, how to EQ reflections, and tra-la-la...
With AccuEQ Onkyo/Integra adopted a simpler system that would allow them to release their products faster with less issues, I think.
And nothing will stop them to readjust later on, if they see the need to; financially speaking. ...Because even if most of us here are concern about getting the best and smartest surround sound experience, these manufacturers are into the business of making money first, then sound quality second, I think.

So, it is up to us, when we'll get them new Dolby Atmos products in our homes, to determine which ones have the best performance sound wise, and value ($) wise. That'll take some time to experiment ourselves with the best solutions, and which manufacturers had done the best job of implementing them all together (Dolby Atmos, Auto Room Calibration & EQ system, DSP chips, DACs, tra-la-la...).

But yes, time is needed right now. ...Because me I want Dolby Atmos working perfectly with Audyssey MultEQ XT32.
And, a parametric EQ is always a good think(g); Pioneer, Yamaha, Emotiva (XMC-1 with Dirac Live LE eventually).

It's fun to talk about all that stuff; from speculating, thinking smartly, and from a business strategy viewpoint...

That's my view; a simple opinion without making any statement, and based on no factual facts. ...No data.
yadfgp and carageuw like this.

Last edited by NorthSky; 08-03-2014 at 11:45 PM. Reason: ( )
NorthSky is online now  
post #63 of 1839 Old 08-03-2014, 11:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 20,015
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1545 Post(s)
Liked: 1051
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post
...some of us actually prefer it this way...that is, setting gain, distance and crossovers by ourselves and leaving EQ out of the equation.
You can't leave it out of the equation because every room is an equalizer, adding unwanted peaks & dips to the response that were never in the recording. Question is, what to do about the room's unwanted contributions, so that you can hear less of the room and more of what is in the recording. That's where EQ comes in, and that's where AccuEQ fails (at least compare to Audyssey XT32).

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #64 of 1839 Old 08-03-2014, 11:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fatbottom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3,892
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
You can't leave it out of the equation because every room is an equalizer, adding unwanted peaks & dips to the response that were never in the recording. Question is, what to do about the room's unwanted contributions, so that you can hear less of the room and more of what is in the recording. That's where EQ comes in, and that's where AccuEQ fails (at least compare to Audyssey XT32).
Hifi has no EQ. Most don't even have treble/bass controls.

Krell Evolution 900e x 7

Bose Jewel speakers.

 

Jealous of my speakers?

fatbottom is offline  
post #65 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 12:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East
Posts: 5,665
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2381 Post(s)
Liked: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbottom View Post
Hifi has no EQ. Most don't even have treble/bass controls.
Haute Fidelity Audio and Ultra High End Audio rely on perfect rooms, acoustically treated.
If not then you can EQ the gear with ultra high end cables and AC power cords and stillpoints and all the ultra expensive devices (voodoo magic EQ) to elevate your cables, gear, and loudspeakers.

The best EQ is the most expensive cables and audio gear matching with your loudspeakers plus the room, treated.

And for the rest of us who cannot afford the best of the best then we digitally EQ our speakers inside our room with calibration and EQ systems inside our electronic gear. Not a bad alternative @ all for us poor souls of the audio addiction, in surround sound, not just stereo.

Any type of EQ, even Bass and Treble and Balance controls introduce noise.
But some of us prefer to have a balanced noise in our rooms rather than high quality pure sound without noise. But, is no noise sound more balanced than balanced noise sound? That's a choice we all make, and we can even live with both, in two different rooms of our home.

Ultra stereo clean hi-fi with the best stereo recordings from R-2-R tapes, 200gr 45rpm mastered albums, SACDs stereo, CDs, Hi-Res stereo audio from Music servers, DVD Audio, Blu-ray Audio, DSD, etc., and the best stereo gear with hi-end loudspeakers (Magico, Wilson Audio, Revel, ATC, Genelec, Rockport, Sonus Faber, etc.), Trinity DAC, hi-end turntbles, are for the ultra hi-end niche of audiophiles in serach of the best components, irregardless of money. And generally they don't use any type of digital EQ; Dirac Live Unison, Illusion, Datasat, Trinnov, Audyssey Pro, etc.

Recording music studios have also their own philosophies on sound quality; from the microphones used, their positioning, the musicians with who they like to work, the recording gear they use, the tricks of the business, the sometimes magic accidents, the monitors used, etc.

But, more and more in the world we now live in they, few smart people, are coming together and starting to marry the latest technologies with the old gold standards of audio.
There is a new class of audiophiles developing out there, and they work together with the best music recording studios.

We are much better off today than we were twenty years ago. But! Twenty years ago there was some great gear made, and some of the great music recordings came from master tapes done sixty years ago.

Today the loudspeakers are getting so much better; drivers, enclosures, crossovers, etc.
Some measured speakers @ the NRC facilities are simply amazing today.
Put those in well acoustically treated rooms and ...

But also, more and more people are becoming aware of the benefits from digital equalization of the best sophisticated EQ systems out there (Dirac Live, Datasat, Trinnov, etc.). Our computers are getting more and more involved with our music listening. ...In both stereo and multichannel.
And high resolution audio is no more limited to music stereo only, but to multichannel movie soundtracks as well. ...And multichannel music DSD that are available as audio files we can download from the trusty sources, and from the smart record labels who released them recordings on SACDs and CDs.

* For an affordable piece of electronic audio, in a modest home theater room, or living room, I am much more inclined towards Audyssey (MultEQ and MultEQ XT and MultEQ XT32) than AccuEQ which I never tried but which does not EQ the front main channels and LFE/bass/sub channel.
Common sense is telling me more than I need to know.

But I always remain open, because after all it is my sound in my room to my ears. ...And with the material of my choosing. ...Music mediums and movie mediums.
AidenL likes this.
NorthSky is online now  
post #66 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 04:56 AM
Advanced Member
 
IgorZep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbottom View Post
Hifi has no EQ.
If something was on the top of achievable in the 60's, this doesn't mean it is at the top achievable today. Supercars at that time had no CPU controlled ignition and a ton of other parameters... are they better than modern supercars?

Please, if you think there should be no EQ in the audio-reproduction system, don't call yourself HT enthusiast. You are not. You are a historical reconstruction entusiast at best.

Last edited by IgorZep; 08-04-2014 at 06:17 AM.
IgorZep is offline  
post #67 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 05:05 AM
Member
 
TomScrut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbottom View Post
Hifi has no EQ. Most don't even have treble/bass controls.
My hifi has EQ, and considering my room it is almost unlistenable without it because I have my sofa up to the rear wall. Not enough Hifi has EQ, I dont think such as Audyssey helps with music as much as with films (it makes some things worse and some better IMO) but such as my CP800 having a 5 band PEQ which I setup just to get rid of the big problems works a treat.
TomScrut is offline  
post #68 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 06:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
turnne1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Indianapolis Indiana
Posts: 4,076
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 735 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
1. Prices of AVRs vs SSPs: It's all relative; some great flagship receivers were $6,000+ (Arcam, Lexicon, Denon), and some great pre/pros (SSPs) were from $400 to $1,000 (Emotiva, Onkyo, Outlaw, ...).
- Even today some AV receivers cost over $3,000 and some SSPs cost less than $2,000

2. Regarding AccuEQ vs Audyssey: With Dolby Atmos & Audyssey MultEQ XT32 inside a unit, you need three or four DSP chips.
With AccuEQ and Dolbly Atmos inside a unit, you need two or three DSP chips.

* Denon/Marantz AV receivers and SSPs won't be available till later on; seems they need more time to integrate properly these two technologies together in harmony with each other.

** Onkyo/Integra seems to be ready quicker with a simpler solution from AccuEQ where they've been @ it in experimenting and implementing them together (AccuEQ with Dolby Atmos).

<<>> If Onkyo/Integra are releasing their AVRs and SSPs before Denon/Marantz; they obviously aim @ gaining market share. It is a smart strategy.

And from there the future will determine their next step; possibly by reintegrating Audyssey MultEQ XT32 in their higher end products.

If I was in that business, the Onkyo/Integra strategy would be one I'd certainly adopt.

This is now, and we don't have them products just yet, and so our exposure is extremely limited to only few demonstrations heard by very few people who shared them with us here. ...And I believe Onkyo was one of the AVR or SSP used to demo those Dolby Atmos experiments. ..And Pioneer is also pushing like Onkyo on the Dolby Atmos speakers front.

For some of us who have experience with Audyssey MultEQ XT32, it is tough to digest that the front channels (and sub channel?) won't receive any EQ from AccuEQ. That, doesn't ring right @ all because we all know that inside our rooms all our speakers need some smart equalization, and particularly our two front mains, and the subwoofer channel. The room is not what the sound masterminds intended us to hear, so it has to be neutral, short of acoustic room treatments.

The new Dolby Atmos speakers rely on new dispersion patterns and reflections from the ceiling to be effective at their best. ...And there is more happening with Dolby Atmos, and all 'objects' are delivered all around, not just from overhead. It's a new ball game, and requires smart implementation with them EQ systems we are used to.
And with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 some new adjustments are required indeed; x-overs, phase, how to EQ reflections, and tra-la-la...
With AccuEQ Onkyo/Integra adopted a simpler system that would allow them to release their products faster with less issues, I think.
And nothing will stop them to readjust later on, if they see the need to; financially speaking. ...Because even if most of us here are concern about getting the best and smartest surround sound experience, these manufacturers are into the business of making money first, then sound quality second, I think.

So, it is up to us, when we'll get them new Dolby Atmos products in our homes, to determine which ones have the best performance sound wise, and value ($) wise. That'll take some time to experiment ourselves with the best solutions, and which manufacturers had done the best job of implementing them all together (Dolby Atmos, Auto Room Calibration & EQ system, DSP chips, DACs, tra-la-la...).

But yes, time is needed right now. ...Because me I want Dolby Atmos working perfectly with Audyssey MultEQ XT32.
And, a parametric EQ is always a good think(g); Pioneer, Yamaha, Emotiva (XMC-1 with Dirac Live LE eventually).

It's fun to talk about all that stuff; from speculating, thinking smartly, and from a business strategy viewpoint...

That's my view; a simple opinion without making any statement, and based on no factual facts. ...No data.
you are mixing flagship products with non-flagship products in your first point

someone who was looking at Lexicon, Arcam and I will add Anthem and Krell in regard to SSP is probably not looking at anything asian...sans maybe the Denon AVP
Even then thats sketchy. I recall a local high end stereo shop saying the reason they would not bring in a Denon AVP ( and would bring in Anthem and Krell units) is because his buyers that were shopping those units weren't interested in the Denon AVP
Conversely his Integra buyers weren't interested( or couldn't afford) the Denon AVP

I do agree with your point about Onkyo putting out the low midrange line with atmos

Its frankly probably the point in the product line with the Asians manufacturers where the volume is
So...all you have to do is meet that customer expectation and price point


Warren

Rm 1 Samsung 64F8500 Marantz 8801 prepro Sherbourn 5/1500A amp B&W CM10s..CM2 center...CM5's.rears
Rm 2 LG 47LE8500 Denon 4520 Celestion 305 speaker system
Rm 3 Samsung 51E8000 Yamaha A2010 Kef 2005.2 speaker system
Rm 4 Panasonic 50ST50 Onkyo 906 Mirage Omni sat speaker system
turnne1 is offline  
post #69 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 07:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
turnne1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Indianapolis Indiana
Posts: 4,076
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 735 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
Haute Fidelity Audio and Ultra High End Audio rely on perfect rooms, acoustically treated.
If not then you can EQ the gear with ultra high end cables and AC power cords and stillpoints and all the ultra expensive devices (voodoo magic EQ) to elevate your cables, gear, and loudspeakers.

The best EQ is the most expensive cables and audio gear matching with your loudspeakers plus the room, treated.

And for the rest of us who cannot afford the best of the best then we digitally EQ our speakers inside our room with calibration and EQ systems inside our electronic gear. Not a bad alternative @ all for us poor souls of the audio addiction, in surround sound, not just stereo.

Any type of EQ, even Bass and Treble and Balance controls introduce noise.
But some of us prefer to have a balanced noise in our rooms rather than high quality pure sound without noise. But, is no noise sound more balanced than balanced noise sound? That's a choice we all make, and we can even live with both, in two different rooms of our home.

Ultra stereo clean hi-fi with the best stereo recordings from R-2-R tapes, 200gr 45rpm mastered albums, SACDs stereo, CDs, Hi-Res stereo audio from Music servers, DVD Audio, Blu-ray Audio, DSD, etc., and the best stereo gear with hi-end loudspeakers (Magico, Wilson Audio, Revel, ATC, Genelec, Rockport, Sonus Faber, etc.), Trinity DAC, hi-end turntbles, are for the ultra hi-end niche of audiophiles in serach of the best components, irregardless of money. And generally they don't use any type of digital EQ; Dirac Live Unison, Illusion, Datasat, Trinnov, Audyssey Pro, etc.

Recording music studios have also their own philosophies on sound quality; from the microphones used, their positioning, the musicians with who they like to work, the recording gear they use, the tricks of the business, the sometimes magic accidents, the monitors used, etc.

But, more and more in the world we now live in they, few smart people, are coming together and starting to marry the latest technologies with the old gold standards of audio.
There is a new class of audiophiles developing out there, and they work together with the best music recording studios.

We are much better off today than we were twenty years ago. But! Twenty years ago there was some great gear made, and some of the great music recordings came from master tapes done sixty years ago.

Today the loudspeakers are getting so much better; drivers, enclosures, crossovers, etc.
Some measured speakers @ the NRC facilities are simply amazing today.
Put those in well acoustically treated rooms and ...

But also, more and more people are becoming aware of the benefits from digital equalization of the best sophisticated EQ systems out there (Dirac Live, Datasat, Trinnov, etc.). Our computers are getting more and more involved with our music listening. ...In both stereo and multichannel.
And high resolution audio is no more limited to music stereo only, but to multichannel movie soundtracks as well. ...And multichannel music DSD that are available as audio files we can download from the trusty sources, and from the smart record labels who released them recordings on SACDs and CDs.

* For an affordable piece of electronic audio, in a modest home theater room, or living room, I am much more inclined towards Audyssey (MultEQ and MultEQ XT and MultEQ XT32) than AccuEQ which I never tried but which does not EQ the front main channels and LFE/bass/sub channel.
Common sense is telling me more than I need to know.

But I always remain open, because after all it is my sound in my room to my ears. ...And with the material of my choosing. ...Music mediums and movie mediums.
some interesting and good insight

IMO....there seem to be two very different markets
Maybe there always were?

The Asians used to build more flagship products that rivaled the esoteric brands in build quality
Now it seems that they are racing down hill to cheapen their products

Sure they add more channels( fake ones) and the room correction of the day....but amp/power supply has gone downhill in the past decade from when they built flagship products. The products seem to 99% about home theater and almost nothing for critical 2 channel music listening

I assume that is what their market prefers...as manufacturers typically create products catered to what the market wants

The higher end brands move at a slower pace...dont have umpteen channels or the latest whiz bang features
from what I can see build quality on their units is where it was a decade ago...meaning they havent cut back
Their clientele seems to not be concerned with the "what's new this year" mentality and as you said said some still manually adjust their equipment with an SPL meter
As a result of the Asians leaving their flagship products..the gap in the higher end and the Asians is now huge
However...there still seems to be dedicated market for these products. They could be called "crippled" as because they are many times years behind the Asians in feature set
Look how long it took some of them to even adopt HDMI

They dont seem to be home theater centric
But clearly there is a market for them

Warren

Rm 1 Samsung 64F8500 Marantz 8801 prepro Sherbourn 5/1500A amp B&W CM10s..CM2 center...CM5's.rears
Rm 2 LG 47LE8500 Denon 4520 Celestion 305 speaker system
Rm 3 Samsung 51E8000 Yamaha A2010 Kef 2005.2 speaker system
Rm 4 Panasonic 50ST50 Onkyo 906 Mirage Omni sat speaker system
turnne1 is offline  
post #70 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 07:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,388
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1181
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbottom View Post
Hifi has no EQ. Most don't even have treble/bass controls.
Hifi has always had eq, its just a matter of how and why.

You may be proud of your equalizer-less audio system, but it is a myth. Every crossover in every speaker is a kind of equalizer. Got speakers with more than one driver per cabinet? Welcome!


As Sanjay just correctly pointed out, every room acts like yet another equalizer, and generally not a very good one, even for so-called good sounding rooms.

Finally, the production of recordings has always been loaded with different kinds of equalizers in that part of the signal chain. Virtually every microphone used for professional recording has a frequency response that is sufficiently non-flat to qualify as an equalizer or if you are picky, a de-equalizer. Professional recording engineers know this which is why they demand that their mixing consoles are full of different kinds of equalizers. A fairly simple digital mixing console that I used for about a decade had one 5-band full parametric equalizer on every input and every output. Nothing special, for sure. Handy as a high-powered bilge pump in a leaky ship.

No, when an audiophile says he has no equalizers in his system we probably need to interpret that to mean that he has no equalizers that are under his control.

Whoa, just a minute. I thought that having your own audio system meant having it your way?

The equalization that comes with various imperfect audio components is best described as being random as compared to that which will give the best sound quality. The true decision about equalization is whether you want an equalizer that is under your control and whose settings you can adjust whenever you want to for no extra charge, or whether you want to use someone else's settings so to speak, and that other person has no knowledge of your situation.

Furthermore, you have to pay the price of churning expensive components in your audio system to obtain new "equalization settings", and what you get is pretty much the luck of the draw.

Some how I'm attracted to actual high quality equalizers with settings that I can adjust when I want to for no extra change, based on my perceived needs. Maybe that's just me! ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #71 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 08:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 19,833
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2617 Post(s)
Liked: 2306
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post
If something was on the top of achievable in the 60's, this doesn't mean it is at the top achievable today. Supercars at that time had no CPU controlled ignition and a ton of other parameters... are they better than modern supercars?

Please, if you think there should be no EQ in the audio-reproduction system, don't call yourself HT enthusiast. You are not. You are a historical reconstruction entusiast at best.
+1. Good analogy too.
arnyk likes this.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #72 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 09:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 20,015
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1545 Post(s)
Liked: 1051
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbottom View Post
Hifi has no EQ. Most don't even have treble/bass controls.
True, there are even passive pre-amps, all in the name of maintaining signal purity. Which would otherwise be a noble cause, if not for the massive blind spot in audiophilia: the room. It is remarkable how some folks either don't understand or simply refuse to believe what the room is doing to the recording.

With that in mind, Onkyo is taking a step backwards by switching from XT32 to AccuEQ. I understand their business decision for doing so, but don't agree with it.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #73 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 12:49 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Hugo S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: France
Posts: 544
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomScrut View Post
Not to mention that there will probably be a 5030 for more than the 5530

As far as Europe is concerned and AFAIK, there won't be any 5030. As this year's Onkyo range is complete, having an intermediate product certified THX Select 2 which is the 3030, the top of the range certified THX Ultra 2 product, being occupied by the 5530 (which is a relatively affordable product)... and for the time being, there won't be a successor with 11 channels (or more), to the actual Onkyo PA MC5501, 9 channels amplifier.

Now at a recent Onkyo Dolby Atmos presentation in Paris to which I assisted, there were quite a lot of questions concerning the Audyssey abandoning on the present range of Onkyo products.

Obviously this show was not a place for completely transparent answers...

But my very humble private opinion is that this Audyssey to AccuEQ transition, represents quite a smart move from Onkyo. As this present year, the main incentive for buying will be driven by Dolby Atmos. A situation where Onkyo is very visible, singularly as the expected main business will be located @ the lower range 636 products where Audyssey isn't really a buying motivation, in contrary to cost of acquisition...

So the lower the cost, the easier the 636 will be selling. And by the way, the more 636 will be sold and the greater number of potential clients for an Atmos BRD experience there will be... remember PS3?

Now for people potentially interested by 3030 or 5530 type of products, Audyssey is naturally a necessity. But then with the - sooner or later - arrival of DTS UHD, do these 3030 and 5530 apply for a long term buy? I don't think so... Thus the fact that the Audyssey presence or not, on this present Onkyo range, de facto doesn't change anything for potential Onkyo clients.

But next year when things will settle down, with Dolby Atmos and DTS UHD both coexisting, when a significant number of Dolby Atmos BRD titles will be available, along with a hopefully finalized BRD 4K standard, then will come the time - not for a just an evolution of the 5530, which simply is a 5509 with an added Atmos capacity and a lack of Audyssey -, but for a completely redesigned new product (including HDMI), with an added processing capability in order to accommodate probably more than 11 channels in an evolved Atmos and/or DTS-UHD context, the later possibly incorporating its' own RC... and at that time will Audyssey's presence still be needed in these Onkyos?

All this shows that this year, Onkyo only offers an intermediate range as the real contours of the new Audio still isn't finalized yet. Though the fact that the absence of Audyssey in this new Onkyo range, may be intellectually disturbing for Onkyo fans as we can be here, but practically this will be without any real consequence on Onkyo's actual and future audience. So for the time being, why would Onkyo have bothered to continue to offer Audyssey, having to charge an additional cost?

Now in my case, I used to be a huge fan of Onkyo (and I still use 2 Onkyo PA MC5500 9 channels amplifiers), but my last Onkyo processor was the 5508. And today in our 11.2 context (since 5 yrs now), I use an excellent Marantz AV8801, which will be replaced by the future 8802, as soon as it becomes available...

And will I buy again an Onkyo processor? Certainly if -as previously - Onkyo arrives to offer at least similar global performances as the competition, and even better if it's done cheaper... as in the past.

Hugo
Hugo S is offline  
post #74 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 01:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
IntelliVolume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
You can't leave it out of the equation because every room is an equalizer.

That's NOT what I meant...

IntelliVolume is offline  
post #75 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 02:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 20,015
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1545 Post(s)
Liked: 1051
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post
That's NOT what I meant...
Understood what you meant about "leaving EQ out of the equation", just explaining that it is not possible when the room you're listening in is acting like an equalizer. It's not the electronic EQ you're talking about, but it is still having the effect of equalizing the sound.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #76 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 02:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fatbottom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3,892
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Does it matter what Onkyo do? I wouldn't buy a Onkyo AVR anyway.

Krell Evolution 900e x 7

Bose Jewel speakers.

 

Jealous of my speakers?

fatbottom is offline  
post #77 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 06:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
IntelliVolume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Understood what you meant about "leaving EQ out of the equation", just explaining that it is not possible when the room you're listening in is acting like an equalizer. It's not the electronic EQ you're talking about, but it is still having the effect of equalizing the sound.

Okay; so perhaps how I should have put it was, "I prefer it when Audyssey's equalization is out of the loop/equation" i.e. OFF and not applied...


Perhaps the room is in fact bringing in boundary issues and equalization parameters as a default of some kind, but what I meant was that I prefer to leave Audyssey OFF and actually HEAR my speakers before an equalization algorithm "gets" to them via a processor or A/V receiver...


Good God...I realize this is an Audio Visual Science forum, but sometimes people take all this -- even one comment made by someone -- way too far and seriously...

IntelliVolume is offline  
post #78 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 06:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
IntelliVolume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbottom View Post
Does it matter what Onkyo do? I wouldn't buy a Onkyo AVR anyway.

Your loss...

IntelliVolume is offline  
post #79 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 08:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 20,015
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1545 Post(s)
Liked: 1051
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post
...what I meant was that I prefer to leave Audyssey OFF and actually HEAR my speakers before an equalization algorithm "gets" to them via a processor or A/V receiver...
Understood, I was merely point out what a bad idea that is because it does nothing to undo the equalization that the room is adding. You're avoiding technology that would allow you to hear less of the room and more of what was in the recording itself.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #80 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 10:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
IntelliVolume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Understood, I was merely point out what a bad idea that is because it does nothing to undo the equalization that the room is adding. You're avoiding technology that would allow you to hear less of the room and more of what was in the recording itself.

Beyond the sentiment that I really don't believe that, I don't have the proper "tools" (that is, a tripod of some kind) or ideal quiet situation in my room which would allow Audyssey to even work properly in my setup -- if I place the mic on a cushion or seat back, the setup procedure is fubar anyway, so wouldn't it make sense to adjust it the best I can without IMPROPERLY utilizing Audyssey? All to many systems have sounded horrendous -- and this is from personally experiencing them in other people's homes -- when adjusted IMPROPERLY via an auto setup/room EQ algorithm as compared to getting in the ballpark manually without EQ engaged. Further, there has been some speculation that not only does the 2EQ system -- which my AVR utilizes -- not work as well or nearly as good as more advanced versions of Audyssey, but that this particular model Onkyo receiver doesn't even IMPLEMENT Audyssey settings when high resolution (Master Audio/TrueHD) codecs are being played...

IntelliVolume is offline  
post #81 of 1839 Old 08-04-2014, 10:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 20,015
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1545 Post(s)
Liked: 1051
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post
Beyond the sentiment that I really don't believe that,
Don't believe what? This isn't religion; i.e., even if you "don't believe" that EQ can pull down a large peak it won't stop EQ from pulling down a large peak. That will let you hear sounds previously masked by the peak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post
I don't have the proper "tools" (that is, a tripod of some kind) or ideal quiet situation in my room which would allow Audyssey to even work properly in my setup -- if I place the mic on a cushion or seat back, the setup procedure is fubar anyway, so wouldn't it make sense to adjust it the best I can without IMPROPERLY utilizing Audyssey?
Can't you pile up a stack of books or something so that the Audyssey mic sits at your approximate ear level?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post
All to many systems have sounded horrendous -- and this is from personally experiencing them in other people's homes -- when adjusted IMPROPERLY via an auto setup/room EQ algorithm as compared to getting in the ballpark manually without EQ engaged.
Why are you talking about other people's homes? Why haven't you tried it in your home? What's the worst that could happen? You don't like the results and turn off the EQ. But at least give it a try to see if the auto-calibration gets the levels and distances correct, and whether the EQ improves the overall sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post
this particular model Onkyo receiver doesn't even IMPLEMENT Audyssey settings when high resolution (Master Audio/TrueHD) codecs are being played...
Your receiver doesn't have the processing horsepower to decode MasterAudio/TrueHD tracks AND also apply Audyssey. One thing you could try is let your player do the decoding (change it's HDMI output setting from bitstream to PCM) so that your receiver is no longer burdened with that task.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #82 of 1839 Old 08-05-2014, 02:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 19,833
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2617 Post(s)
Liked: 2306
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post
Okay; so perhaps how I should have put it was, "I prefer it when Audyssey's equalization is out of the loop/equation" i.e. OFF and not applied...


Perhaps the room is in fact bringing in boundary issues and equalization parameters as a default of some kind, but what I meant was that I prefer to leave Audyssey OFF and actually HEAR my speakers before an equalization algorithm "gets" to them via a processor or A/V receiver...
But you are not hearing your speakers as you put it - you are hearing your speakers plus the huge distortions caused by the room. In a typical room you will see swings in frequency response of 20 or 30 dB, hugely distorting the sound your speakers make, unless the room influences are tamed. You can tame them with acoustic treatments and speaker placement or EQ, or both. Professional sound studios use both.
audioguy likes this.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #83 of 1839 Old 08-05-2014, 02:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 19,833
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2617 Post(s)
Liked: 2306
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post
All to many systems have sounded horrendous -- and this is from personally experiencing them in other people's homes -- when adjusted IMPROPERLY via an auto setup/room EQ algorithm as compared to getting in the ballpark manually .
How do you do that? To apply EQ manually requires measuring equipment such as REW, a calibrated mic, some form of parametric or other form of equalisation and the knowledge to use it all. It is a lot easier for most people to run an automated EQ system. I realise that 2EQ is very basic, but you seem to be against the whole idea of using automated EQ, on the basis that it somehow 'interferes' with the sound of your speakers. Problem is, the room has already massively interfered with the sound of the speakers anyway, unless measures have been taken to fix it.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #84 of 1839 Old 08-05-2014, 03:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East
Posts: 5,665
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2381 Post(s)
Liked: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbottom View Post
Does it matter what Onkyo do? I wouldn't buy a Onkyo AVR anyway.
It's the exact same thing with girlfriends.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post
Okay; so perhaps how I should have put it was, "I prefer it when Audyssey's equalization is out of the loop/equation" i.e. OFF and not applied...


Perhaps the room is in fact bringing in boundary issues and equalization parameters as a default of some kind, but what I meant was that I prefer to leave Audyssey OFF and actually HEAR my speakers before an equalization algorithm "gets" to them via a processor or A/V receiver...


Good God...I realize this is an Audio Visual Science forum, but sometimes people take all this -- even one comment made by someone -- way too far and seriously...
Surround sound in proper acoustical venues is serious business. And the room is the most important audio component of them all.
Get the room right first, match it to the right loudspeakers, and fine-tune everything with a smart/sophisticated EQ system.

A room that is properly EQued for the loudspeakers in it is a much better surround sound and hi-fi stereo music listening experience than one not Equed for its loudspeakers. Both the room and loudspeakers need to work in tandem (room with acoustic treatments, and speakers equalized for it and with it, within).

The future will bring some better and affordable Room EQ systems. ...Dirac Live, Datasat, Trinnov, are already on the road to listening bliss.
And I wish Chris from Audyssey is not taking a rest...
67jason and IgorZep like this.
NorthSky is online now  
post #85 of 1839 Old 08-05-2014, 03:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East
Posts: 5,665
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2381 Post(s)
Liked: 702
IntelliVolume, get a mic stand with boom ($15 @ Amazon).

Next, save some money and upgrade your receiver (Audyssey 2EQ is not EQuing the most important audio frequencies; the bass from your Sub/LFE channel) with one that has @ least Audyssey MultEQ (minimum), and XT better, and XT32 best (Onkyo 818).

* Look @ some Denon receiver models perhaps, Marantz, next year, with Dolby Atmos too.
If not with Dolby Atmos then you'll find some deals with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 equipped receivers. ...Someone who has the 818 for sale because he is upgrading to Dolby Atmos, the 929, Denons, ...

I guaranty you a better listening experience from upgrading your 2EQ equipped receiver to one equipped with XT or XT32. ...For both multichannel and stereo audio; movies and stereo music.

And I hope you do have a sub?
NorthSky is online now  
post #86 of 1839 Old 08-05-2014, 03:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fatbottom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3,892
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 202
My hifi doesn't have a EQ nor does it have acoustic treatments. Sounds great.

Krell Evolution 900e x 7

Bose Jewel speakers.

 

Jealous of my speakers?

fatbottom is offline  
post #87 of 1839 Old 08-05-2014, 03:55 AM
Member
 
TomScrut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I personally find the best results are when EQ is applied to the bass only to get rid of the serious room responses. I find it makes the sound more artificial sounding when you get into mid/high frequencies with EQ (I have tried Audyssey XT32, Audyssey XT32 Pro, Dirac Live Trial), there is slightly more detail as more frequencies are more prominent, but it no longer sounds like the band is playing in front of me. When I went to using a 5 band PEQ and doing the filters myself it worked a lot better.

I am getting an Anthem MRX 310 for the multichannel side of things and I am going to experiment with the max frequency on ARC to see what gets me the best results.
TomScrut is offline  
post #88 of 1839 Old 08-05-2014, 04:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East
Posts: 5,665
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2381 Post(s)
Liked: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbottom View Post
My hifi doesn't have a EQ nor does it have acoustic treatments. Sounds great.
Why would you need EQ? ...With IQ hi-fi loudspeakers like yours.
NorthSky is online now  
post #89 of 1839 Old 08-05-2014, 04:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fatbottom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3,892
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 202
IQ?

Celestion A1's in the Hi-Fi. Audiolab 8000Q stereo pre-amp.

Krell Evolution 900e x 7

Bose Jewel speakers.

 

Jealous of my speakers?

fatbottom is offline  
post #90 of 1839 Old 08-05-2014, 04:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East
Posts: 5,665
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2381 Post(s)
Liked: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomScrut View Post
I personally find the best results are when EQ is applied to the bass only to get rid of the serious room responses. I find it makes the sound more artificial sounding when you get into mid/high frequencies with EQ (I have tried Audyssey XT32, Audyssey XT32 Pro, Dirac Live Trial), there is slightly more detail as more frequencies are more prominent, but it no longer sounds like the band is playing in front of me. When I went to using a 5 band PEQ and doing the filters myself it worked a lot better.

I am getting an Anthem MRX 310 for the multichannel side of things and I am going to experiment with the max frequency on ARC to see what gets me the best results.
Good post Tom. Pioneer and Yamaha use parametric equalizers in their AV receivers, and some subwoofers are also equipped with a five-band or so PEQ.

And good point too with Anthem with ARC, and from which you have more fine control over with the help of software in your computer/laptop.

Methinks that Onkyo should have put a PEQ in all their receivers, and for all channels, and down to 20Hz in the LFE channel, and all the other channels too (from 5.1 receivers to 13.4 ones).
Then perhaps some of us would be happier, instead of AccuEQ which does not EQ the two front mains and sub/LFE channel.

PEQ (Pioneer & Yamaha) and ARC generation 2 and 3 (Anthem) are great alternatives to Audyssey, if not better.

Pioneer also happens that they are coming up with Dolby Atmos equipped receivers; in tandem with their PEQ it should rock the joint.

And Yamaha the same.

But Anthem is not yet on that bandwagon; probably don't matter anyway. Dolby Atmos is not all end to all ends.
- Kal (Rubinson) said it best before; he won't be shedding tears, ...from overhead.

Last edited by NorthSky; 08-05-2014 at 04:24 AM.
NorthSky is online now  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off