Denon's Audyssey vs. Pioneer's MCACC - Page 4 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 10Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 136 Old 04-21-2014, 09:49 AM
Member
 
Goodfellas27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dominican Republic
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Care to share what difference you can tell with regards to quality of acoustic music?
I think "inferior" is quite a hard word here. smile.gif

Care to share what difference you can tell with regards to quality of acoustic music?

Get this, don't take my word for it. Test it yourself, same material, dif format ...you might be surprise wink.gif

I think "inferior" is quite a hard word here. smile.gif OK, "different" cool.gif

MCACC Workflow tips <-- Click here
Goodfellas27 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 136 Old 04-21-2014, 09:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,555
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodfellas27 View Post

Well, that's good that it worked for you/room, but other would disagree, including myself. Audyssey has it's methods for room EQ, including bass, but sometimes, its results would not be satisfactory (missing bass weight, etc) for some songs -or the whole thing. Since, you're not able to go a manipulate the curves in a none pro version, you're stock with what Audyssey give you. Other RoomEQ, like MCACC allows you to change it the way you like it. I could go in, increase the bass in the curve, if I want, change the time, Turn-off RoomEQ and leave Phase On, etc. --In Audyssey, you'll be limited.


I understand the pros and cons, but MCACC, at least until they offer a full-range version, did not let you adjust all the 'bass in the curve' because it did not actually operate down to 20 Hz.

I suspect, but do no knwo for sure, that 'phase' is a function of the 'subwoofer distance' setting in Audyssey AVRs, and I recall you can turn Audyssey EQ off while still retaining speaker distacce settings and levels.

I very much liked that MCACC allowed storing 6 separate settings. But in the end, Audyssey simply throws more processing power and more bass treatment at the signal than MCACC did, and bass is the place where you want most DSP to operate in most rooms. It also allows multi-sub correction and MCACC, at the time, did not. I have no skin in the game and if Pioneer improved MCACC I would not hesitate to try it again.

I like Audyssey's Dynamic EQ too, basically it's applying a *proper* (and user-adjustable) loudness control for low-level listening.
Quote:
Quote:
Audio resolution is a function of bit depth. Pretty much all AVRs operate at 24 (or 32 float) bit depth. Extending the sample rate basically broadens the bandwidth of captured frequencies. And again, unless you are a bat, 96kHz vs higher rates is not going to matter.

Well, per your logic, why even go to up 96 Khz, lets keep it at 48 Khz and call a day, since we aren't bats wink.gif

Indeed. What *do* we need higher sample rates than 44.1 kHz for, and under what circumstances? I'm curious to hear your answers (and then I will share mine).
krabapple is offline  
post #93 of 136 Old 04-21-2014, 10:00 AM
Member
 
Goodfellas27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dominican Republic
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
DSD-thenewaddiction-v2.pdf 482k .pdf file
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Indeed. What *do* we need higher sample rates than 44.1 kHz for, and under what circumstances? I'm curious to hear your answers (and then I will share mine).

Read this
Bats wink.gif
Attached Files
File Type: pdf DSD-thenewaddiction-v2.pdf (481.7 KB, 51 views)

MCACC Workflow tips <-- Click here
Goodfellas27 is offline  
post #94 of 136 Old 04-21-2014, 10:02 AM
Member
 
Goodfellas27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dominican Republic
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

I understand the pros and cons, but MCACC, at least until they offer a full-range version, did not let you adjust all the 'bass in the curve' because it did not actually operate down to 20 Hz.

I suspect, but do no knwo for sure, that 'phase' is a function of the 'subwoofer distance' setting in Audyssey AVRs, and I recall you can turn Audyssey EQ off while still retaining speaker distacce settings and levels.

I very much liked that MCACC allowed storing 6 separate settings. But in the end, Audyssey simply throws more processing power and more bass treatment at the signal than MCACC did, and bass is the place where you want most DSP to operate in most rooms. It also allows multi-sub correction and MCACC, at the time, did not. I have no skin in the game and if Pioneer improved MCACC I would not hesitate to try it again.

I like Audyssey's Dynamic Volume too, basically it's applying a *proper* (and user-adjustable) loudness control for low-level listening.

Try the new Pioneers, you'll see what I am talking about. It seems you haven't try the new stuff yet.
Ka7niq likes this.

MCACC Workflow tips <-- Click here
Goodfellas27 is offline  
post #95 of 136 Old 04-21-2014, 10:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,555
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodfellas27 View Post

DSD-thenewaddiction-v2.pdf 482k .pdf file
Read this
Bats wink.gif

Gee, a white paper from someone who worked at Sony designing DSD. That's sure an unbiased scientific source. rolleyes.gif

It always struck me as odd that Sony refused to ever publish listening test results demonstrating what should be the *obvious* audible superiority of their format.

There's none in this white paper either.

You realize, too, that DSD players typically have lowpass output filters in them that pass 'only' up to 50 or 100kHz? RIght?
krabapple is offline  
post #96 of 136 Old 04-21-2014, 10:10 AM
Member
 
Goodfellas27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dominican Republic
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Gee, a white paper from someone who worked at Sony designing DSD. That's sure an unbiased scientific source. rolleyes.gif

It always struck me as odd that Sony refused to ever publish listening test results demonstrating what should be the *obvious* audible superiority of their format.

There's none in this white paper either.

How about the second link from Mr. Jared Sacks? biased ? wink.gif

MCACC Workflow tips <-- Click here
Goodfellas27 is offline  
post #97 of 136 Old 04-21-2014, 10:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mogorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 580 Post(s)
Liked: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

I like Audyssey's Dynamic EQ too, basically it's applying a *proper* (and user-adjustable) loudness control for low-level listening.

Ah, actually Audyssey DynamicEQ is not just applying *proper* (and user-adjustable) loudness control for low-level listening, but it has a two-tier operational scheme.

First tier adjusts the equal loudness curves for human perception based on MV (Master Volume) setting when turned down from cinema reference level calibrated to 0 dB MV. The second tier adjusts in accordance with the passage whether it's loud or soft (with the MV untouched), in other words adjusts the equal loudness curves accordingly on the fly (read: in real time). It works so fine that it would only become apparent when taken away. smile.gif
mogorf is online now  
post #98 of 136 Old 04-21-2014, 10:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,555
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodfellas27 View Post

How about the second link from Mr. Jared Sacks? biased ? wink.gif

Really? A Jason Serinus interview with some high-rez file seller, in Stereophile? Where his most cogent argument is "To me, DSD's superiority has to do with emotion, depth, and how the sound leaves the speaker."

Be serious. Yes, that is biased. Do you understand why listening tests need to be 'blinded'?

And you realize, too, that DSD players typically have lowpass output filters in them that pass 'only' up to 50 or 100kHz? RIght?
krabapple is offline  
post #99 of 136 Old 04-21-2014, 10:15 AM
Member
 
Goodfellas27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dominican Republic
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

You realize, too, that DSD players typically have lowpass output filters in them that pass 'only' up to 50 or 100kHz? RIght?

Don't believe me or anyone... just get this

Make sure you have a player that support SACD and AVR that support direct DSD. You'll have your answer.

MCACC Workflow tips <-- Click here
Goodfellas27 is offline  
post #100 of 136 Old 04-21-2014, 11:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,555
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodfellas27 View Post

Don't believe me or anyone... just get this

Make sure you have a player that support SACD and AVR that support direct DSD. You'll have your answer.

um.. no, I won't.

How have you compared PCM to DSD using this disc?

Again: do you understand why listening tests need to be 'blinded'?
krabapple is offline  
post #101 of 136 Old 04-21-2014, 11:14 AM
Member
 
Goodfellas27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dominican Republic
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I did a A/B comparison between BluRAY-A LPCM using PQLS and SACD using Bit steam.

Yes, I do understand why it needs to be "blinded", but do you know those could be flawed?

MCACC Workflow tips <-- Click here
Goodfellas27 is offline  
post #102 of 136 Old 05-14-2015, 09:36 PM
Member
 
Ka7niq's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Near Tampa Florida
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexCarson View Post
Quote:Originally Posted by soundlovr

Audyssey is the most advanced room correction in the market presently. MCACC doesn't hold a candle.


Not true. Even CNET's review stated that Audyssey's setup is far more complex and time-consuming, though no more accurate.

Advanced MCACC as used in current model Pioneers is most excellent and has some major advantages. Let me link you to a Denon thread and a post of mine where I posted my review of their operational differences regarding customizing the results to the content and your tastes, as to why I chose MCACC over Audyssey in a big way:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&#post15252779

Quote:Originally Posted by soundlovr

Audyssey is indeed time-corrected as well as frequency-corrected. That is perhaps the main reason why it is so vastly superior to a PEQ.


MCACC also works in the time domain to correct for room reflections as well direct sound from the speakers. See this Denon thread and my post there:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&#post15259633

Quote:Originally Posted by chriskav73

As a current Pioneer owner and former Denon owner, I prefer the results of MCACC over Audyssey. I found the imaging to be spot on with MCACC, and it also corrected for a boomy bass problem that Audyssey couldn't correct for me.


That doesn't surprise me. Enjoy!
Plus, with Pioneer's MCACC, if you don't care for what it has done, you can Manually correct it by ear.
Ka7niq is offline  
post #103 of 136 Old 05-14-2015, 10:10 PM
Member
 
Ka7niq's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Near Tampa Florida
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexCarson View Post
Quote:Originally Posted by krabapple

The head of Audyssey posts to AVSF and answers questions about the technology. Perhaps he could delineate better the advantages of Audyssey over MCACC.


Oh sure, you're going to get an "unbiased" comparison there.

But since you mentioned that, you might be interested in this exchange with "Audyssey" in the Audyssey thread from about 2 weeks ago:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&#post15389688

All said, I consider MCACC system to have the advantage, in large part because of its tweakability at all levels. And sure, all the anecdotal evidence, from end users and CNET style reviews, doesn't change that.
IMHO, Pioneer's MCACC System wins this argument, because not only can you adjust it, but you can also create and store 6 different curves that YOU created.

The day that Audyssey offers the level of Tweakability that Advanced MCACC does, I will consider it. Until then, why have any room corrections system that imposes it's will on you, with no way to adjust it ?

Do you not trust your own ears ?
Ka7niq is offline  
post #104 of 136 Old 05-14-2015, 11:49 PM
Senior Member
 
adrummingdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ka7niq View Post
IMHO, Pioneer's MCACC System wins this argument, because not only can you adjust it, but you can also create and store 6 different curves that YOU created.

The day that Audyssey offers the level of Tweakability that Advanced MCACC does, I will consider it. Until then, why have any room corrections system that imposes it's will on you, with no way to adjust it ?

Do you not trust your own ears ?
I agree.

Having had both systems in my room, for me the tweakability of MCACC edged out the (what was then) superior subwoofer processing of Audyssey.

Was one ruler flatter than the other? I don't really care, as both did a good job of pointing out the faults of the room, but only one let ME decide how to best address those faults.

Both systems handled the distance/phasing/time domain stuff with shocking similarity and accuracy, so that's a wash, and now that MCACC (allegedly) has gotten better at subs too?....sold.

B&W CM9 S2, B&W CMC2 S2, DefTech XTR-20BP, Dual SVS SB-2000, Parasound Halo A21, Pioneer Elite SC-65, Samsung UN55F8000, Apple Mac Mini, Iomega NAS
adrummingdude is online now  
post #105 of 136 Old 05-15-2015, 08:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 7,000
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 580 Post(s)
Liked: 436
You can buy Audyssey Pro if you want to tweak. Expensive option, however.

The biggest advantages Audyssey has are the LF EQ (which latest MCACC offers as well) and many more filters than MCACC.

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
post #106 of 136 Old 05-15-2015, 09:39 AM
Member
 
Ka7niq's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Near Tampa Florida
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post
You can buy Audyssey Pro if you want to tweak. Expensive option, however.

The biggest advantages Audyssey has are the LF EQ (which latest MCACC offers as well) and many more filters than MCACC.
I like the Anthem System, where you can set it to only EQ below a certain frequency.
I do not have a lot of faith in room EQ over a few hundred HZ or so.

If you simply move the Audyssey Microphone a few inches, you get a whole new curve anyway at the higher frequencies.

I am mainly concerned with low frequency, or subwoofer/woofer EQ.
I am an audiophile, I don't need any automatic system to set my speakers size, levels or crossovers. I have my Ears, and I trust them more then I do any automatic EQ System.

All I want any room correcting system to do is to "get me in the ballpark" with my woofers or subwoofers, and leave the other stuff alone.
Once I am "in the ballpark" of smooth bass response, I want to be able to tweak it manually, like I can do with Pioneers MACCC , instead of having to run another Audyssey Sweep after another, and tell the wife and kids to STFU, turn off the A/C and Refrigerator, and miss phone calls.
Ka7niq is offline  
post #107 of 136 Old 05-15-2015, 09:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 7,000
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 580 Post(s)
Liked: 436
Midrange and up response is highly dependent upon the room. I get very consistent results in my heavily-treated room; moving the mic around does not change the results. More live rooms with lots of reflections induce comb filter and other effects that cause the "move your head an inch, sound changes by a mile" issue.

Trusting your ears can lead you astray; at best it will provide a sound fitting your preference. That is the usual goal, nothing wrong with that, but denigrating room correction systems in favor of personal preference seems a bit harsh. The sweeps don't take that long. Many people have found much better sound through room correction without having to spend the time and effort to do it themselves.

YMMV - Don
CruelInventions likes this.

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
post #108 of 136 Old 05-15-2015, 04:54 PM
Senior Member
 
adrummingdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

Trusting your ears can lead you astray; at best it will provide a sound fitting your preference. That is the usual goal, nothing wrong with that, but denigrating room correction systems in favor of personal preference seems a bit harsh. The sweeps don't take that long. Many people have found much better sound through room correction without having to spend the time and effort to do it themselves.

YMMV - Don

While this may be true for the rank and file, which lets face it are the 99% these units are sold to, trusting one's ears over specs shouldn't be seen as a second-rate approach for individuals who have extensive experience in audio, especially engineering, mixing, and/or testing experience.


Much like a $500 speaker can have very similar specs to a $10k speaker, the timbral differences between the two and how they interact with each individuals ears will sound vastly different in the same room...and that's something which cant really be measured.


These programs strive for a flat frequency response and cohesive phasing, that's it....and can get most of the way there, but there are countless variables with the speakers, room, listeners ears etc which these programs do not take into account.


I agree with the above poster that all of these systems are very good at getting a baseline, especially in the bass region, but having that ability to adjust from there is absolutely critical.
Ka7niq likes this.

B&W CM9 S2, B&W CMC2 S2, DefTech XTR-20BP, Dual SVS SB-2000, Parasound Halo A21, Pioneer Elite SC-65, Samsung UN55F8000, Apple Mac Mini, Iomega NAS
adrummingdude is online now  
post #109 of 136 Old 05-15-2015, 07:12 PM
Member
 
Ka7niq's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Near Tampa Florida
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post
Midrange and up response is highly dependent upon the room. I get very consistent results in my heavily-treated room; moving the mic around does not change the results. More live rooms with lots of reflections induce comb filter and other effects that cause the "move your head an inch, sound changes by a mile" issue.

Trusting your ears can lead you astray; at best it will provide a sound fitting your preference. That is the usual goal, nothing wrong with that, but denigrating room correction systems in favor of personal preference seems a bit harsh. The sweeps don't take that long. Many people have found much better sound through room correction without having to spend the time and effort to do it themselves.

YMMV - Don
Is not a "sound fitting our preferences" the ultimate goal of every Audiophile and Music Lover Don ?
IMHO, it is quite presumptuous Of Audyssey, to not allow user adjustment to the EQ changes it has made, in our systems.
Maybe they will "wise up" one day, and follow the lead of both Pioneers Advanced MACCC and Yamaha's YPAO, that allow their owners to manually adjust ?

Because of the inability to manually adjust the Audyssey room correction system, it has removed any receiver using Audyssey from my purchasing considerations.
And, not only for me, but for most of my audio buddies as well.

I am 60 years old, and have been an audiophile since I was a teenager. Most of the audio buddies I have made over the years feel the same way I do.
We are not "against" room corrections systems, we just want to reserve the right to have "final say so" on the "corrections" they make, by manually fine tuning them, with our Ears.
Ka7niq is offline  
post #110 of 136 Old 05-15-2015, 08:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 7,000
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 580 Post(s)
Liked: 436
Quote:
Is not a "sound fitting our preferences" the ultimate goal of every Audiophile and Music Lover Don ?
Maybe... There's certainly nothing wrong with that. The counter argument is that our systems should be as flat as possible in order to re-create the recordings as the artists/producers/sound engineers intended, without overlaying our room's response and personal preferences on top of that. That is, to deliver a sound fitting the performers' preferences. Not necessarily conflicting goals, of course, especially since in most cases they want to get as wide an audience as possible and we will choose artists/groups/whatever with a sound we like. When I was in the studio and helping with the mastering we did strive for something that would sound good on most everything, which of course sometimes meant compromising to serve the broadest market. There's not really a right or wrong answer to this since it comes down to what you (me, anyone) prefer.

I do not consider either approach "second rate", just different. I prefer a fairly dead room that accurately conveys the recording, then with room correction to get it flat (plus in my case some manual tweaking using a good measurement system), I can apply my preference on top of essentially a flat starting point. A lot of folk probably do not realize how large a factor their room plays in the sound they hear, and for that (IMO) majority room correction can be an immense improvement. Or not, if they like the way their room sounds. IME/IMO most people do not like a flat system, but without measurements or a lot of experience and knowledge from listening and actually figuring out what frequencies matter to them, they are in for a lot of trial and error. Decent room correction can at least remove -- make that "reduce" -- one variable. In some cases, perhaps most, things like comb filtering effects can significantly impact the sound and not usually in a good way. Having an instrument's position on stage or in the orchestra vary as it runs from high to low when I know the player is just sitting (or standing) more or less in one place drives me nuts (OK, it's a short drive).

As for age and buddies, sounds like we are similar in both. Being a musician (www.pikespeakphil.org plus a few big band gigs) and an engineer leads to a desire to tweak, natch. That is one reason I went with MCACC instead of Audyssey, not wanting to pay for the Pro package, and a primary reason I just picked up a new Dirac-based pre/pro to play with after years of toying with the idea of trying XT32. My fine tuning involves a good measurement system to get as flat a response as possible followed by designing a final house curve adjusted to taste (by ear). I like to think I have the best of both worlds; the ability to produce a flat reference, and then tailor it to my taste. We are not really apart on this, but I do not think a blanket condemnation of room correction is warranted. I may have read too much into your and others' comments.

My goal is in my signature. - Don

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
post #111 of 136 Old 05-15-2015, 09:30 PM
Member
 
Ka7niq's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Near Tampa Florida
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post
My fine tuning involves a good measurement system to get as flat a response as possible followed by designing a final house curve adjusted to taste (by ear). I like to think I have the best of both worlds; the ability to produce a flat reference, and then tailor it to my taste
10-4 on the house curve
The NRC has identified a certain curve, that most listeners like.
And NAD has implemented their own version of Audyssey, that attempts to give your speakers this NRC Curve, in your room.
NAD credits Paul S Barton with this curve, but guess where Paul got it from

That's another thing I like about the Pioneer Advanced MACCC. Even their lower end receivers have 6 MACCC Pre Sets. One can literally create 6 different room correction curves, and simply cycle through them, as you listen to different music, to see what curve sounds best, on that particular recording.

Before room correction, I once had an old Pioneer Elite Dolby Pro Logic Flagship Receiver. Now, this receiver offered many tone control memories, and once the tone control settings were programmed into memory, you could switch between any of them via remote control.

For instance, one setting might be bass control up 2, and treble down 1, or bass up 3 and treble up 2.
36 different tone control combinations were possible.

I would have to say that well over 75 percent of my records, tapes, and CD's always sounded better with some type of tone correction, then they did flat. My speakers at that time were the awesome Electro Voice Interface D's, well known for their accuracy, and near ideal dispersion.

The Interface D's were fun speakers, 100 db efficient, and -3db at 28 hz
They could generate enough acoustic power to literally remove pictures from the walls, and get the wall paneling shaking, from the pressure wave.

I was so STUPID to ever sell them
Ka7niq is offline  
post #112 of 136 Old 05-15-2015, 10:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 7,000
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 580 Post(s)
Liked: 436
Those InterfaceD's were really nice, and what about the magnet on that midrange driver? I like my Maggies, but heard the D's a few times and they were special. One of our friends/clients had a pair with a custom IB sub using FOUR of the big E-V 30W (30") drivers, scary system...

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
post #113 of 136 Old 05-16-2015, 12:52 PM
Member
 
Ka7niq's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Near Tampa Florida
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post
Those InterfaceD's were really nice, and what about the magnet on that midrange driver? I like my Maggies, but heard the D's a few times and they were special. One of our friends/clients had a pair with a custom IB sub using FOUR of the big E-V 30W (30") drivers, scary system...
LOL, Yeah, that 30 inch EV Driver!
Hartley (remember them ?) made some gigantic woofer. Back when I still lived in Seattle, some guy had one, in his downstairs fireplace!
Of course, he had to give up the fireplace, but the woofer used the entire back of the fireplace for loading!
It sure worked, because I heard it, in his basement.
Ka7niq is offline  
post #114 of 136 Old 05-16-2015, 01:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 7,000
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 580 Post(s)
Liked: 436
I heard several HQD systems back in the day, and helped install one for a Shure VP in a house (mansion) outside KC, MO. They were a mere 24" woofer, though... Biggest I ever saw was a 32" E-V (I think it was E-V). I think my little 12" Rythmiks may actually play lower these days, and is almost certainly much cleaner.
Ka7niq likes this.

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
post #115 of 136 Old 05-18-2015, 10:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,555
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 310
Since Pioneers now do LF EQ, let's hope for properly controlled listening comparison of the results of MCACC vs Audyssey....or even just comparison of in-room measurements.
Ka7niq likes this.
krabapple is offline  
post #116 of 136 Old 05-18-2015, 10:16 AM
Member
 
Ka7niq's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Near Tampa Florida
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
Since Pioneers now do LF EQ, let's hope for properly controlled listening comparison of the results of MCACC vs Audyssey....or even just comparison of in-room measurements.
A local guy I know was giving away his Yamaha RC V2700 for only 150.00, and I could not say NO.
It once sold for 1700.00, and has a 140 wpc X 7 amp in it, and also Yamaha's version of Audyssey etc etc called YPAO. I have always wanted to play with it. I did not get the mic, but I have already tuned out the biggest bass room peak with the remote control parametric EQ !!!!

It is pretty slick, and allows me to adjust both Q and frequency of the boost/cut.

I found the room peak with a SPL Meter and a test CD, and the YPAO Parametric EQ took care of it, under my control!
Ka7niq is offline  
post #117 of 136 Old 05-18-2015, 11:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 7,000
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 580 Post(s)
Liked: 436
I do not have a newer Pioneer to test. My older model (SC-27) does allow you to tweak using a parametric equalizer but only down to ~60 Hz. After running MCACC I was able to improve my FR by adjusting the PEQ, iterating with measurements to check what I was doing, estimate peak frequency and Q, etc.

I have a couple of Yammies but have never been too happy with YPAO; sounds like it's improved a lot since I last played with it. Of course, so has Pioneer, and Audyssey. I am anxious to see how Dirac works.

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
post #118 of 136 Old 05-18-2015, 12:16 PM
Member
 
Ka7niq's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Near Tampa Florida
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post
I do not have a newer Pioneer to test. My older model (SC-27) does allow you to tweak using a parametric equalizer but only down to ~60 Hz. After running MCACC I was able to improve my FR by adjusting the PEQ, iterating with measurements to check what I was doing, estimate peak frequency and Q, etc.

I have a couple of Yammies but have never been too happy with YPAO; sounds like it's improved a lot since I last played with it. Of course, so has Pioneer, and Audyssey. I am anxious to see how Dirac works.
WTF is Dirac ?
Ka7niq is offline  
post #119 of 136 Old 05-18-2015, 12:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Squirrel!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ka7niq View Post
WTF is Dirac ?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=WTF+is+Dirac+room+correction%3F

Main: Mitsubishi 73734 DLP|Amazon Fire TV|Toshiba HD DVD-A35|Panasonic BD65|Denon AVR-4311CI|MartinLogan Preface|Phantom|MartinLogan Encore TF|2 DIY Class 'G' 540w 12" Subs|APC H15|Harmony 720 Remote|Linksys E3000 Dual Band N-Router|Linksys SE2500 Ethernet Switch

MBR: Vizio VF550M|Roku 2XS|Sony BDP-S1100|Denon AVR-X1000|Chane A1rx-c|Phantom|Dayton Audio SAT-BK|MartinLogan Dynamo 300|Belkin PureAV PF30|Harmony 550 Remote
Squirrel! is offline  
post #120 of 136 Old 05-18-2015, 12:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 7,000
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 580 Post(s)
Liked: 436
Dirac Live is another program like MCACC and Audyssey. It appears to combine the power of Audyssey with the ability to refine curves to taste. It is used in the miniDSP DRC-88A and Emotiva XMC-1, among other things. Not cheap for a standalone version, but included in the previous devices (actually, add $99 to the Emotiva to get the full version). I liked the extra power of XT32 compared to MCACC but wanted the ability to tweak like MCACC so decided to give Dirac Live a try (picked up an XMC-1, hope to get it out of the box sometime in the next few weeks).

http://www.dirac.se/en/solutions/hom.../overview.aspx

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

Tags
Audyssey , Denon , Pioneer , Pioneer Brand

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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