Denon's Audyssey vs. Pioneer's MCACC - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 101 Old 01-20-2007, 11:34 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
ImDiesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
any opinions as to which one works better...?

the Pioneer VSX-82TSX has this program and comes with the mic for setting it up...

the Denon AVR-2807 has the Audyssey, and I'm assuming it comes with a mic for setting it up...

does anyone know if the Pioneer passes audio and video through HDMI...? i know the 2807 does...

my main use will be for PS3, and ocassional movie watching...

Thanks...
ImDiesel is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 101 Old 01-21-2007, 02:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
soundlovr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImDiesel View Post

any opinions as to which one works better...?

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImDiesel View Post

the Denon AVR-2807 has the Audyssey, and I'm assuming it comes with a mic for setting it up...

You assume correctly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImDiesel View Post

does anyone know if the Pioneer passes audio and video through HDMI...? i know the 2807 does...

If not, one would question why it's there (ie: yes, it does).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImDiesel View Post

my main use will be for PS3, and ocassional movie watching...

Given that you don't even list music-listening as a purpose to the system, room correction seems an unimportant factor for your needs. Pick the cheapest option.
soundlovr is offline  
post #3 of 101 Old 01-21-2007, 03:11 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
ImDiesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
so speaker setup for surround sound holds no importance...?
ImDiesel is offline  
post #4 of 101 Old 01-22-2007, 07:13 AM
Member
 
hdgeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 96
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Even for movie watching, the Audyssey on the Denon 2807 made a huge difference in my room. Vocals are better focused and the sound stage is much wider with smooth panning. I can also sit off-center with dialog still anchored to the screen.

Room correction, if done well, makes all sources sound better. Music just gets the most benefit.
hdgeek is offline  
post #5 of 101 Old 01-22-2007, 08:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,459
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImDiesel View Post

so speaker setup for surround sound holds no importance...?

Sure, it does but both the Denon and the Pioneer (as well as many others) have that.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #6 of 101 Old 01-22-2007, 10:34 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
ImDiesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i opted for the Elite... but can swap it out if i so choose...

we'll see how it works out...
ImDiesel is offline  
post #7 of 101 Old 01-23-2007, 01:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
soundlovr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImDiesel View Post

so speaker setup for surround sound holds no importance...?

Audyssey is a RoomEQ product, not a speaker setup routine.
soundlovr is offline  
post #8 of 101 Old 01-23-2007, 05:16 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,459
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundlovr View Post

Audyssey is a RoomEQ product, not a speaker setup routine.

Yes. Seems as if we have to say this over and over and over.......................

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #9 of 101 Old 01-23-2007, 06:16 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
ImDiesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
ok, i got it...

no need to continue crying about it...

and it seems the Audyssey is mainly for music, so i have zero use for it anyhow...
ImDiesel is offline  
post #10 of 101 Old 01-23-2007, 06:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,459
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImDiesel View Post

and it seems the Audyssey is mainly for music, so i have zero use for it anyhow...

Where did you get this idea from? It applies equally to music and HT and most of the Audyssey-recommended demos for it are movies, not music.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #11 of 101 Old 01-23-2007, 07:17 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
ImDiesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i got it from someone here who said the Audessey was mainly for music content...

it's hard to get somewhere when you have conflicting information coming from all angles...
ImDiesel is offline  
post #12 of 101 Old 01-23-2007, 08:28 AM
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by hdgeek View Post

Even for movie watching, the Audyssey on the Denon 2807 made a huge difference in my room.

As did MCACC in mine. I haven't heard any of the other mfrs' automatic room correction routines.

But the fact is , no one has published any sort of rigororous (or even casual, as best I know) comparison of Audyssey vs MCACC vs YPAO vs Harman's room eq, in terms of their effects on the same room, same setup, same listening position. Not even before/after room measurements, much less subjective impressions (Kal, are these something Stereophile could be persuaded to try?). So any definitive claims made here should be taken with a large lump of salt. It should also be noted that Audyssey as supplied on Denon receivers is a 'simplified' version of the extremely powerful Audyssey engine available as a stand-alone device.
krabapple is offline  
post #13 of 101 Old 01-23-2007, 09:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,459
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

(Kal, are these something Stereophile could be persuaded to try?). So any definitive claims made here should be taken with a large lump of salt.

Not very likely. We do not review receivers, as a rule so, unless someone is very hot to do this particular test, it will not happen. Don't count on me.

Quote:


It should also be noted that Audyssey as supplied on Denon receivers is a 'simplified' version of the extremely powerful Audyssey engine available as a stand-alone device.

See my forthcoming March column.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #14 of 101 Old 01-24-2007, 06:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Avliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,066
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Well, I'm extremely happy with Audyssey on both, music & video performances.
All I do is - once in a while - to swap between Audyssey & Flat modes, but most of the time it's engaged on Audyssey. My AVR is a 3806.

To my taste, not even manual EQ (which doesn't have Audyssey apllied) surpasses the former. So, IMHO: THANKS Audyssey!

Hope this helps.

Cheers.

Regards, Chuck
Hold on tight to your dreams - ELO
Avliner is offline  
post #15 of 101 Old 01-25-2007, 04:56 PM
Senior Member
 
WebEffect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 397
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I'm curious, how does Yamaha's YPAO compare to Audyssey?
WebEffect is offline  
post #16 of 101 Old 01-25-2007, 05:34 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
ImDiesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
apparently it's crap, cause everyone seems to feel the Auddessy is GOD...
ImDiesel is offline  
post #17 of 101 Old 01-26-2007, 07:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Avliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,066
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
... or DEVIL, if you see things from a different angle.

Lots of people on this & other forums doesn't like the way Audyssey sounds though.

Cheers.

Regards, Chuck
Hold on tight to your dreams - ELO
Avliner is offline  
post #18 of 101 Old 01-27-2007, 12:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
skoolpsyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Juniper Hills, CA, USA
Posts: 811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

As did MCACC in mine. I haven't heard any of the other mfrs' automatic room correction routines.

But the fact is , no one has published any sort of rigororous (or even casual, as best I know) comparison of Audyssey vs MCACC vs YPAO vs Harman's room eq, in terms of their effects on the same room, same setup, same listening position. Not even before/after room measurements, much less subjective impressions (Kal, are these something Stereophile could be persuaded to try?). So any definitive claims made here should be taken with a large lump of salt. It should also be noted that Audyssey as supplied on Denon receivers is a 'simplified' version of the extremely powerful Audyssey engine available as a stand-alone device.

I sure wish someone would; I think a LOT of people would be interested in the results!
skoolpsyk is offline  
post #19 of 101 Old 01-01-2009, 09:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SkiSmuggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North Central Vermont
Posts: 1,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImDiesel View Post

and it seems the Audyssey is mainly for music, so i have zero use for it anyhow...

it's hard to get somewhere when you have conflicting information coming from all angles...

apparently YPAO is crap, cause everyone seems to feel the Auddessy is GOD...

They are ALL better than doing nothing which is what many people do. Most don't own an SPL meter. Just because Audyssey is the preferred EQ by many does not make the others crap. And having your a** on your shoulders doesn't make anything sound better.
SkiSmuggs is offline  
post #20 of 101 Old 01-05-2009, 07:16 PM
Member
 
nwbnd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Grand Haven, MI
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So is the only option to automatic correction schemes a PEQ? If so, is there a 5.1/7.1 ch PEQ that is cost competitive with the built-ins?
nwbnd is offline  
post #21 of 101 Old 01-05-2009, 07:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,459
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwbnd View Post

So is the only option to automatic correction schemes a PEQ? If so, is there a 5.1/7.1 ch PEQ that is cost competitive with the built-ins?

Nope. The hardware cost of the built-ins is minimal consisting of firmware and a mic input. The hardware cost of a standalone includes real hardware (chips, controls, components), chassis and power supply. Hard to imagine how they could be cost competitive. In fact, I do not know of such a stand-alone 5.1/7.1 PEQ.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #22 of 101 Old 01-05-2009, 09:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zamboniman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicago, IL - Far NW Burbs
Posts: 1,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Are they all truely just frequency domain PEQ's though? For some odd reason I thought I remember some (maybe Audessey) also doing some time domain correction as well. That said if truely the case with time correction and implemented correctly (big assumption) the internal room correction should be superior to stand alone PEQ??

All that said the best rooms I've heard have just been calibrated with external EQ.
zamboniman is offline  
post #23 of 101 Old 01-06-2009, 03:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
soundlovr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamboniman View Post

Are they all truely just frequency domain PEQ's though? For some odd reason I thought I remember some (maybe Audessey) also doing some time domain correction as well. That said if truely the case with time correction and implemented correctly (big assumption) the internal room correction should be superior to stand alone PEQ??

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. But also, it uses finite impulse response filters instead of PEQ's infinite impluse response filters which eliminates the smearing and ringing that PEQ systems create.

For PEQ to compete, it would have to be 512-band, time-correcting, and completely change its filter-type. Hence... PEQ cannot compete
soundlovr is offline  
post #24 of 101 Old 01-06-2009, 05:24 AM
Member
 
nwbnd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Grand Haven, MI
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundlovr View Post

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. But also, it uses finite impulse response filters instead of PEQ's infinite impluse response filters which eliminates the smearing and ringing that PEQ systems create.

For PEQ to compete, it would have to be 512-band, time-correcting, and completely change its filter-type. Hence... PEQ cannot compete

Is that 512 band/ch? Is this the same for all levels (2eq, multeq, xt)?
nwbnd is offline  
post #25 of 101 Old 01-06-2009, 11:37 AM
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Possibly exciting news on the comparative testing front:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=340

assuming Audyssey and MCACC were tested, which is unknown.
krabapple is offline  
post #26 of 101 Old 01-06-2009, 11:43 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Dennis Erskine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Near an airport
Posts: 9,141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 46
You can download the report from the AES library.

Dennis Erskine CFI, CFII, MEI
Architectural Acoustics
Subject Matter Expert
Certified Home Theater Designer
CEDIA Board of Directors

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dennis Erskine is offline  
post #27 of 101 Old 01-06-2009, 03:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
RexCarson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 857
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundlovr View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

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!
RexCarson is offline  
post #28 of 101 Old 01-06-2009, 03:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jostenmeat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by chriskav73 View Post

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.

Uhh. Audyssey makes a lot of products. Disregarding Dynamic EQ/Volume, did you use?...

2eq
multEQ
multEQ XT
Audyssey Pro
Audyssey SEQ (nm, its a standalone)

 

 

jostenmeat is offline  
post #29 of 101 Old 01-06-2009, 06:20 PM
 
BobL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 53
The first thing to consider with these auto EQs/room correction systems is they should be thought of as the final tweak. Fix the room first! None of these can correct room problems, they TRY to compensate for them. I understand using these systems is sometimes the only option one has in their situation, but if possible fix the room!

The other thing to consider is how these systems work. We can argue the technical merits of one vs. the other but that doesn't mean the more advanced EQ will give better results. The reason is none of these systems know what is causing the problems in a given room. They apply an algorithm based off their measurements. These systems can be tricked and often apply settings that may not be appropraite for a given situation.

If the EQ system with the lesser technical abilities happens to have its algorithm modeled after a room similar to the one being measured your results will probably be pretty good. If the measurements trick the more advanced EQs algorithm the results might not be as good.

It is important to understand that when measuring multiple seating locations that the measurements at different seats might require different EQ correction which isn't possible. Depending on the algorithms decisons some locations may sound worse! Debating over which one does the better job is pointless unless the rooms, equipment, etc. are identical.

Hope this helps.

Bob
BobL is offline  
post #30 of 101 Old 01-06-2009, 08:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cavchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,532
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL View Post

...

It is important to understand that when measuring multiple seating locations that the measurements at different seats might require different EQ correction which isn't possible. Depending on the algorithms decisons some locations may sound worse! Debating over which one does the better job is pointless unless the rooms, equipment, etc. are identical.

Hope this helps.

Bob

Bob, Very nicely said!

Ray

Ray

 

"Listen with an open heart and mind."

 

cavchameleon is offline  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

Tags
Audyssey , Denon , Pioneer , Pioneer Brand

User Tag List

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