Originally Posted by bd2003
So Im a long time audyssey multEQ user who recently got a vsx-1020-k, now that I'm experienced with both a few thoughts on them.
The included mic seems pretty shabby in both cases, but the audyssey one screws tightly into my tripod whereas the pioneer one doesnt.
As far as the actual setup process goes they are as different as can be. Audyssey's is very simple compared to MCACC, and that's a good thing and a bad thing. Its definitely trying to make the process as unintrusive as possible. It's simplicity certainly makes it easier to figure out than the rather confusing menu mess of mcacc. The test tones are very simple and at a very low volume, whereas with mcacc it's LOUD, drawn out and comprehensive. But once you understand the setup routine of MCACC, it's the hands down winner. It tells you what it's measuring, and then shows you the result, in a staggering amount of detail, and you actually have a few options. And you can always tweak the result to your taste. The test tones are confidence inspiring, whereas the audyssey tones seem like they can't possibly be enough to test what needs to be tested, especially at such a low volume, particularly the sub...but we'll get to that in a bit. Audyssey is simply too much of a black box that expects you to just accept items improving the sound without actually showing you how or what it does, nor does it offer any sort of flexibility.
But audyssey does have some technical advantages - for one, it actually eqs the sub. And the sub arguably is the most important component to EQ, and mcacc doesn't even bother at all. Despite all that I like about mcacc, this is a pretty huge flaw.
Audyssey with it's 6 position setup also seems to just be technically superior - you can do a sorta 3 position standing wave setup with mcacc, but audyssey seems to do a better overall job for tuning a wider area. In my experience with audyssey, the most positions you measure the less overall EQ is applied, which makes some sense if EQing one band is good at one seat but makes a problem worse at another. Even though I have a small seating area, I don't feel like measuring from a single position really is enough to capture the room characteristics - after all, we hear with two ears.
The main thing to judge by is of course, how does it sound? Hard to say which is technically more accurate, but mcacc makes a more drastic change to the sound, whereas audyssey can often be quite subtle, especially multi position. But mcacc really sells it to me by showing me what it just did, and allowing me to change or tune it. Despite it's deficiencies, this alone makes mcacc the hands down winner.
With audyssey I'd often go through the time consuming 6 measurements, only to not be happy with the results. The only option was to do it again and hope for better.
With mcacc, I can get the results, and have it show me the exact improvements it made. Then I can measure again, and save to a different memory slot, compare the two, and pick my favorite - can't do that with audyssey. I can copy my favorite over to another slot, and boost certain frequencies for different content, and just switch as I please...can't do that either.
Even though it seems technically lacking in some ways, mcacc's configurability makes it just night and day better. If it can eventually do sub eq and multi position, then there's really no comparison.