Audyssey, vs others?

Audyssey is for submissives; MCACC is for doms.

1. Idea is the same, methodology in doing so is different (some prefer Audyssey, while others prefer MCAAC)
2. No. The Sound Equalizer uses MultEQ XT and offers more filtering options.
3. More advanced filters in the XT version provide better EQ'ing. Both provide same filtering of subwoofer.

However, for more informed info, your best bet is to speak with the Audyssey Co-Found Chris K. either in the Audyssey thread (username "Audyssey") or using Ask Audyssey on the Audyssey website.

standalone unit has more filter resolution; see Audyssey website

Has anyone heard of Dolby Lake?

Dolby bought Lake Reserach (from Australia) a few years ago. Their R&D team developed Dolby Headphone and Dolby Volume.


Just my $0.01..

Dolby sold the Lake processor to Lab.gruppen a little over a year ago:
http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/l...nd_lake_brand/

Here is an overview of the original device:
http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/z..._0601_Lake.pdf

I found this:

http://labgruppen.com/products/lake_products/

I hope you realize that everything (including EQing) in that processor has to be done manually.

http://labgruppen.com/products/plm_s...r/eq_overlays/

Totally different product from Audyssey or any of the other automatic room correction systems.

Yes, I do realize. Can you use this parallel with Audyssey Pro, meaning run Audyssey after EQ'ing with something like this first?

Sure, you can always overlap two different equalizers in the signal path, but there's no guarantee whether the interaction will make things better or worse. I remember a few folks posting of some success combining Audyssey with Velodyne Digital Drive subs (w/ built in SMS EQ), using the latter to present Audyssey with flatter measuring subs.

what would you do?

The reason I am asking is there are more powerful DSPs in the market, but Audyssey has the bells and whistles such as DSX. I imagine you can't have a DSX set up without running Audyssey.

Well, no, but that's because DSX is a trade name. But you can have front wide or front height speakers with other systems. Pioneer has provision for leveling out bass peaks and high frequency roll off. What do you want a DSX setup to do?

Hello,
I really do think Audyssey is technologically speaking more advanced than MCACC and YPAO. Trinnov, to me, is the closest alternative.

What makes Audyssey superior to other solutions is the use of FIR Filters (Finite Impulse Response) as opposed to Parametric Equalization. The advantage to FIR's being when altering one band in a Parametric EQ can have deleterious effects to other bands whereas FIR's do not. Moreover, Audyssey provides correction in both frequency and time domains.

Another major advantage of Audyssey is its ability to work on low frequencies.
At least the initial MCACC did not work below 60 Hz.

It is also pretty cool that Audyssey is the brainchild of a USC Student Chris Kyriakakis and Professor Tomlinson Holman of THX fame.

Again, I really am interested in Trinnov's EQ, but have not listened to it. Of the Room EQ's I have listened to, Audyssey really has given the best result for me.
Cheers,
AD

Here's what I wouldn't do: spend $5k on the Lake LM 26. I don't have the knowledge and experience, not to mention measuring tools, to make good use of it.

After exhausting subwoofer placement and room treatments, I would make every effort to get the best results out of the room correction in my receiver or pre-pro. After all that, IF I still found the sound lacking, I'd consider agumenting the set-up with some low frequency correction, like the JBL BassQ box.
I could be wrong, but I don't think you have to run their room correction in order to use DSX processing. However, you're not going to find DSX on non-Audyssey products, since DSX is their technology.

Well, that is the bottom line, isn't it? Which gives the best result. It's rather difficult to find reports on comparisons such as the ones you appear to have made. I would like to know which systems you've tested and how you've compared them.

However, I am very resistant to comparisons based on no more than Audyssey's claims and product literature. Just because Audyssey says it's terrifically sophisticated and advanced, I put no stock in that at all. That's advertising. I'm surprised when I hear people repeat these claims as though they were gospel.

Hello,
Well I still own a Pioneer VSX-59TXI with MCACC and borrowed my brothers RX-Z11 for a weekend to try them all out. However, it is not mere Marketing with Audyssey. Read every Professional Review about the Technology. It won Stereophile's Accessory of the Year as well. It is only thanks to the more powerful chipsets in today's AVR's that Audyssey is even capable. And with MultEQ XT, it requires even more processing power.

I really do not think Denon would add this EQ if they did not think it was the best available. Same with Onkyo. Again, I am most interested in trying out the Trinnov EQ.
Cheers,
AD

Advanced MCACC has some time domain correction, I believe. It's definitely a different beast than the plain old parametric non-advanced MCACC.

This is still too soon, but I am planning for a build with 11 speakers. It is my understanding that more speakers should provide much better envelopment than 7 speakers.


Neither have I. Idea here is to hire someone who has the knowledge to do so. For example I know that Mark Seaton recommends QSC products for his subwoofers since they have deeper and steeper filters than even the subwoofer EQ for Audyssey. I also recall him mentioning in the $20K Forum that using Dolby Lake helped him identify speaker problems that he wouldn't otherwise.


Do not forget ARC. Kal compared ARC and Audyssey and found those 2 fairly equal in his review in Stereophile.

Some high-end companies have their own proprietary systems too. I know Krell just released a room correction system for Evolution 707. Similarly Lexicon MC12 has a room correction system, which is higly praised in these forums. I don't have any objective measurements though, so it may be hearsay for all you know.

Several reviewers said they preferred the sound w/o Audyssey.

Not saying it's bad, just that it doesn't work for every person/setup.

Two of my previous receivers used Audyssey, and I didn't like the way the eq sounded after calibration. It yielded a "thin" sound that was less dynamic. Then again, my current Pioneer SC-27's eq settings do the same thing with MCACC, but not as bad.

I am not disputing your preferences but did you do any measurements of the before/after system performance?

Some reviewers never measure the sound to see what they are hearing.

I've felt that out of the box, set up and run Audyssey has proven to be a very good system. Certainly much better than I could ever do with a meter and a lot of time.

With my Pioneer Elite comes MCACC and I do not believe it has the internal sophistication that Audyssey has. But, it is transparent to the user wherein Audyssey is (I'm not sure about Audyssey Pro) is still in a black box. Limited tweaking or info on what its doing.

While not putting down Audyssey I became an MCACC fan when setting up My Pio receiver. You can generate table data and curves from the software that's available. I noticed that one of my surrounds was having to push pretty hard and it was likely due to speaker/furniture location and interference. Moving things around a bit and then re-running MCACC showed a dramatic improvement.

Audyssey would have made corrections for this as MCACC did but the difference is that MCACC graphically displayed a room problem and this gave me options. Actually seeing what your system is doing is a plus. The downside with MCACC, as many point out, is the low frequency treatment but after some time I've done some manual adjustments to the subs and all is well.

One other plus for MCACC is that you have the ability for 6 pre-sets. If you're a stereo type you could do an MCACC for fronts only and also set up a 5-7.1 set up for movies. Being a tweaker, I have MCACC setups for Large, Large Fronts, Small, etc.

Both Audyssey and MCACC are good. I like the MCACC transparency.

No, Kal, I didn't. It was purely a taste thing. The eq on MCACC would bump frequencies in the 2khz-8khz region, and drop them in the 250-500hz range (or thereabouts), and I can't remember what Audyssey did, but I assume something similar since it had the same characteristics. I listened to them for a couple of weeks thinking they were right and my preferences were wrong, but in the end I disabled the eq settings. I'm in the process of getting everything I need to start measuring what's happening in my room acoustically.

Let us know.

Hello,
Unless newer versions have changed this, neither MCACC or YPAO applies filtering to the Subwoofer or Speakers below 60 Hz. If this is still the case, the fact that Audyssey applies filtering full range sets it apart.
Cheers,
AD

MCACC has "Standing Wave" for filtering bass peaks. I don't think it's all that new.

MCACC also provides correction in time domain.

Matty