Originally Posted by pepar
I am with you on most of that, but I don't bother to generate graphs for myself ... or for customers. You'll get a discussion about linear theory from Audyssey, but the graphs are calculated. And they are calculated with their secret sauce. This is why independent measurements are done.
Exactly - besides which there's little control over the resolution or the scale of the graphs that we have. You need IMO independent measurement to know whether Audyssey Pro is truly addressing problem areas accurately, or other tweaks are needed to get an optimal response. For example, the distance adjustment, repositioning of satellites or subs, how subs are gain/level matched, or whether to add more subs. The Pro graphs are also weak by not measuring interaction effects between speakers.
Given the limited market for Pro, I hope that we don't see Audyssey go the route of MCACC, where it's essentially a finished product, with only minor changes (i.e. Precison Distance for better controlling distance for speakers) changing over several years. But except for things like LFC, which is a 'user friendly' bell and whistle, Audyssey is clearly putting its R&D into the iDevice & Wifi world, not AVRs.
Granted XT32+Pro is the best commercial RC out there, particularly for LF response, but sooner or later someone will come up with something better for a commercial market. The only downside is it might not be in this price level of AVRs, to begin to justify the cost.
Unfortunately, the real problem IMO is the business model. What you really need is the equivalent of R. Something where open source code can be added and made modular to add add'l features for room correction, but a financial model that could monetize it to a degree that would make it worthwhile to Audyssey, if not Denon. The only way that would be practical would be a subscription approach to licensing Audyssey for the AVRs, and a royalty model that might make it worthwhile for manufacturers. How you do that exactly is beyond me....