Have sub EQ (Anti-Mode): How do Audyssey, MCACC, YPAO compare when sub taken care of?

I won't be much help, but I don't think anyone can give you an accurate answer. The problem is unless you test using the exact same setup sans receiver, you aren't doing a true comparison. Even then, what works better in setup A may not be better for setup B. And then there's always one's opinion.

Most people say Audyssey is better, but I can't help but wonder if this is because Audyssey does a good job of promoting their product. YPAO and MCACC are both proprietary and Yamaha and Pioneer probably don't focus on promoting them as opposed to Audyssey. Audyssey basically sells one product, so of course they will focus on promoting it.

The logic behind room correction isn't that complex, so I would guess they all do the same thing more or less. Set the delays, set relative volume, and bump portions of the curve up or down and try to get as flat a curve as possible.

I have two Velodyne subs, each with built-in room correction. It helped clean up some of the bass issues compared to subs without built-in room correction, but it wasn't perfect by any means (my rooms are very reflective).

With Audyssey XT, there wasn't much of a bass difference that I could tell.

However, I now have the Sherwood R-972 with Trinnov room correction, and it has made a very noticeable difference -- the bass is tighter and much better integrated.

It may be just in my set up, but I have been really impressed by the improvement Trinnov has made to both my TV room (9.1) and stereo room (2+sub), over and above what the built-in sub EQ, and over Audyssey XT.

^^^

it's just a TAD more complex than bumping a graphic equalizer up and down...

having used an antimode for quite some time...

antimode + no sub eq = good...
antimode + audyssey xt = better...
audyssey xt32 alone = best...

Hey kidhorn, if you are allergic to hornet stings, then you'd better leave the nest alone lol
If you want Audyssey to sound better than YPAO and MCACC (and vice versa) then it will. I like pioneer, but I wouldn't suggest MCACC is the be all end all. IMO If YPAO and MCACC EQed subs then Audyssey lovers would still claim audyssey is the best, that's just the way it is.

I did not realize that the R-972 did 9.1.

Bill

It doesn't in the conventional sense, but what I've done is use the surround back channels for Heights, plus four speakers hooked to the surround (two high and two low). Trinnov establishes the locations of the speakers and uses them to create a seamless sound field. I like the end result better than what I had with Dolby Pro Logic IIz.

Check out the Trinnov Optimizer Notes thread for more detail.

nice try, but i don't "want" anything to "sound better"... and i, for one, don't "trust my ears"....

personally, i use whatever tool does a better job... and for me (as with almost every other home user), all of the "big issues" when it comes to frequency response lie below the schroeder frequency... and to "fix" those, you'd better be able to eq the sub channel...

if mcacc eq'd the sub channel, then we could have the conversation (and i'd likely still be a pioneer owner)... but alas, it does not... some versions of ypao do, but i have not used them so can't comment upon their efficacy...

fwiw, i was a card carrying pioneer fanboy for a LONG time... but someone else offered a better tool for the job that needed to be done... visual evidence for those who like pictures can be seen by clicking here...

please note there is nothing "subjective" about this... i'm not much of one for subjective commentary (to put it mildly)...

How so?

I think it depends on the room more than anything because I have heard a lot of different answers to which is your favorite room eq. I think it also just depends on personal preference. I had no reason to pick Audyssey over MCACC because the Pioneer was a little cheaper than my Denon and I really liked the GUI on Pioneer. I just never could get the sound quality as good with MCACC as I did with Audyssey MultEQ. At the time I didn't even know that MCACC didn't EQ a sub. That's actually how I found out because I searched for "bass doesn't sound as good with MCACC". If I knew that prior to trying it out then I'm sure that would cause me to not like the bass as much. The fact that I didn't know that going in makes me think it was an accurate observation. Now this was not a blind test so I guess bias could have played a roll but the bass just didn't sound as deep or full as it did when I was using MultEQ. I would like to try out YPAO but I want something with sub eq and don't want to pay the high price tag for the 2010 or 3010. If Pioneer improves MCACC and starts doing something with subs then I will probably try Pioneer again because I'm always looking to get the most out of my system.

not getting into a taffy pull with you, thank you...

i suggest either the audyssey site or google if you don't know and want to know...

Sorry you felt slighted all those years as an owner of pioneer gear, it's just that I don't feel I'm missing anything by not having audyssey.

For what it's worth in my room with the same speakers I've liked Audyssey XT the best. And I've been through a lot of AVR's.

Sony -> hk EZ-set --> Mid line MACC --> Top line YPAO --> Audyssey --> Audyssey XT is my .02. But MACC/YPAO/Audyssey are awfully close, and if you neglect the sub section I would consider MACC, YPAO, and Audyssey close enough to be down to personal preference, or just user setup variation.

There are different tiers of MACC and YPAO but they are less clear about the steps so it is not so easy to confirm which I've used.

No matter what the tool I am MUCH happier with the results using a tripod and weighing the setup locations towards my main central seating location. I think this is a big deal because most documentation points towards putting the mic in each seating position. It may be better overall but I am not concerned about the average, nor do I want my everyday listening biased to include outboard visitor seats that are rarely used. I've found using about half of the locations tightly spaced around my main location and keeping the others within 1 seat around works very well for my room.

Don't like Sony or H/K's tool at all. MACC may have been slighted by the relatively weak amplifiers in the box. YPAO and Audyssey are very close, only demerit is that YPAO does not handle my subs nearly as well but I also like the Yamaha sound fields better than most, they are the only custom ones I will actually use from time to time.

Recent boxes were a 4308 (loved it) to a Yamaha RX3000 (got tempted by all the features, miss the XT and amp section of the 4308), waiting on a good deal to go back to a Denon box with XT32. May try to nab a 4311 if the 2013 Denon's don't offer much or XT32 is too high up the line. Even XT handles the subs much better than YPAO, imho.

Another option is ARC on the Anthem receivers. ARC is a very powerful room eq program that is highly rated. I believe it is a step above all those listed with the possible exception of Trinnov.

It does EQ sub but if your sub is already eq'd then it can use more of the processing power on the rest of the range to get better results. It also will produce FR graphs for all your channels.

I recently got a MRX-500 and am very impressed.

Barry

not slighted... just that they didn't produce a tool that i needed... i feel slighted by pioneer for other issues (primarily the abandonment of their high end customers, of which i was one), but this has nothing to do with that...

didn't look at the graphs, huh?

I was on the audyssey site earlier today trying to see what they did beyond adjusting the Frequency Response in an equalizer like manner (Which as far as I can tell is exactly what they do. Create an inverse wave and add it to the original.), and they basically recommend the same thing. Sample close to the center seating position. At least for the first few tests. I guess the results are weighed more towards the early tests than the latter ones.

Having also owned both, I totally agree.

IMO, XT32 is state of the art, for both sub and main channels. Even if you spent $20K, I'm not sure you could do better.

Right. You have to go higher.

You better be referencing something from your May column. I need to take a break from the interwebs right now and dig into that issue

Nope. Nothing I have written about.

Wow!!! You gotta love Audussey fanatics

Just calling 'em as I see (hear) 'em.

Technically, I really don't like XT at all. It never gave me transparent results, I could always hear what it was doing, and that wasn't a good thing. XT32 is in a whole 'nother league.

some of us have provided proof of it's efficacy... it really has nothing to do with being a fanatic... it has to do with the cold hard facts...

sorry if you don't like that...

Just out of curiousity have you used Audyssey XT or XT32 in your system? I wouldn't consider myself an Audyssey "fanatic" but XT works well in my system. I do not use it for music but I have friends with XT32 equipped AVR/prepros and it sounds excellent in their rooms even with music. I find it humorous if someone speaks positively about a product such as Audyssey and then they are labeled as "fanatics".

Bill

Chris,

Well said and right on the money.

Bill

Um, where are the facts in that statement?
Like I said, Fanatic. Just calling em as I see em.

Where was I quoting facts? I said "I'm not sure if you could do better" if at a much greater cost.

Why don't you tell us of a room processing feature that you like better? If you're not going to contribute to the discussion, go troll elsewhere please.