Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo
Actually, that's the point I was making. Audussey IS NOT close to reference. That's what I usually have to adjust. Audyssey still takes a lot of work to make it reference. I have been working with it for almost 6 years. I have yet to run it and it does it correctly. In all honesty, the marketing should read preference instead of reference. Don't get me wrong, I'll do an Audyessy calibration, but it STILL takes as much work to deal with it as it would the QSC gear, and the results are not the same as it would be with the QSC. Once I am in a room calibrating, folks finally understand the versatility and right decision of the QSC gear. Everytime I leave an Audyssey calibration, there's always some issue I could not resolve due to its severe limitations.
I am responding in this thread because DIY PM'd me and asked me to offer my thoughts. I have not read the whole thread, and I am only responding to the discussion about Audyssey.
To a certain extent, I agree that Audyssey is not a perfect solution. It's a generalized solution attempting to correct some very specific and unique room acoustic issues. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes users really like the results, other times, not so much. I also agree that Audyssey most often doesn't get the optimal results. In fact, I think it is very important to verify and optimize Audyssey with measurements. If you read the link DIY posted, you'll see I did just that.
IME, Audyssey almost always get the crossovers wrong. It measures the -3 dB point of the speakers in the room. However, the -3 dB point at 75 dB is almost always different than the -3 dB point at 100 or 105 dB. I find that I very often need to raise the crossovers set by Audyssey.
Also, Audyssey often gets the subwoofer Distance setting wrong. It measures the subwoofer in isolation, checking the acoustic distance based on the arrival time of the signal through the subwoofer system. However, it never goes back and *measures* the blend of the subwoofer(s) and the speakers. I usually find that an adjustment of the subwoofer Distance setting is necessary to optimize the blend. Sometimes it's just a few dB, sometimes it's huge, as much as 20 dB.
Still, in all, these are relatively small problems, and they can be discovered with inexpensive measurement gear, and corrected with a little insight into how the system works. Once these issues are corrected, Audyssey's EQ provides very "flat" response, (which is what I think you mean by "reference.") Above the mid-bass, Audyssey does very little. It sets a flat midrange target curve and a HF roll-off of 3 dB above 10 kHz. I admit Audyssey doesn't have much adjustment capability, but there's not a lot to adjust there. It does a pretty good job of hitting it's targets:
Some users may not "prefer" a flat response, but if they want a rising bass response, that is what Dynamic EQ is for.
Can a "professional and professional sound measurement equipment" do a better job? Yeah, probably, although that comes at the cost of a "professional and professional sound measurement equipment." The cost differential between a full-bore QSC system plus the labor to implement it vs. an Audyssey based system can be *HUGE*! For a guy who's internet handle is "DIYHomeTheater", it would seem like Audyssey XT32 plus an inexpensive measurement system, and some time spent learning how to use it, would be a much higher value proposition. I know it was for me.