Compare HT Receiver EQ functions?

Hey all,

I am ready to replace my workhorse old Yamaha RV-1105 with something that can handle up-to-date formats and HDMI switching.

One of the main things that I am looking forward to is having access to a microphone-based auto-EQ function as I have struggled with my room which is an odd shape and tends to selectively suck bass frequencies.

I see that every name manufacturer no has their own variation on this function (YPAO, Audessy, etc.).

I also see that several of these have dedicated threads, presumably most useful to current owners of one of these systems. But: has there been any good head-to-head comparison (quantitative and/or qualitative) on the current versions of these features.

Pointers/links/opinions solicited.

JGM
Edited by JGM - 3/4/13 at 2:12pm

Well, from the responses so far (including the links Kilian kindly provided) as well as some additional searching. I gather that the answer to my original question (has there been any good head-to-head comparison (quantitative and/or qualitative) on the current versions of these features) is a resounding NO.

That is, there is opinion, and some case studies with one or the other of the systems, but nothing that directly compares the effectiveness or usefulness of the different systems.

This is quite surprising to me -- apparently none of the audio or A/V magazines have developed a standard process for evaluating Auto-EQ systems. Seems like it wouldn't take that much -- and would make a great feature article -- to run each system in a particular room against a several different sets of speakers known to have coloration issues and then do some before-and-after spectrograms for comparison. Or to run some "flat"-ish speakers in several problematic rooms to see how well room effects can be mitigated. If they felt a need for qualitative analysis also, sure, tell me which results had more "air" or whatever. But show me the spectrograms.

I'm also interested to know -- and maybe another pointer is in order here -- which systems are most amenable to user tuning after the Auto-EQ is complete.

Thanks to all.

JGM

I'm not sure I completely follow - how are room effects functionally different from speaker non-linearities? If the EQ system is analyzing and compensating using a microphone, it would seem that both issues should be helped.

I'm not talking about a standing-wave type "null", I don't think, but an imbalance in mid-bass due to the shape of the room. And I don't expect an EQ system do do the physically impossible, but it would be nice to have some control beyond bass and treble dials.

If only it were possible. Note this from the article: The identities of the products associated with the results are not relevant for the purpose of this article. Moreover this was a comparison of multiple 5-figure standalone EQ systems which may or may not have any useful relationship with anything integrated into HT receivers.

This is, however, pretty much exactly the experiment I'd like to see with Audessy vs. YPAO vs. MCACC -enabled receivers.

JGM