[randyc1]

There are sooo many disscusions about which is better: Audyssey, Mcacc, Ypao, ect ?


I cant believe nobody ( pro review or Guru ) has tested each of these, in the same room, same conditions ??. Get FR charts ,before and after EQ, compare which does the best job in correcting in room RF ??


Would'nt this be a convincing test ?????

 

[WiWavelength]

To borrow your incredulousness, why did you start two threads on effectively the same topic?????

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1351102


We frown upon that redundancy.


AJ

 

[Kal Rubinson]



Quote:
Originally Posted by randyc1 /forum/post/20770858


There are sooo many disscusions about which is better: Audyssey, Mcacc, Ypao, ect ?


I cant believe nobody ( pro review or Guru ) has tested each of these, in the same room, same conditions ??. Get FR charts ,before and after EQ, compare which does the best job in correcting in room RF ??


Would'nt this be a convincing test ?????

1. How will you assess success?

2. How will you generalize the results for other systems and/or rooms?

 

[randyc1]



Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength /forum/post/0


To borrow your incredulousness, why did you start two threads on effectively the same topic?????

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1351102


We frown upon that redundancy.


AJ

I tried to delete the first. ,,,,Did'nt think I explained it correctly

 

[M Code]



Quote:
Originally Posted by randyc1 /forum/post/20770858


There are sooo many disscusions about which is better: Audyssey, Mcacc, Ypao, ect ?


I cant believe nobody ( pro review or Guru ) has tested each of these, in the same room, same conditions ??. Get FR charts ,before and after EQ, compare which does the best job in correcting in room RF ??


Would'nt this be a convincing test ?????

Totally agreed..

We have raised this subject multiple times..


The issue with Room EQ software is the user has no way of knowing specifically what the specific EQ changes are..

Though certain Room EQ schemes are highly touted

If you saw graphically what frequency manipulation they do..

Most likely one would turn it off.

Another point is that each Room EQ software system has it own proprietary target transfer function, so even after the EQ software makes its revs the system's frequency response can vary from brand to brand..

Our preference is to do the loudspeaker setup manually..


Just my $0.02...

 

[randyc1]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson /forum/post/20771610


1. How will you assess success?

2. How will you generalize the results for other systems and/or rooms?

From looking at the FR after EQ, of each system,.... which produced the flstest FR


If either Audyssey or MCACC or YPAO does a much better job in one room ,would`nt chances be it it would also be better in any room

 

[Kal Rubinson]



Quote:
Originally Posted by randyc1 /forum/post/20774059


From looking at the FR after EQ, of each system,.... which produced the flstest FR

FR is not the only criterion nor is it the most important in many cases. I think that reduction in modal responses and equalizing decay across the spectrum are equally important.

Quote:
If either Audyssey or MCACC or YPAO does a much better job in one room ,would`nt chances be it it would also be better in any room

Not necessarily. How each deals with some of the variables mentioned above (and others) might make one more suitable in some situations and another more suitable in others.


The problem is that there are too many variables.

 

[randyc1]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson /forum/post/20774818


FR is not the only criterion nor is it the most important in many cases. I think that reduction in modal responses and equalizing decay across the spectrum are equally important.


Not necessarily. How each deals with some of the variables mentioned above (and others) might make one more suitable in some situations and another more suitable in others.


The problem is that there are too many variables.

....So I guess we will never know which is better ????

 

[Kal Rubinson]



Quote:
Originally Posted by randyc1 /forum/post/20775818


....So I guess we will never know which is better ????

Not from a single side-by-side shoot out.

 

[Kilian.ca]

If one ARC works better in some scenarios and another in another then it means there is likely a pattern emerging and all the more reason to find out more. Start with 10 (a minimum number usually required in statistics) consumer HTs and see. FR is commonly talked about so start with FR measurements.


There can't be more variables than medical research involving humans and that's not an excuse not starting somewhere. There are statistical methods to deal with variables. Not all are equally important. The complexity means it's likely only suitable for academic researchers to do rather than any audio magazine. The problem then becomes: is there any incentive or funding to do this?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilian.ca If one ARC works better in some scenarios and another in another then it means there is likely a pattern emerging and all the more reason to find out more. Start with 10 (a minimum number usually required in statistics) consumer HTs and see. FR is commonly talked about so start with FR measurements. There can't be more variables than medical research involving humans and that's not an excuse not starting somewhere. There are statistical methods to deal with variables. Not all are equally important. The complexity means it's likely only suitable for academic researchers to do rather than any audio magazine. The problem then becomes: is there any incentive or funding to do this?

Of course. My response was directed, specifically, at the experimental protocol that the OP described. A more proper approach is possible but, as you point out, unlikely to be realized. The only really interested parties with the incentive to finance such are the EQ companies, themselves, and that already introduces a great potential for bias.