AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
919 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Now that Onkyo has bought Pioneer and has it as a subsidiary company, will we see the horrible "not really a room correction system" Onkyo uses now replaced by the far superior MCACC? While I have always preferred Audyssey, MCACC at least DOES something useful. :)


What do you all think? Obviously not in this year's models but what about next year's?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,816 Posts
Now that Onkyo has bought Pioneer and has it as a subsidiary company, will we see the horrible "not really a room correction system" Onkyo uses now replaced by the far superior MCACC? While I have always preferred Audyssey, MCACC at least DOES something useful. :)


What do you all think? Obviously not in this year's models but what about next year's?

I guess I am missing something here


Onkyo/Integra sales are up this year with that "not really a room correction system"...while Pioneer has been struggling financially for years in the home audio division


based on the facts..
.if you are a "for profit" company what do you think makes more sense for them to do?


Warren
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,310 Posts
Onkyo and Integra have picked up significant market share by delivering Dolby Atmos @ lower pricing than the competition. Though some users have stated Audyssey is more pertinent than Atmos, judging by the major sale increases of the Onkyo and Integra AVRs having Atmos and HDCP 2.2 are stronger selling features. Also be advised that the next generation of the Onkyo and Integra AVRs will include some refinements for their AccuEQ...

Just my $0.02... ;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,643 Posts
Onkyo and Integra have picked up significant market share by delivering Dolby Atmos @ lower pricing than the competition. Though some users have stated Audyssey is more pertinent than Atmos, judging by the major sale increases of the Onkyo and Integra AVRs having Atmos and HDCP 2.2 are stronger selling features.
Also be advised that the next generation of the Onkyo and Integra AVRs will include some refinements for their AccuEQ...

Just my $0.02... ;)
Exactly, and it sounds very promising too, from what I've read so far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,236 Posts
I guess I am missing something here


Onkyo/Integra sales are up this year with that "not really a room correction system"...while Pioneer has been struggling financially for years in the home audio division


based on the facts..
.if you are a "for profit" company what do you think makes more sense for them to do?
The question is, who owns them? Are they 1) a privately-held company with engaged stewards, 2) a public company accountable to shareholders, or 3) a privately-held company run by a private equity company?

If 1, then they'll likely think of this huge sound quality degradation as a temporary thing they had to do to be cheapest for now, and later try to go back to making a better product.

If 2, then they'll probably milk inferior stuff as long as it sells until they run their brand into the ground.

If 3, then they'll definitely milk inferior stuff as long as it sells, and then take their profits and either leave the company so highly leveraged it goes under (while the PE firm makes plenty) or leave some lemming holding the bag.

That's just the way early 21st century capitalism works.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
919 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Onkyo and Integra have picked up significant market share by delivering Dolby Atmos @ lower pricing than the competition. Though some users have stated Audyssey is more pertinent than Atmos, judging by the major sale increases of the Onkyo and Integra AVRs having Atmos and HDCP 2.2 are stronger selling features. Also be advised that the next generation of the Onkyo and Integra AVRs will include some refinements for their AccuEQ...

Just my $0.02... ;)
I thought MCCAC was owned by Pioneer, which means that since Onkyo now owns Pioneer they also own MCCAC. Since MCCAC is superior to AccuEQ, I am curious if anyone else thinks Onkyo will throw away their inferior free room correction system for the superior, and also free, MCCAC.


And if not, why not?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
919 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
How about Onkyo with Class D amps?
I doubt they will start using Class D amps. They could always use them - the technology is free (as in, no rights have to be purchased to use them). They just chose not to use them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,310 Posts
I thought MCCAC was owned by Pioneer, which means that since Onkyo now owns Pioneer they also own MCCAC. Since MCCAC is superior to AccuEQ, I am curious if anyone else thinks Onkyo will throw away their inferior free room correction system for the superior, and also free, MCCAC.


And if not, why not?

Lets kleer the air about who owns who... :rolleyes:
Gibson owns 51% of Onkyo USA (Onkyo's exclusive distributor for North America and distributor for Central and South America) and becomes the 2nd largest shareholder in Onkyo Corporation. Gibson Chairman and CEO Henry Juszkiewicz is on the Onkyo board of directors. Onkyo will invest in Gibson, and Onkyo CEO and President Munenori Otsuki will be on the company's Board of Directors. Additionally both Gibson and Onkyo have formed a Hong Kong-based joint venture focusing on design and development of consumer audio products. Note that Gibson Pro Audio division, which already owns KRK, Cerwin-Vega, Stanton, Teac and Tascam.

Next...
Pioneer Corp (Japan) sold its home AV business to Onkyo Corp. The basic funding came from Baring Equity Asia based in Hong Kong, Baring will have a 51% ownership in the Baring/Pioneer/Onkyo joint venture and Pioneer Corp. retaining 15%. Since there is alot of venture $ available in Hong Kong, this is similar to what Nakamichi, Sansui, Akai have gone through.

Regarding the Pioneer/Elite brands, one needs to understand that Pioneer Corp. has been losing big $ over the last 5 years with the majority of their AV products outsourced built by Inkel Corp (Korea) built in China. While Onkyo has their own design and factory producton teams in Malaysia, the Pioneer AV products will likely be integrated into the Onkyo Malaysia structure. Quite similar to what D&M Holdings is doing merging the Marantz and Denon AV products. In the end, the producing Onkyo Malaysia factory gets higher production quantities and improved scale of economies for purchasing parts.

Going forward...
Both Onkyo and Pioneer AV products will utilize common hardware and software. Regarding the Room EQ schemes, AccuEQ vs. MCACC this discussion has already been addressed in the various AVS threads. Onkyo/Integra has already proven that this feature is mostly marketing fluff as their AVRs have become the top sellers without Audyssey. Also with revised direction of Audyssey along with the significant $ investment by Intel, Audyssey is shifting their emphasis to other more lucrative product categories such as tablets, smart-phones. The bottom line for AVRs is that now Onkyo/Integra by adding the Pioneer/Elite brands passes Yamaha becoming #1 in the AVR global product category market-share.

Just my $0.02... ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,240 Posts
...Regarding the Room EQ schemes, AccuEQ vs. MCACC this discussion has already been addressed in the various AVS threads. Onkyo/Integra has already proven that this feature is mostly marketing fluff as their AVRs have become the top sellers without Audyssey...
Average AVR consumer in the budget market has no clue what room EQ is or does and equally vacant expression when queried about sound processing mode. Pro consumer is a different animal. Need to identify the target demographic before answering this question.

Issue is that Pioneer targets higher end and Onkyo targets lower end. The $$$ is obviously in the lower end. Hopefully the conglomerate will at least incorporate reliable HDMI of Pioneer or we can write off both Pioneer and Onkyo in one go for high end and just sell the whole mess to Bose.

Since Onkyo HDMI also seems to have networking and DSP on it, if they really do scrap it then the sound processor function may be similarly affected. Easier to just incorporate the whole shebang in one go than repartition the design of one to fit the physical constraints of the other.

Likewise for the entire Onkyo backplane. Congested, hot, no room for more processing in the thermal budget IME. Something has to give.

Anyone have any insight into the physical partitioning of the functional blocks in these two AVR lines? Despite the obvious temptation to just run with the cheapest solution, there are practical limitations in how to merge two independently developed technologies.

It is not like they can be mixed and matched like lego building blocks, and it is not like a new hybrid design can just pop out of the design meeting like a newborn baby. It takes time to refine the overall package. Tight dimensions, tight cost constraints, tight thermal budget, etc. all balanced off against each other present challenges that no one who has not actually done such system integration at the chassis level can grasp.

Since the Onkyo backplane seems to me to be a total mess I would lean toward just junking the whole Onkyo line eventually, keeping it around in name only and incorporating at least a diminished feature set of Pioneer while putting a differently styled faceplate and control panel on an otherwise identical chassis set: flagship, pro, midlevel, budget, el cheapo, etc. -- each with its own power level and general sophistication of features but all based on the flagship model.

If the economies of scale are at play in the different manufacturing plants maybe that improvement is enough to shift the Pioneer line into profitability. If they keep putting out cheap capacitors in hot backplanes though, well... not giving them any benefit of the doubt until I see it. Then the whole question of which EQ is in the things really makes no difference to anyone since the only people buying the things will be those who do not even know what it is or does.

Whether that happens or not probably depends on the ability to see beyond the next quarterly teleconference. How does Gibson do on attention span? Any Ritalin on the board?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,674 Posts
Average AVR consumer in the budget market has no clue what room EQ is or does and equally vacant expression when queried about sound processing mode. Pro consumer is a different animal.
While I agree, I would add that the average AVR customer has even less interest in Atmos than they do in room correction software. Walk in to most folks with "surround sound's" living rooms and you'll find a 5.1 setup. It's not a stretch to sell them something which will make those 5 speakers sound better, but try to sell them a unit that's main features would require them to purchase and integrate several more speakers?...good luck.


Because of this, IMO the big flop in marketing right now is Atmos, and there are even some units (if I recall) which forego advanced correction in favor of dedicating that processing power towards Atmos. Are they crazy?!


Time will tell.


AVR's are getting way too feature ridden, and therefore costly, for the average user to enjoy optimally. At the high end, the advanced users have to still pay for lower end features they may not use, just to have the decoding/processing available to run the rest of their rig. It's an industry without direction outside of trying to pack as many new psuedo features into your shiny black box for the primary purpose of emblazoning said features across billboards in an attempt to sell more units.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,643 Posts
Quite a post Cheryl. I am not familiar enough with Onkyo's business aspect; only what I mainly learned from M Code, who is the Onkyo business affairs expert here.

What I do know are the various Onkyo/Integra products I own/owned over the last seven years or so. ...And the several issues many many owners had to go through during that time and still today.

It is very unfortunate because the reliability of their AV receivers and SSPs from the last several years have endured a huge blow.

We can talk about this feature or that feature, new and old, but if the reliability of the product is in jeopardy everything else don't mean much @ all.
It is in their court yard now in regards to what they are going to do going forwards with their longtime customer supporters and the newer ones.
Us, all we can do is to relate our experiences; so that future customers are aware.

We cannot predict the future only have a view of it based on the past.

I never tried AccuEQ myself, and neither MCACC from Pioneer. I only know some from what owners of both different systems said on audio forums.
...And of course from Onkyo's and Pioneer's own websites.

Reliability is priority number one, before anything else. ...Just like us humans who need to be solidly healthy (physically and mentally) before we can truly enjoy our wealth (financial & social). Without heeling our "cicatrices" first, the joy ahead ain't the same. ...Understandably so.

My best wishes to Onkyo/Integra in their future building prospect. ...And money is not the ultimate goal to all ends, the customer's satisfaction is; then the money automatically follows, just like Oppo. :)

Pioneer still remains, Onkyo/Integra is still surviving financially wise (as M Code well explained it), and today takes care of itself without worrying about the past and future but remembering it (the past), and from that we build (plan) for a better future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,236 Posts
Onkyo/Integra has already proven that this feature is mostly marketing fluff as their AVRs have become the top sellers without Audyssey.
You have that exactly backwards.

They have proven, perhaps, that room correction is not a strong selling point compared to new shiny logos for the mass market. So it's not marketing fluff at all.

Whether or not a feature "marketing fluff" has nothing to do with sales, but with performance. If it improves performance, a feature is not fluff. If it does not improve performance, it is.

Audyssey certainly has its flaws. On balance, I'm not a fan. Arguably Trinnov is the best current system (because it does RC and spatial remapping), and just below it are ARC, Dirac Live, DSpeaker Anti-Mode Dual Core, MRC (Meridian's system), and RoomPerfect, Audyssey is three steps behind at best.

But it's better than nothing, whether "nothing" is called "nothing" or it's called (in a fit of marketing fluff) "AccuEQ."

At any rate, there are few reviews of Atmos stuff out yet. I wonder if, once subjective reviews and objective numbers come out, sales figures might change a bit when people realize that the D+M stuff is more expensive because it's actually better. Instead of cheaping out on RC they added a DSP to do the new stuff and keep the same adequate-but-not-great room correction. Perhaps not, but perhaps.

I guess it boils down to whether one loves music, or just wants to push lots of mediocre parts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,240 Posts
...Audyssey is three steps behind at best.

But it's better than nothing...
2EQ is not much better than nothing. Only EQs subwoofer if the sub has its own passive highpass rather than using the sub output and the correction is barely noticeable in any case.

If Atmos took the place of 2EQ I would call that an upgrade. The higher performing lines however... not so much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,310 Posts
You have that exactly backwards.

They have proven, perhaps, that room correction is not a strong selling point compared to new shiny logos for the mass market. So it's not marketing fluff at all.

Whether or not a feature "marketing fluff" has nothing to do with sales, but with performance. If it improves performance, a feature is not fluff. If it does not improve performance, it is.

Audyssey certainly has its flaws. On balance, I'm not a fan. Arguably Trinnov is the best current system (because it does RC and spatial remapping), and just below it are ARC, Dirac Live, DSpeaker Anti-Mode Dual Core, MRC (Meridian's system), and RoomPerfect, Audyssey is three steps behind at best.

But it's better than nothing, whether "nothing" is called "nothing" or it's called (in a fit of marketing fluff) "AccuEQ."

At any rate, there are few reviews of Atmos stuff out yet. I wonder if, once subjective reviews and objective numbers come out, sales figures might change a bit when people realize that the D+M stuff is more expensive because it's actually better. Instead of cheaping out on RC they added a DSP to do the new stuff and keep the same adequate-but-not-great room correction. Perhaps not, but perhaps.

I guess it boils down to whether one loves music, or just wants to push lots of mediocre parts.
U need to go back and revue AVR marketing 101...
What sells an AVR...
1. Price
2. Power
3. Features

When U talk about Room EQ schemes, firstly their most important task is setting the proper levels, X-overs and delays. Regarding the EQ portion, here the frequency response is adjusted to some target theoretical transfer function... The user may or may not like it, thats why many prefer to turn it off.

About the point that Denon or Marantz being better because it is more expensive.... :rolleyes:
I will leave that topic for the others to comment about...

Just my $0.02... ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,236 Posts
U need to go back and revue AVR marketing 101...
Why? It's not my field. I merely pointed out that you used words incorrectly, perhaps because of some pecuniary interest in defending second-rate components. Something is "marketing fluff" when it's something touted that doesn't do anything worthwhile (e.g. Onyko AccuEQ). Something that enhances performance is by definition not "fluff."

When U talk about Room EQ schemes, firstly their most important task is setting the proper levels, X-overs and delays.
That's a marketing hack's answer.

The music lover's answer is: the most important thing a room correction system does is smooth out the frequency response in the modal region.

Any competent music lover can quickly set her/his own levels, x-overs, and delays. Indeed, one of the best systems for people who love music (Anthem ARC) doesn't even pretend to do delays! So a system that just does those three things is..."marketing fluff" is as good a description as any.

Note that two of the systems I praised as top-tier (Anti-Mode, MRC) only do modal region correction. Many of the others can be and usually should be limited to modal region correction only.

About the point that Denon or Marantz being better because it is more expensive.... :roll eyes:
Please read better.

Here's what I wrote: "more expensive because it's actually better. Instead of cheaping out on RC they added a DSP to do the new stuff and keep the same adequate-but-not-great room correction."

Here's what spewed out of your Reading Uncomprehension Filter:

"better because it is more expensive"

I trust you understand that x -> y does not imply y -> x.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,914 Posts
So if accu eq is so bad, and room eq is more important than Atmos, how come a cheap $500 Onkyo 636 with Atmos beat every other room eq system in our blind AVR comparison? Many of the contestants were flagship models.

Dirac, Audyssey multieq xt 32, ARC, MCACC, Trinnov, and the control audition of no eq?

All bested in blind vote by the cheapest Onkyo with Atmos and accueq.
Same speakers, same site source material, same room, same day.

Reference:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1717346-archaea-s-auto-room-eq-avr-comparison-g2g-november-8-2014-kansas-city.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,236 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,816 Posts
The question is, who owns them? Are they 1) a privately-held company with engaged stewards, 2) a public company accountable to shareholders, or 3) a privately-held company run by a private equity company?

If 1, then they'll likely think of this huge sound quality degradation as a temporary thing they had to do to be cheapest for now, and later try to go back to making a better product.

If 2, then they'll probably milk inferior stuff as long as it sells until they run their brand into the ground.

If 3, then they'll definitely milk inferior stuff as long as it sells, and then take their profits and either leave the company so highly leveraged it goes under (while the PE firm makes plenty) or leave some lemming holding the bag.

That's just the way early 21st century capitalism works.



I will go with number 2


don't know of many( if any) of your example in number 1...except for the ultra high end more esoteric brands


what makes you think that number 2 makes them run it into the ground...unless that is the only way they can turn a profit and provide shareholder equity?


or...what makes you think number 3 dictates that they wont run it "into the ground" per se...just to get the book value up to sell it..?


Warren
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top