What's the best $500 AV Receiver for 2014?

[Steve81]

One could go further and argue that if the room positions were extreme enough, then the result would be terrible among the various positions

Less than you'd think. Audyssey aims to find the common issues between the locations and correct accordingly. Still, most guides suggest that you start at the MLP and fan out couple feet and make a circle around it to avoid that problem.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Physics doesn't care if its Audyssey, YPAO, MMAC and other RC facility.

Physics doesn't tell me how to perceive sound or what I like.

Does Physics tell you if the bass is too much or too little for you in your sweet spot?

 

[3db]

Less than you'd think. Audyssey aims to find the common issues between the locations and correct accordingly.

If Audyssey can't find common issues like boundary effect near walls compared to mid room seating positions, then what?

Still, most guides suggest that you start at the MLP and fan out couple feet and make a circle around it to avoid that problem.

That alone tells me that Audyssey won't be able to correct for extremes...Now if its smart enough to toss out the extremes before averaging, then we have something.

 

[3db]

Physics doesn't tell me how to perceive sound or what I like.

Does Physics tell you if the bass is too much or too little for you in your sweet spot?

Did I say it did?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Did I say it did?

It seems you take your experience with YPAO and extrapolate that to every software and every system because of "physics"?

My point is, if everyone in the room believes the sound experience is awesome, then the goal is accomplished. Physics, equations, and all the numbers in the world can't take that away from the experience.

It's like all the measurement of FR, Crosstalk, SNR, THD when people review AVRs. All those numbers and "physics" don't "lie". But does it really matter that much if people think it sounds great ?

 

[Steve81]

If Audyssey can't find common issues like boundary effect near walls compared to mid room seating positions, then what?

That alone tells me that Audyssey won't be able to correct for extremes...Now if its smart enough to toss out the extremes before averaging, then we have something.

You don't really want it to try and compensate for the extremes. Looking at the Audyssey interview, it sounds like the system is smart enough to toss them out / weigh them properly:

It is fairly simple to show that measuring in one microphone location and creating a filter that “corrects” for that tiny spot will lead to poor equalization results. The room correction filters must be informed about acoustical problems throughout the listening area and some decisions have to be made on how to weigh these problems.

Audyssey MultEQ collects the information from multiple measurements and then creates groups (clusters) among them based on the similarity of the problems found. A response is then created to represent the acoustical problems in each cluster. The representative responses from the various clusters are then combined to form one representation of the room response for each speaker. The MultEQ filter is then created by inverting this final combined response.

 

[3db]

It seems you take your experience with YPAO and extrapolate that to every software and every system because of "physics"?

Huh? Its not my experience I'm talking about. My YPAO is old and outdated and only does single point. It works for me only because my listening area is very narrow and small.

My point is, if everyone in the room believes the sound experience is awesome, then the goal is accomplished. Physics, equations, and all the numbers in the world can't take that away from the experience.

It's like all the measurement of FR, Crosstalk, SNR, THD when people review AVRs. All those numbers and "physics" don't "lie". But does it really matter that much if people think it sounds great ?

My point is theory based and not to persuade others one way or another of how it sounds to them or detract from their experience. Its to seek an understanding. I don't understand how you would come up that I was trying to do this.

 

[3db]

You don't really want it to try and compensate for the extremes. Looking at the Audyssey interview, it sounds like the system is smart enough to toss them out / weigh them properly:

"It is fairly simple to show that measuring in one microphone location and creating a filter that “corrects” for that tiny spot will lead to poor equalization results. The room correction filters must be informed about acoustical problems throughout the listening area and some decisions have to be made on how to weigh these problems."

Only if you want to take the results and apply it to different positions. However for that one spot it works.



"Audyssey MultEQ collects the information from multiple measurements and then creates groups (clusters) among them based on the similarity of the problems found. A response is then created to represent the acoustical problems in each cluster. The representative responses from the various clusters are then combined to form one representation of the room response for each speaker. The MultEQ filter is then created by inverting this final combined response."

I don't see in your quotes where the system is smart enough to toss them out. You may be lessening the affects by averaging in better responses with poor responses but that doesn't mean it tosses them out.



Like I said from the onset, I don't understand the merrits of multipoint from the perspective of the sweet spot. I do understand trying to achieve the best averaged response over a wider room area than is possible with single point.

That being said, one needs to be prudent which listening positions they are trying to correct for and avoid the extremes for best results.

 

[Steve81]

Only if you want to take the results and apply it to different positions. However for that one spot it works.

For that one *spot*, yes. But even your head occupies more volume than that one spot. If you shift positions (lean back in your chair for example), the results from that single spot don't matter.

I don't see in your quotes where the system is smart enough to toss them out.

This piece specifically:

Audyssey MultEQ collects the information from multiple measurements and then creates groups (clusters) among them based on the similarity of the problems found.

suggests that it is. If Audyssey is building its filters around the common issues found at all positions, that effectively means that it isn't attempting to correct for outlier issues found at a single location.

 

[3db]

For that one *spot*, yes. But even your head occupies more volume than that one spot. If you shift positions (lean back in your chair for example), the results from that single spot don't matter.

That has not been my experience with single point so I'm gathering that is more of a marketing ploy.

This piece specifically:

Audyssey MultEQ collects the information from multiple measurements and then creates groups (clusters) among them based on the similarity of the problems found.

suggests that it is. If Audyssey is building its filters around the common issues found at all positions, that effectively means that it isn't attempting to correct for outlier issues found at a single location.

Understood.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

For that one *spot*, yes. But even your head occupies more volume than that one spot. If you shift positions (lean back in your chair for example), the results from that single spot don't matter.

Steve, all you need is to strap down to a chair like this and you are set.

 

[Steve81]

That has not been my experience with single point so I'm gathering that is more of a marketing ploy.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a marketing ploy, but a lot comes down to the room. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a single spot measurement can do an adequate job for a single listening position. The problem is that it's also possible for a lone spot measurement to be inadequate.

I note also that it isn't just Audyssey that makes the claim. From the ARC interview:

Response changes considerably even when changing position by as little as the distance when moving one's head side to side, therefore multiple mic positions are always needed.

In addition to Audyssey and ARC, Trinnov, Dirac, and advanced versions of YPAO and MCACC offer multi-point measurements. I'd wager they'd all tell you the same thing.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a marketing ploy, but a lot comes down to the room. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a single spot measurement can do an adequate job for a single listening position. The problem is that it's also possible for a lone spot measurement to be inadequate.

I note also that it isn't just Audyssey that makes the claim. From the ARC interview:

I think it's an extremely valid point about shifting in our seats as we watch or listen to music. Even a 6-inch shift in any direction could make a difference, since we are talking physics.

My lounge chair is about 42" wide. And I probably shift (more like toss and turn) from edge to edge about a hundred times throughout a 2 hour period, which is probably a lot more than a 6-inch shift.

 

[3db]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a marketing ploy, but a lot comes down to the room. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a single spot measurement can do an adequate job for a single listening position. The problem is that it's also possible for a lone spot measurement to be inadequate.

I guess if one moves their head against a wall. Thats more of a room layout problem than an RC facility.

I note also that it isn't just Audyssey that makes the claim. From the ARC interview:

In addition to Audyssey and ARC, Trinnov, Dirac, and advanced versions of YPAO and MCACC offer multi-point measurements. I'd wager they'd all tell you the same thing.

Maybe so... but still way over blown IHO. Its not been my experience and I moved from one seat cushion to the other with no affect at all so yeah.. a bit of gimmick

 

[3db]

I think it's an extremely valid point about shifting in our seats as we watch or listen to music. Even a 6-inch shift in any direction could make a difference, since we are talking physics.

My lounge chair is about 42" wide. And I probably shift (more like toss and turn) from edge to edge about a hundred times throughout a 2 hour period, which is probably a lot more than a 6-inch shift.

Its not been my experience at all so I think the point is not valid at all

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Its not been my experience at all so I think the point is not valid at all

And your qualm against the multiple-point measurement (Audyssey, ARC, Trinnov, etc.) is way overblown and not valid at all. That was the point - a hyperbole.

As Steve pointed out, all the great software from Audyssey, ARC, Trinnov, Dirac, Lyngdorf, etc. use multiple-point measurement.

 

[3db]

And your qualm against the multiple-point measurement (Audyssey, ARC, Trinnov, etc.) is way overblown and not valid at all. That was the point - a hyperbole.

As Steve pointed out, all the great software from Audyssey, ARC, Trinnov, Dirac, Lyngdorf, etc. use multiple-point measurement.

YPAO also offers multi point.. It was not a qualm but whatever...

 

[PENG]

"Audyssey MultEQ collects the information from multiple measurements and then creates groups (clusters) among them based on the similarity of the problems found. A response is then created to represent the acoustical problems in each cluster. The representative responses from the various clusters are then combined to form one representation of the room response for each speaker. The MultEQ filter is then created by inverting this final combined response."

I don't see in your quotes where the system is smart enough to toss them out. You may be lessening the affects by averaging in better responses with poor responses but that doesn't mean it tosses them out.

I didn't know how to add a link to post#1 so I just posted this http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/amps-pre-pros-receivers/91544-room-eq-systems-avp-avr-users-thread-13.html at the end of that thread. It is a decent FAQ sheet by Denon Australia and I thought it saves one time Googling randomly.

The article does talk about fuzzy logic and pattern recognition so I do think steve is right in assuming it would "toss out" extremes, sort of, in a sense. It doesn't seem like they do averaging as they claimed others (some) do. The only averaging they mentioned was time averaging but that seemed to be done regardless of single or multiple positions. They are not going to get into too much details for understandable reasons but if you read all 7 pages you probably will have most of your questions answered. Whether you believe them or not is a different story but keep in mind at least they spent many years of research in a reputable university plus the fact that the founder is an EE with a Ph.D degree so advanced maths including Fourier analysis and various mathematical transforms vital to time and frequency domain analysis would not be a problem for their research team. We are both EE so I assume we can give them some credit for not ignoring physics and having developed this thing in a relatively academic environment.

 

[Adam]

If the Denon AVR-X1100 really has Audyssey Silver, that's a nice touch. They reason I say that is because Denon updated their website, and the AVR-S900 (which costs a little more) went from being listed as having Bronze to saying that it had MultEQ XT in their spec table - but it does not have XT. I wish it would have really come with that version just so that I could have checked it out.

I've said it before, but I'll reiterate - in my experience, both Audyssey and MCACC (I have the Advanced version) do a real nice and similar job of EQing my system. I don't dislike how Audyssey sounds. However, for my room setup, being able to store more than one set of speaker timings/levels is very important to me. Seems like a trivial thing to add to a receiver, considering that Pioneer has been doing it for years, and I wish that they'd do that.

 

[PENG]

being able to store more than one set of speaker timings/levels is very important to me. Seems like a trivial thing to add to a receiver, considering that Pioneer has been doing it for years, and I wish that they'd do that.

Agree, if Audyssey Pro was cheaper, like under $200, I would have bought it already for that reason alone.