Another consideration is that avr manufacturers do what they want with Audyssey to a great extent, there are possibilites Audyssey has that no avr has implemented (like 4 sub capability for level/delay), just as things that are attributed to Audyssey that are really the avr manufacturer's tweak (like if using a sub Audyssey's choice would be to always set speakers to use bass management automatically). However, I don't know the deal with the app other than what Pogre has detailed for the most part, just recently saw a single mention by yep about he had issues but don't know what they are. Haven't taken a look over at avsforum to see more input, at least I assume there's going to be more there.
PS and Audyssey's response to Pogre's input makes me think the app issues are more on D&M's side of things....
You make some good points and use some excellent examples.
I get that accommodating 4 subs is not a mainstream consideration, but it is hard to believe that no one has chosen this as an aspect of one of their flagship units to distinguish it from the competition.
It is almost like the big three AVR manufacturers - D&M, Pioneer/Onkyo/Integra, and Yamaha have a gentleman's agreement - "I won't if you don't"!
But why, I would think among all of the crap in a contemporary AVR, going from 2 to 4 subs (and it is only for level and delay, they still get EQ'ed as if just one sub) seems like an easy task!
The dynamics of competition are interesting! In the 80-90's I watched as the Ford Taurus and the Honda Accord (I was somewhat interested in stationwagons) duked it out for best selling family car in the US. Initially, the Taurus was larger with a generally more cushy suspension and the Honda more compact with more nimble handling. Over the years, each company incrementally tweaked there design to capture just a little more of each other's market - the Honda getting a bit bigger and the Ford improving handling (I don't think the Ford got smaller). However, the end result was that the two cars converged on becoming the same vehicle! In a way, it was a loss for the consumer because they started out with two good cars to choose between depending on which best fit their needs and ended up with two cars that were, in many ways, the same vehicle!
But back to AVR's it is rare to see any feature on any AVR that does not have an equivalent on another AVR (in the same price range). One AVR might have Audyssey and another, YPAO, but if you are going down a feature checklist, both will have RoomEQ!
The differences they target with their marketing are things like Marantz with their HDAM circuitry, which is kind of laughable to think that they have found that magic (analog) circuit that works significantly (and audibly?) better than other circuitry designed by top level EE/designers. I can believe a circuit might have an advantage of simplicity/durability over another design, but we have been making
very good analog circuits for well over half of a century, and it is unlikely for someone to come up with a design that eclipsed others! Furthermore if they did, engineers are not guys who go into denial when something is significantly better, they would look for ways to copy/reproduce it, and last, if Marantz did indeed find the "Holy Grail" of circuitry for SQ, D&M would adapt it for their Denon models and use it as an opportunity to totally dominate the AVR market while they had a decisive advantage.
I don't mean to dump on Marantz, I'm sure most of these companies have similar features of marginal worth being marketed as ground-breaking; but it is mostly a game of psychological strategy!
But it begs the question, of why not do something
real to distinguish yourself, like use Audyssey's subEQ to accommodate 4 subs?
