Denon/Marantz vs Yamaha vs Anthem Thread

[Pogre]

I swiped this one from PENG because I didn't take a screenshot of my own, but you can see here there a ton of adjustments over a wide range of q's. Those are as tight and precise as you could possibly want, yes?

@AcuDefTechGuy everything above 200 hz in those charts is untouched by Audyssey. You did bring up one valid point about it tho. You do have to run Audyssey and any manual eq'ing only affects the "Reference" setting so you do have to create a file. If you don't like the room correction you can still go behind it and change it to whatever you want tho. A couple of sweeps and you're in business.

 

[Pogre]

Wow. Okay.

You might have said this before, but I thought when you said "manual" I thought you meant that you could manually select which regions to AUTO EQ.

But the editor app actually allows 100% manual Parametric EQ.

And it allows PEQ for every speaker and subwoofer?

So I stand corrected.

With this editor app, Yamaha does NOT have better manual EQ than DM. It's the OTHER way around. With this app, DM actually has better PEQ than Yamaha.

So if you are into EQ - Auto or Manual - DM has better EQ either way.

But for people who only care to EQ something extremely simple - a few frequency points from 20-80Hz - then the Yamaha manual PEQ will suffice.

Yeah. I can limit Audyssey to only correct from 100 hz and down if I want, then I can go back and manually eq just that frequency range, any band, any q, without touching anything above 100 hz.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yeah. I can limit Audyssey to only correct from 100 hz and down if I want, then I can go back and manually eq just that frequency range, any band, any q, without touching anything above 100 hz.

Okay, I see now.

If you want to EQ just one region (like 1kHz-2kHz), then run Audyssey with the app and limit Audyssey to only that one region (1kHz-2kHz). Then go back and change any frequencies INSIDE that region (1kHz-2kHz).

And you can make as many frequency changes INSIDE that region? For example, change 1000HZ, 1200Hz, 1500Hz, 1650Hz, 1776Hz, 1812Hz , etc.).

If that's the case, then DM's EQ with the App is #1 for both AUTO and MANUAL PEQ.

 

[Pogre]

Okay, I see now.

If you want to EQ just one region (like 1kHz-2kHz), then run Audyssey with the app and limit Audyssey to only that one region (1kHz-2kHz). Then go back and change any frequencies INSIDE that region (1kHz-2kHz).

And you can make as many frequency changes INSIDE that region? For example, change 1000HZ, 1200Hz, 1500Hz, 1650Hz, 1776Hz , etc.).

Yes to all of that with one exception. I can't limit it to only correct between 2 frequencies (1kHz-2kHz) but I can set it to only eq from any given frequency and down. 200 and down, 8000 and down, 20 and down, whatever I want. Which is plenty for me. Most of us only want it for bass frequencies anyway. I've never wanted to eq just a slice out of the middle like that before.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yes to all of that with one exception. I can't limit it to only correct between 2 frequencies (1kHz-2kHz) but I can set it to only eq from any given frequency and down. 200 and down, 8000 and down, 20 and down, whatever I want. Which is plenty for me. Most of us only want it for bass frequencies anyway. I've never wanted to eq just a slice out of the middle like that before.

Oh yeah, in terms of EQ, that would be enough for me also. I never want to EQ above 200Hz anyway. So just limit Audyssey to 100Hz and below, then manual PEQ the frequencies between 20-100Hz.

But I do know some people who are said to be "sensitive" to certain frequencies (1kHz-2kHz) and they only want to manually EQ in this region. Some people are weird.

 

[KEW]

And you can make as many frequency changes INSIDE that region? For example, change 1000HZ, 1200Hz, 1500Hz, 1650Hz, 1776Hz, 1812Hz , etc.).

If that's the case, then DM's EQ with the App is #1 for both AUTO and MANUAL PEQ.

Technically, there is a limit to how many; but practically, there isn't. I think it allows something like 500 filters per speaker/channel.
XT 32 is insanely powerful and because of the app allowing us to open the black box (of "automatic") and tweak what we want, it results in total control! MWAHAHAHAHA! (those are mad scientist lab goggles)

 

[Ken32]

Onkyo is NOT owned by Sound United (who owns Denon, Marantz, DefTech, Classe, Polk, Boston Acoustics, HEOS).

Masimo - Home

Masimo Personal Health

www.soundunited.com

My mistake. I wasn’t aware that they called off the deal. Either way. I’m still pretty sure HDMI issues have been resolved. Best AVR bang/buck on the market IMO

 

[RichB]

My current usage is at 250Hz and below. I have not determined the specific Schroeder frequency for my room, but use 250 as an estimate. My objective is to be using XT 32 for addressing room nulls and nodes.
Do you have any advice or thoughts to share on this?
Thanks!

In the context of this discussion, I am pointing out that the app allows manual PEQ in response to ADTG's post that Yamaha was the only company that provided manual PEQ.

When I use REW from the 9 positions, the measurements stay consistent below 150 Hz, so I think that is right for my room.

- Rich

 

[lovinthehd]

My mistake. I wasn’t aware that they called off the deal. Either way. I’m still pretty sure HDMI issues have been resolved. Best AVR bang/buck on the market IMO

Yeah the hdmi/network board issues Onkyo had particularly for units from 2009-12 were not only taken care of with an extended warranty, but resolved with later units....have seen nothing to indicate they're still around. Altho I don't think they're the best deal when you consider AccuEQ vs XT32

 

[Ken32]

Yeah the hdmi/network board issues Onkyo had particularly for units from 2009-12 were not only taken care of with an extended warranty, but resolved with later units....have seen nothing to indicate they're still around. Altho I don't think they're the best deal when you consider AccuEQ vs XT32

That’s what I figured. I personally like Onkyo. Features, performance, and price is very hard to beat. Accueq isn’t bad. Not the best... but not bad. Although, i don’t use any room correction software anyhow. I either use manual or pure/direct. So other ones better or worse wouldn’t benefit me anyhow.

 

[lovinthehd]

That’s what I figured. I personally like Onkyo. Features, performance, and price is very hard to beat. Accueq isn’t bad. Not the best... but not bad. Although, i don’t use any room correction software anyhow. I either use manual or pure/direct. So other ones better or worse wouldn’t benefit me anyhow.

While my Onkyo had Audyssey XT and a nice feature set otherwise, after repair under the extended warranty it runs cooler....I expect to use it for some time to come. But it's my bedroom avr, a Denon with better feature set incl XT32 runs my main setup.

 

[Ken32]

While my Onkyo had Audyssey XT and a nice feature set otherwise, after repair under the extended warranty it runs cooler....I expect to use it for some time to come. But it's my bedroom avr, a Denon with better feature set incl XT32 runs my main setup.

That’s something I’ve noticed compared to my old Onkyo is temp when running. My old one (10 years ago) could fry an egg. My new 830 stays cool no matter how it’s pushed. Definitely a plus.

One thing i will say about accueq is it gets the distances from all speakers to MLP spot on. As far as the eq goes, to me, I’ve never cared for the sound. Doesn’t matter if it’s Audyssey, accu, YPAO. Seems like they always add too much somewhere and lack in other areas. I just leave them off for that very reason.

When I compared the Audyssey room correction on my old Marantz 6013 to the Accu of the 830, it had the same effect on my speakers. Sounded more alike than not. However, Onkyo’s manual eq covers more frequency spectrum than a Den or Marantz. Which to me is better for fine tuning. No matter which speakers I’ve had at the time, any auto eq seemed to ruin the sound for me. Especially with music. Jmo.

 

[lovinthehd]

That’s something I’ve noticed compared to my old Onkyo is temp when running. My old one (10 years ago) could fry an egg. My new 830 stays cool no matter how it’s pushed. Definitely a plus.

One thing i will say about accueq is it gets the distances from all speakers to MLP spot on. As far as the eq goes, to me, I’ve never cared for the sound. Doesn’t matter if it’s Audyssey, accu, YPAO. Seems like they always add too much somewhere and lack in other areas. I just leave them off for that very reason.

When I compared the Audyssey room correction on my old Marantz 6013 to the Accu of the 830, it had the same effect on my speakers. Sounded more alike than not. However, Onkyo’s manual eq covers more frequency spectrum than a Den or Marantz. Which to me is better for fine tuning. No matter which speakers I’ve had at the time, any auto eq seemed to ruin the sound for me. Especially with music. Jmo.

One nice thing about the latest editions of Denon/Marantz is the Audyssey Editor app...and limit the eq to below schroeder....and if the AccuEQ (or any program) got the "distance" of the sub correct I'd be interested. Distance is just an expression of proper delay....

 

[Ken32]

One nice thing about the latest editions of Denon/Marantz is the Audyssey Editor app...and limit the eq to below schroeder....and if the AccuEQ (or any program) got the "distance" of the sub correct I'd be interested. Distance is just an expression of proper delay....

Not sure about the Sub portion of it. I’ve got 2 12 inch ported rhythmic subs on the way. Never really ran subs before.

 

[PENG]

Audyssey to 100Hz and below, then manual PEQ the frequencies between 20-100Hz.

Except Audyssey does not use PEQ. As I mentioned before, Editor App+Ratbuddyssey basically just allow you to force Audyssey to modify the filters created during auto setup. I believe it would work as follow:

1. auto setup corrected the information from the mic in x number of positions, then based on the collected info created the filter to flatten the bass FR from say 15 to 100 Hz.
2. Then reality check by REW/Umik-1 mic found a few dips and bumps, so you use the App with Ratbuddyssey to manually enter cuts and boosts to reshape the original target curve
3. The new target curve won't be flat any more, but but it would then result in a flat (flatter curve in reality, when you do another reality check with REW.

In other words, it works like a cheating system. Audyssey use a target curve that is flat, it calculates and create filters that the logic/algorithm thinks will allow the FR to be corrected to flat. Unfortunately, likely due to the fact that the data collected are not not accurate enough because of the limitations of the mic's accuracy and capability, as well as the operators ability to select the placements for the mic, among other reason. So in order to achieve a flat/or much flatter FR, based on the after the fact results obtained by running REW sweeps, we manually enter additional data point in terms of cuts and boosts. It is like adding a feedback loop to Audyssey, except the feeback part is a manual process, that allow Audyssey REQ to have a second chance to sort of EQ the EQ'ed based on actual results.

The modified filters are still created by Audyssey based on the manual feedback data as described above; and are therefore still FIR based minimum phase filters, not the IIR based PEQ filters. There is no "Q" to worry about, just cuts and boosts of +1, -2 etc..at selected frequency points based on the REW plotts.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Except Audyssey does not use PEQ. As I mentioned before, Editor App+Ratbuddyssey basically just allow you to force Audyssey to modify the filters created during auto setup. I believe it would work as follow:

1. auto setup corrected the information from the mic in x number of positions, then based on the collected info created the filter to flatten the bass FR from say 15 to 100 Hz.
2. Then reality check by REW/Umik-1 mic found a few dips and bumps, so you use the App with Ratbuddyssey to manually enter cuts and boosts to reshape the original target curve
3. The new target curve won't be flat any more, but but it would then result in a flat (flatter curve in reality, when you do another reality check with REW.

In other words, it works like a cheating system. Audyssey use a target curve that is flat, it calculates and create filters that the logic/algorithm thinks will allow the FR to be corrected to flat. Unfortunately, likely due to the fact that the data collected are not not accurate enough because of the limitations of the mic's accuracy and capability, as well as the operators ability to select the placements for the mic, among other reason. So in order to achieve a flat/or much flatter FR, based on the after the fact results obtained by running REW sweeps, we manually enter additional data point in terms of cuts and boosts. It is like adding a feedback loop to Audyssey, except the feeback part is a manual process, that allow Audyssey REQ to have a second chance to sort of EQ the EQ'ed based on actual results.

The modified filters are still created by Audyssey based on the manual feedback data as described above; and are therefore still FIR based minimum phase filters, not the IIR based PEQ filters. There is no "Q" to worry about, just cuts and boosts of +1, -2 etc..at selected frequency points based on the REW plotts.

Thanks for the clarification.

So.......... NO Manual Parametric EQ and NO Q-Values with Audyssey Editor App.

If you use the Audyssey Editor App to Manually EQ, it is NOT PEQ, but it is GRAPHIC EQ in function. But if you know what you are doing, you could get Audyssey + App to equalize the bass manually similar to Parametric EQ, except you don't choose any Q-values at all.

In that case........I'm still going to say that Yamaha has the better manual EQ. Haha.

 

[Kleinst]

So you all have me excited about buying the APP for my Marantz. However, I'm new to adjusting EQ. I guess like you all have referenced, I enjoy a strong mid bass slam. Pogre, do you recommend trying something like what you posted above? Any general advice on a few tweaks that have worked well for you?

 

[PENG]

Thanks for the clarification.

So.......... NO Manual Parametric EQ and NO Q-Values with Audyssey Editor App.

If you use the Audyssey Editor App to Manually EQ, it is NOT PEQ, but it is GRAPHIC EQ in function. But if you know what you are doing, you could get Audyssey + App to equalize the bass manually similar to Parametric EQ, except you don't choose any Q-values at all.

In that case........I'm still going to say that Yamaha has the better manual EQ. Haha.

Not really like that at all. Audyssey does not use PEQ, period. The Audyssey MultEQ App has nothing to do with graphic EQ either, the App is 100% Audyssey, it is just an app that allows you to customize the target curve. Ratbuddyssey is an app/user interface for use with the MultEQ App, created by independent 3rd parties. It allows MultEQ users to manually type in the data for customizing the target curve instead of drawing it with finger, mouse, or stylus pen. The customized target curve is then used by Audyssey to create a set of FIR filters, that, in general is considered better than IIR filters. PEQ filters are typicall IIR types.

I mentioned the "Q" because imo that's one draw back of using PEQ to supplement YPAO, is you have to pick the best "Q" values. If you got the "Q" values wrong, your manual PEQ may do more harm than good. https://www.mathworks.com/help/audio/examples/parametric-equalizer-design.html

With the Audyssey MultEQ Editor App, you don't have to worry about it because all you do is type in the cut/boost values, and MultEQ will do the rest, that is, the filter creation part is still automated, and is based on the customized target curve.

 

[Pogre]

Not really like that at all. Audyssey does not use PEQ, period. The Audyssey MultEQ App has nothing to do with graphic EQ either, the App is 100% Audyssey, it is just an app that allows you to customize the target curve. Ratbuddyssey is an app/user interface for use with the MultEQ App, created by independent 3rd parties. It allows MultEQ users to manually type in the data for customizing the target curve instead of drawing it with finger, mouse, or stylus pen. The customized target curve is then used by Audyssey to create a set of FIR filters, that, in general is considered better than IIR filters. PEQ filters are typicall IIR types.

I mentioned the "Q" because imo that's one draw back of using PEQ to supplement YPAO, is you have to pick the best "Q" values. If you got the "Q" values wrong, your manual PEQ may do more harm than good. https://www.mathworks.com/help/audio/examples/parametric-equalizer-design.html

With the Audyssey MultEQ Editor App, you don't have to worry about it because all you do is type in the cut/boost values, and MultEQ will do the rest, that is, the filter creation part is still automated, and is based on the customized target curve.

When I was saying Q I thought I was referring to the tightness of the adjustment (the higher the Q the sharper the notch), and made some assumptions, but the end result is the same. Adjusting Audyssey's target curve feels, looks and measures exactly the same as adjusting my mini without having to manually type in Q values.

 

[Pogre]

So you all have me excited about buying the APP for my Marantz. However, I'm new to adjusting EQ. I guess like you all have referenced, I enjoy a strong mid bass slam. Pogre, do you recommend trying something like what you posted above? Any general advice on a few tweaks that have worked well for you?

Get a umik mic and learn your way around REW. You need to be able to measure what's going on in your room in order to know where to make adjustments.