Audyssey MultEQ Test Report for Denon AVR-3806

[gene]

First, TACT's room correction works much better than the Audyssey system right now and has far greater degree of user control over correction measurements and target curves. It may be that the level of control is the reason for difference in audible reusults. Nevertheless, while the Audyssey system might eventually be developed into the robust system that TACT or DEQx offers, for now, it simply doesn't offer anything close to what people who have been using DEQx or TACt would expect from an advanced room correction system.

That is great your experience with TACT's system has been so positive, however lets make it clear that your statements here are opinion based on a limited subjective impression from a comparision in a single setup. Until more definitive data comparing all systems is reported, lets try to keep an open mind about all systems effectiveness and NOT declare a definitive winner.

Great care must be taken to achieve the most out of the Audyssey system including proper measurement technique, interpreting the results, ensuring your listening space is acoustically sound and you are using multiple subs for best bass distribution throughout the entire listening area.

I will contact TACT sometime early next year to evaluate their system. I am a bit disappointed that very little technical information is presented on their website about their solution while in contrast, anyone can read white papers and peer reviewed AES technical contributions on the Audyssey system which is what initially drew us to their system.

 

[Sleestack]

Well... given that I only have your word that DEQx and TACt are "better" than Audyssey at room correction I'm not sure if my comment was "a little off base". You see, Audyssey is available in one neat relatively inexpensive package that's simple to use and is "robust" if it's used correctly as far as I can tell.

And yes, $30k worth of kit may be more flexible than a $2K receiver but I would certainly hope so for that kind of money. Having said that, how many HT/HiFi enthusiasts actually need that level of flexibility? 0.1%? 0.01%? 0.001%? Actually, it's probably even less than that, right?

If it cost $2K, every audio enthusiast would want it. I don't think it is a matter of needing that level of flexibility. It's just a pricing issue at this point. What audio enthusiast doesn't want better sound? Furthermore, the TACT TCSMKII can be used with any amps as can the RCS2.2.XP, and don't require anything close to $30K.

I'm not trying to criticize the Audyssey system. It is just an observation. One would expect that systems that are built around room correction should offer more. The fact that the Audyssey system is incorporated into consumer products is an enormous step forward. Nevertheless, I don't think it takes a huge stretch of imagination to believe in the audible advantages of software that allows the user to refine more variables and custom tune each target curve visually/graphically, and hardware that is built around the requirements of advanced room correction.

I have no brand affinity unless the gear provides me a better listening experience. If an Audyssey based system comes out that allows me a higher degree of control over corrections and crossovers, and provides me a better listening experience than I currently have, I'll definitley be one of the first to jump on that bandwagon.

 

[Sleestack]

That is great your experience with TACT's system has been so positive, however lets make it clear that your statements here are opinion based on a limited subjective impression from a comparision in a single setup. Until more definitive data comparing all systems is reported, lets try to keep an open mind about all systems effectiveness and NOT declare a definitive winner.

Great care must be taken to achieve the most out of the Audyssey system including proper measurement technique, interpreting the results, ensuring your listening space is acoustically sound and you are using multiple subs for best bass distribution throughout the entire listening area.

I will contact TACT sometime early next year to evaluate their system. I am a bit disappointed that very little technical information is presented on their website about their solution while in contrast, anyone can read white papers and peer reviewed AES technical contributions on the Audyssey system which is what initially drew us to their system.

I'm not trying ruffle feathers here and yes, my experience is limited. My experience is broader than yours in this case when it comes to experiencing the various systems in a fixed environment. I'm not trying to be overly critical of the Audyssey system and certainly am not looking for winners or losers. We all win with room correction. Nevertheless, don't you think that significant additional user control, detailed/visual target curve analysis and manipulation, and dedicated hardware would probably benefit a room correction system's audible results? I'm sure you would also agree that any room correction system would benefit from the integration of fletcher-munson based adjustments and more crossover control. In setup, the TACT and DEQx systems also benefit from multiple subs and better acoustic conditions. However, I think an even better test would be to see how they all perform in a horrible or typical acoustic environment.

As for TACT's white papers. Keep in mind that they have been developing their products for quite some time. As early player/developers in the correction arena, I think they may have had more paranoia than they needed to. They also went through an extremely nasty internal split with Lyngdorf, with the correction technology being a major source of IP dispute... Boz/Tact obviously won that battle. They are on a new generation of technology, so I'd wait until the TCS MKIII is released. It should be soon, as the RCS 2.2.XP has been out for several months. There are a few 3rd party papers on the TACT system, but not their newest systems. TACT is also now primarily the one man development team, Boz. Unlike Audyssey, he never intends for his technology to be incorporated into 3rd party products, and is much more protective of the IP behind his hardware/software, warranted or not.

I'm not trying to be a fanboy here. Give me a better solution and I will gladly adopt it. I'm waiting for the TCS MKIII, but would love to compare a similar product if it is available at that time. As an audio enthusiast, I hope that you have an opportunity to hear a 2.2 cornerload-based, corrected system (if you haven't already). It changed the way I thought about 2 channel bass response. I also hope that if and when you test TACT or DEQx based systems, you take the time to understand how those systems need to be properly setup. Although I'm sure you learn faster than me on these matters, I found that there was a significant learning curve. If you spend extended time with one of the TACT systems, I think you will understand why it would be hard to go to an Audyssey system as currently implemented in the Denon products. Half the fun of the TACT systems is in the setup and target curve design.

 

[Sleestack]

For the general information here in relation to TACT vs. other equipment, for example:TACT uses convolution for correction of amplitude/phase response, as opposed to coarse[in comparison] equalization bands at discrete points that almost all other correction systems utilize. This allows the TACT system, in effect, to have an infinite number of bands for correction, as opposed to a system based on a parametric system(with a limited number of bands available that must be distributed). For those who do not want to invest in a TACT(I don't know if the DEQx has the same correction method), the same thing can be accomplished on a computer as the playback/control system. Foobar(freeware music play software) has a convolution plug-in available for which you can load and use the appropriate correction impulse. However, the TACT makes this procedure simple. Doing so on the computer at this time takes substantially more effort, and the knowledge of how to create/prepare an appropriate impulse file for correction.

-Chris

A former TACT user, Uli has developed an excellent computer based software solution. I'm not sure how it compares to the current TACT technology, but it addressed several of the issues with TACT's older software. Never used it, but people swear by it.

There are definitely cost effective PC based solutions out there. They take more work and aren't as neatly packaged, but would defintley be worth the investment of time for anyone looking for correction without breaking the bank. More solutions, more competition, better technology and lower cost... that would be on top of my wish list for the future of audio and room correction.

 

[gene]

Nevertheless, don't you think that significant additional user control, detailed/visual target curve analysis and manipulation, and dedicated hardware would probably benefit a room correction system's audible results? I'm sure you would also agree that any room correction system would benefit from the integration of fletcher-munson based adjustments and more crossover control. In setup, the TACT and DEQx systems also benefit from multiple subs and better acoustic conditions. However, I think an even better test would be to see how they all perform in a horrible or typical acoustic environment.

Lets compare apples to apples and consider the new Audyssey Pro stand alone processor (review coming shortly) which has more than double the resolution of the current Audyssey MultEQxt system found in Denon receivers along with a host of customizable options soon to be announced at CEDIA.

No I don't agree that you should correct system response to Fletcher & Munson curves, this will overly boost lows and highs and NOT be palatable in most rooms IMO. BTW we hear more inline with Robinson and Dadison curves not the only Fletcher & Munson.

At this point, lets avoid furher derailing the thread and keeping this one on the topic of Audyssey. Feel free to start a new thread called "Active Room Correction" or the like. thanks.

 

[Sleestack]

Lets compare apples to apples and consider the new Audyssey Pro stand alone processor (review coming shortly) which has more than double the resolution of the current Audyssey MultEQxt system found in Denon receivers along with a host of customizable options soon to be announced at CEDIA.

No I don't agree that you should correct system response to Fletcher & Munson curves, this will overly boost lows and highs and NOT be palatable in most rooms IMO. BTW we hear more inline with Robinson and Dadison curves not the only Fletcher & Munson.

At this point, lets avoid furher derailing the thread and keeping this one on the topic of Audyssey. Feel free to start a new thread called "Active Room Correction" or the like. thanks.

Given that fletcher munson curves also dictate attenuation of lows and highs at certain volumes, and the fact that in the TACT systems, they do factor in room conditions/measurements I'm not sure why you say an application would necessarily boost treble and bass too much. In the TACT system there are a number of fletcher-munson curves that can be designed and applied. No other system even addresses those types of level dependent issues.

In any case, yes, I'd be very happy to see the standalone Audyssey products and how they address the needs of more experienced and demanding room correction users. I wasn't trying to derail a discussinon related to a sponsor's related product. I was simply trying to understand the difference of their current system, as implemented in pieces like the 5805, and current available standalone systems in order to understand whether the audible differences might simply be a product of the fact that the Audyssey system needed to be "dumbed down" for general consumer use. As TACT and DEQx will soon be realeasing their new room correction products, I am very interested in comparing apples to apples and designing my next system around the best available choice.

All of that being said I do think if you are interested in providing a useful analysis of room correction, you could only further benefit yourself and the members of this board by examing the different options available and the technical and audible differences. 2.2 channel systems would be a nice start, as those products are much cheaper and corner load 2 channel systems are really deserve more attention.

 

[gene]

I wasn't trying to derail a discussinon related to a sponsor's related product.

Just to clarify, this is NOT a sponsored related product. Its a review that we started a dedicated thread on just like all other products we've reviewed.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I hadn't heard of the upcoming standalone Audyssey box. When's it due? What will it cost? Work's kept me so busy that I've been a little out of the loop lately.

I agree that the TACT/DEQX systems are more powerful, but honestly, Sleestack, it's not a fair comparison. You're essentially criticizing a Miata for not equally an Porche 911! The TACT & DEQX systems are radically more expensive considering that with the Denons you also get tuner, amps, preamp & all the associated processing.

I don't mean to hijack the topic, but what I'd be interested in is an Audioholics review of the Meridian G68. It combines some pretty sophisticated room correction with a full featured prepro. And it's priced sanely enough that many of us could actually own one.

For the record, I have a Denon '3805 in my system now. I'm contemplating upgrading to a '4306 so I'm interested in learning more about Audyssey.

 

[krabapple]

Those other systems are single point solutions and really don't have all of the advanced DSP processing, spatial averaging, etc that Audyssey has. I'd rather compare Audyssey to more worthy contenders such as DEQX, TACT and others mentioned in this forum.

Advanced MCACC is not single point -- there is an option to do correction for three listening positions.

In any case I think it would still be interesting to do the same room measurements on a room that had been 'corrected' by the various systems.

Wmax, are you familiar with RoomEQ Wizard software (freeware, with suggested donation)? IIRC it can be used to create impulse response files for convolution.


http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/

 

[AVRat]

Here you go Rob: http://www.audyssey.com/soundequalizer.html

 

[Rob Babcock]

Thanks, AVRat. Looks pretty cool. I wonder what it does in the bass range? And what will it cost?

 

[Nick250]

.For the record, I have a Denon '3805 in my system now. I'm contemplating upgrading to a '4306 so I'm interested in learning more about Audyssey.

Be careful for what you ask for If you can wade through the thread it can fill in some of the blanks. You can ignore the posts of me pissing off Chris, all is well and we have made up.

Nick

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7969145#post7969145

 

[Sleestack]

Just to clarify, this is NOT a sponsored related product. Its a review that we started a dedicated thread on just like all other products we've reviewed.

Sorry about that. I thought Denon and Audyssey were both sponsors. I know you would give a fair and balanced review regardless of sponsorship.

 

[Sleestack]

I agree that the TACT/DEQX systems are more powerful, but honestly, Sleestack, it's not a fair comparison. You're essentially criticizing a Miata for not equally an Porche 911! The TACT & DEQX systems are radically more expensive considering that with the Denons you also get tuner, amps, preamp & all the associated processing.

Absolutely agree. I have repeatedly stated that the Audyssey system is a huge step forward for consumer electronics and should not be expected to do everything standalone systems can. Nevertheless, I'm just trying to understand whether the audible differences I experienced are a result of differences in underlying approach or a result of the fact that the Audyssey systems had to be simplified for the average consumer and integration into a 3rd party receiver. I just thought Gene or Audyssey might have some more specific ideas on that issue.

 

[briansmith]

I have come to the conclusion that Audyssey does very little below 80hz and is not a very effective subwoofer EQ as currently implemented. Take a look at the before and after graphs. There is a rather large dip at 50 and a large bump at 30. After Audyssey EQ is applied there is, you guessed it, a rather larged dip at 50 and a large bump at 30 with a small "leveling" out. In fact the large dip remains unchanged. I'd be willing to bet that a Velodyne SMS-1 would be able to produce a +/- 3 db flat line.

EVERY graph I've seen involving the Audyssey EQ show little to no improvement in the subwoofer response.

I must be missing something major because I just don't see the Audyssey EQ as an effective subwoofer EQ.

-Brian

 

[Audioholics]

I must be missing something major

I agree. The SMS-1 is a neat system, but you're only looking at (on-screen, the system works at a higher resoluton) third octave smoothing and averaging (at best, typically not) from a parametric EQ. Audyssey is confirmed (by us) to do a decent job below 80Hz - within limits. It will not eliminate the need for good sub placement or a really bad room, but it sure does seem to impress us for evening out the response for multiple seated positions. It IS, however, very particular and not the easiest system to use. Also, their standalone units are much more powerful than the systems found in receivers (except the AVR-5805CI) because they have more memory - and bass eats it up.

Be sure you've read our deluge of articles on their system - we wanted to get to the bottom of it as well and so devoted a significant amount of time (perhaps too much, lol) on the subject.

 

[briansmith]

I agree. The SMS-1 is a neat system, but you're only looking at (on-screen, the system works at a higher resoluton) third octave smoothing and averaging (at best, typically not) from a parametric EQ. Audyssey is confirmed (by us) to do a decent job below 80Hz - within limits. It will not eliminate the need for good sub placement or a really bad room, but it sure does seem to impress us for evening out the response for multiple seated positions. It IS, however, very particular and not the easiest system to use. Also, their standalone units are much more powerful than the systems found in receivers (except the AVR-5805CI) because they have more memory - and bass eats it up.

Be sure you've read our deluge of articles on their system - we wanted to get to the bottom of it as well and so devoted a significant amount of time (perhaps too much, lol) on the subject.

Thank you for responding.

I still don't see how you find it does a "decent" job. I would say it does a "poor" job. I understand the graph is a rough average however there are still MAJOR, audible dips and peaks that Audyssey did not address. To me the point of a subwoofer EQ is to minimize peaks and valleys, otherwise what's the point of having one? Maybe you can elaborate on how you have found it to be useful as a subwoofer EQ. Perhaps Chris can elaborate as to why all before/after graphs show little to no change below 80hz.

I have a used 5805 sitting in box and I am deciding wither or not its worth it to install it. I'm looking for a solution that has an effective subwoofer EQ.

-Brian

 

[briansmith]

<<Lets compare apples to apples and consider the new Audyssey Pro stand alone processor (review coming shortly) which has more than double the resolution of the current Audyssey MultEQxt system found in Denon receivers along with a host of customizable options soon to be announced at CEDIA.>>

The stand alone processor requires a dozen additional RCA cables and adds another A/D and D/A step, which means many people will not be interested. I like my signal squeaky clean.

 

[gene]

The stand alone processor requires a dozen additional RCA cables and adds another A/D and D/A step, which means many people will not be interested. I like my signal squeaky clean.

I hear ya, but the DAC's in this processor are transparent and are some of the industries best. None of us were able to hear any sonic degradation as a result.

 

[gene]

I still don't see how you find it does a "decent" job. I would say it does a "poor" job. I understand the graph is a rough average however there are still MAJOR, audible dips and peaks that Audyssey did not address. To me the point of a subwoofer EQ is to minimize peaks and valleys, otherwise what's the point of having one? Maybe you can elaborate on how you have found it to be useful as a subwoofer EQ. Perhaps Chris can elaborate as to why all before/after graphs show little to no change below 80hz.

I have a used 5805 sitting in box and I am deciding wither or not its worth it to install it. I'm looking for a solution that has an effective subwoofer EQ.

Audyssey is beneficial below 80Hz even on the receiver models. You have to look at measurements from each seat to appreciate it. Nulls are hard to deal with using active equalization and its good that Audyssey doesn't attempt to boost and waste amp power. So far, Audyssey is the best automatic system I've seen even below 80Hz and its benefical for all seats, not just the money seat.

I will be doing a more detailed low frequency test report of the 5805 soon.