Audyssey vs Anthem Room Correction?

[ougrad02]

Any thoughts on which of these does a better job in setting things up? I'm debating between using one of the new Anthem MRX receivers (either the 300 or the 500) or the Integra 40.1 as a preamp. So in addition to comparing this two devices I'm also curious how the room correction equipment on each works.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Audyssey is a proven technology that has matured over a few years. ARC is new on the scene. That doesnt make it bad and from what I have read it appears to do a very similar thing. If it were me, and I looked at Anthem before getting my Onkyo, I would wait until it gets fully evaluated from an industry pro.

 

[PENG]

Every time I move my speakers, subwoofers around or swap out an amp I need to re-do the setup, so if they work equally well then I would really like to know which REQ is more user friendly and less time consuming.

 

[dapack69]

I'll let you know for sure tonight as I just received new speakers.

 

[ougrad02]

I'll let you know for sure tonight as I just received new speakers.

Thanks dapack69

 

[dapack69]

Not a problem. The only thing I'll be doing is timing it on my Onkyo which is very similiar to the Integra.

 

[jostenmeat]

Any thoughts on which of these does a better job in setting things up? I'm debating between using one of the new Anthem MRX receivers (either the 300 or the 500) or the Integra 40.1 as a preamp. So in addition to comparing this two devices I'm also curious how the room correction equipment on each works.

Well, Audyssey makes a dozen or more technologies or something like that, right? Ok, with the MultEQ techs, there are at least a few existing versions. I've already explained to you why the 40.1 would not be a consideration for me since that version of MultEQ is two generations old. Or am I mistaken? I did, right? It was you, right?

Every time I move my speakers, subwoofers around or swap out an amp I need to re-do the setup, so if they work equally well then I would really like to know which REQ is more user friendly and less time consuming.

I've timed myself at half an hour way back when (I want to say something like 35 min), with 8 channels (7.1). This was timed from when everything is turned on, with the mic plugged in.

I would assume there will be variations depending on the number of channels (hey 9.1 DSX is about twice the channels of 5.1, and forget 11.1), the processing power available in the specific model, how efficient the user is with the process, and of course whether it is 1) 2EQ, 2) MultEQ, 3) MultEQ XT, or 4) MultEQ XT32.

Anyways for one anecdotal data point, my Onkyo 805, using MultEQ XT, with three DSP chips (don't know how many of those are dedicated to Audyssey), using a mic boom/stand/adapter, took about 35 min. So my guess is that I could do a 5.1 system in less than 30 min. How much faster could ARC or any other similar EQ be, without giving up significant resolution (or perhaps extra costs towards super fast processors)? The end calculation does take quite a while.

 

[jostenmeat]

Audyssey is a proven technology that has matured over a few years. ARC is new on the scene. That doesnt make it bad and from what I have read it appears to do a very similar thing. If it were me, and I looked at Anthem before getting my Onkyo, I would wait until it gets fully evaluated from an industry pro.

ARC has been evaluated, and is accepted as an excellent automated EQ routine. Basically, it's either ARC or Audyssey, with the possibility of Trinnov if it's ever been implemented well since its introduction.

ARC is at least a few years old as well, maybe even several years old.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

ARC has been evaluated, and is accepted as an excellent automated EQ routine. Basically, it's either ARC or Audyssey, with the possibility of Trinnov if it's ever been implemented well since its introduction.

ARC is at least a few years old as well, maybe even several years old.

I have never seen any articles on it? Trinov also looked good but nobody is implementing it on consumer stuff that I have seen. Who has tested and evaluated ARC and how did it compare to Audyssey?

 

[jostenmeat]

I have never seen any articles on it? Trinov also looked good but nobody is implementing it on consumer stuff that I have seen. Who has tested and evaluated ARC and how did it compare to Audyssey?

I remember Kal Rubinson evaluated both years ago, but I only read his posts on AVS (I have never once bought an AV mag that I can once remember). I don't remember if he preferred one or the other, but he did find both techs to be very beneficial, and worth owning. Years ago when I bought in to XT, I obtained that for $600, whereas with Anthem I might as well have added another zero to that price tag. Well, with today's MRX lineup at a much more reasonable cost, we can have ARC for much less now, and I hope that it is not any sort of watered down version.

I believe you can choose the point of HF cutoff for correction. I believe with Trinnov it's either at 300hz or not (for a guess at Schroeder transition freq), but I think* ARC might be more flexible (or I just might be wrong about this). I want to say that Kal offered that people were leaving this HF cutoff point higher than anticipated (if with any cutoff at all), because the benefits of such technology is that good, and is not just only for the bass as some might anticipate.

Some time ago, Warpdrv was posting some of his ARC results, lemme grab it. OK this post is almost two years old:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=567647&postcount=5

 

[Warpdrv]

If I was buying today, I would either purchase something ARC or Audyssey "XT32" only... the older XT stuff just didn't seem to have all its ducks in a row IMO and there have been documented results of it boosting the low end in the sub arena by up to 10db, which is not good for Subs - can be lethal if your looking into the DIY scenarios...

ARC has shown some amazing results from all the testing I have seen and is a great performer.... It has been refined over and over again in the last 2 years and offers lots of tweakability.... but not hugely complicated by any means... The ARC in the receivers is a touch watered down with fewer filters / processing power, but its looking to be a fantastic room correction none the less...

HF cutoff measurements are 5000hz as standard in the PrePro's adjustable higher, which was not suggested by anyone, and that is the highest cutoff for the Anthem receivers...

I started a thread at AVS that has been hugely popular and is loaded with info from many to give a grasp of the performance of these new products... http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1289533

More info then you could possibly need on the subject, so sit back and read on through... all the Q's & A's are in there ripe for the picking....

 

[ougrad02]

Well, Audyssey makes a dozen or more technologies or something like that, right? Ok, with the MultEQ techs, there are at least a few existing versions. I've already explained to you why the 40.1 would not be a consideration for me since that version of MultEQ is two generations old. Or am I mistaken? I did, right? It was you, right?

Yes that was me.

 

[ougrad02]

Since the 705 has the better version of Auddysey I may just get an Anthem mrx 300 to use as a preamp and compare the two then just sell whichever I like the least. As far as the Anthem receivers go is the major difference between the 300 and the 500 the increased amplification, which wouldn't matter to me since I'll only be using it as a preamp?

 

[Warpdrv]

Check the first post of that link, there is a chart with the diffrences.

 

[jostenmeat]

Since the 705 has the better version of Auddysey I may just get an Anthem mrx 300 to use as a preamp and compare the two then just sell whichever I like the least. As far as the Anthem receivers go is the major difference between the 300 and the 500 the increased amplification, which wouldn't matter to me since I'll only be using it as a preamp?

I skimmed the link. The 705 has more flexible bass mgmt, assuming it's similar to my unit. Also, if I'm reading that link correctly, the fact that the MRX can't apply PLiiX to all codecs would be a bummer to me, as I use a 7.1 with rears. If you are looking to use 7.1 with heights, the MRX will be better, and if this is just 5.1, it's a moot point. (If you wanted rears AND heights AND widths, all simultaneously, I think only the Denon 4810 can do that?)

As for Audyssey boosting the sub channel by 10 db, I must assume it's a faulty receiver, or that there is user error somewhere, as all Audyssey codes for every tech are identical. It's the implementation of this technology by various mftrs that gets weird, and this includes the available target curves of which I could name at least four of, off the top of my head. Since these curves are most definitely not all shared across different brands, one has to wonder about what any given mftr did with a boosted low end. Therefore I am curious on which models any certain consumer believed had this alleged issue.

If I was going to spend 1k on a MRX, or something similar for that Integra, I'd increase that budget by 50% to get a 4311, not only for the XT32 but also for the Sub EQ HT, allowing individual calibration of two subs. If one was planning on a SVS ASEQ1 or even a JBL BassQ instead, well all of a sudden this unit will have very good value.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

If I was buying today, I would either purchase something ARC or Audyssey "XT32" only... the older XT stuff just didn't seem to have all its ducks in a row IMO and there have been documented results of it boosting the low end in the sub arena by up to 10db, which is not good for Subs - can be lethal if your looking into the DIY scenarios...

ARC has shown some amazing results from all the testing I have seen and is a great performer.... It has been refined over and over again in the last 2 years and offers lots of tweakability.... but not hugely complicated by any means... The ARC in the receivers is a touch watered down with fewer filters / processing power, but its looking to be a fantastic room correction none the less...

HF cutoff measurements are 5000hz as standard in the PrePro's adjustable higher, which was not suggested by anyone, and that is the highest cutoff for the Anthem receivers...

I started a thread at AVS that has been hugely popular and is loaded with info from many to give a grasp of the performance of these new products... http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1289533

More info then you could possibly need on the subject, so sit back and read on through... all the Q's & A's are in there ripe for the picking....

I stand corrected then. I had just not heard that much about ARC. It looks like it is good stuff too.

 

[ougrad02]

If I was going to spend 1k on a MRX, or something similar for that Integra, I'd increase that budget by 50% to get a 4311, not only for the XT32 but also for the Sub EQ HT, allowing individual calibration of two subs. If one was planning on a SVS ASEQ1 or even a JBL BassQ instead, well all of a sudden this unit will have very good value.

Thanks that info was helpful. The more I think about things and the more things that you bring up I almost think I'm better off staying put with the 705 and maybe spending the money on something else like a second sub, or here's a novel idea even save it lol. I guess I'm surprised that the 705 has XT and the Integra doesn't, not even in the newer 40.2. I guess I've been under this impression that separates are higher end. However, I don't see anything that the Integra offers me that I don't have. Even all of the suggestions I am getting are receivers as opposed to preamps. I'm guessing maybe preamps don't offer a lot over using today's receivers as preamps unless you get into a higher price bracket.

 

[ougrad02]

I think I'm gonna go on audyssey's website and find out which receivers and preamps have the xt32 and consider one of those or just staying with the 705.

 

[PENG]

Well, Audyssey makes a dozen or more technologies or something like that, right? Ok, with the MultEQ techs, there are at least a few existing versions. I've already explained to you why the 40.1 would not be a consideration for me since that version of MultEQ is two generations old. Or am I mistaken? I did, right? It was you, right?



I've timed myself at half an hour way back when (I want to say something like 35 min), with 8 channels (7.1). This was timed from when everything is turned on, with the mic plugged in.

I would assume there will be variations depending on the number of channels (hey 9.1 DSX is about twice the channels of 5.1, and forget 11.1), the processing power available in the specific model, how efficient the user is with the process, and of course whether it is 1) 2EQ, 2) MultEQ, 3) MultEQ XT, or 4) MultEQ XT32.

Anyways for one anecdotal data point, my Onkyo 805, using MultEQ XT, with three DSP chips (don't know how many of those are dedicated to Audyssey), using a mic boom/stand/adapter, took about 35 min. So my guess is that I could do a 5.1 system in less than 30 min. How much faster could ARC or any other similar EQ be, without giving up significant resolution (or perhaps extra costs towards super fast processors)? The end calculation does take quite a while.

Thanks for sharing the info. My 4308 probably has twice the DSP power of the AV7005 but it seems that the Marantz is twice as fast. I never did use a stop watch but I am quite sure the Denon did my 7.1 system for 8 positions in about 20 to 25 minutes including the calculation and stores time. Again the Marantz with one single 32 bit DSP chip took much less time, mainly because it does the calculation and store part much quicker.

 

[jostenmeat]

Thanks that info was helpful. The more I think about things and the more things that you bring up I almost think I'm better off staying put with the 705 and maybe spending the money on something else like a second sub, or here's a novel idea even save it lol. I guess I'm surprised that the 705 has XT and the Integra doesn't, not even in the newer 40.2. I guess I've been under this impression that separates are higher end. However, I don't see anything that the Integra offers me that I don't have. Even all of the suggestions I am getting are receivers as opposed to preamps. I'm guessing maybe preamps don't offer a lot over using today's receivers as preamps unless you get into a higher price bracket.

Yep. For some more to chew on about why separates don't offer that much more (if at all in some cases) with features for a considerably higher price point, you can read my post here:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=701573&postcount=2

I think I'm gonna go on audyssey's website and find out which receivers and preamps have the xt32 and consider one of those or just staying with the 705.

I think that's what I've been trying to say to you for multiple posts now, in multiple threads no less. Either keep the thing, or if you're going to upgrade, well, make you are upgrading. Throwing 1k towards a side step or possible downgrade . . . well . . .