From Marantz AV8801 to AVR-X4400H/X3400H, is it a downgrade, or upgrade?

[PENG]

The room matters. All rooms are not the same.

I agree with you. I also know there is no point trying to tell ADTG and TLSGuy that REQ can improve sound quality in most rooms as it seems obvious they believe in the opposite.

They should think about why speakers FR are measured in anechoic chambers though. I can almost guarantee their speakers in their room won't measure +/- 3dB 20-20000 Hz, not even close would be my guess, with 1/24 Or even 1/12 smoothing. REQ won't solve everything, but if done right, can help a lot in the lower octaves.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So with your experience, would you say that various room EQ out there whether internal or external is perhaps a marketing gimmick?

I think it is for me because I have not seen the benefits with any of them.

But for some people who have seen the benefits backed up with measurements like @PENG, it is for real.

Of course, @TLS Guy also has his own measurements of Audyssey XT32 to back up his statement that Room correction is a gimmick.

@RichB also can back up his statement that Room correction (Dirac) does not improve the sound.

I’ve heard from other people as well about ARC not improving anything.

So it seems YMMV.

For me, Room Correction, DTS:X, ATMOS, 3D, 4K, 8K are all gimmicks.

 

[PENG]

Of course, @TLS Guy also has his own measurements of Audyssey XT32 to back up his statement that Room correction is a gimmick.

I thought he had tried only the multEQ and multEQ XT versions, not the XT32. Can you provide a link? Or maybe @TLSGuy himself can clarify that. This raise a good point, because I did find XT barely adequate while XT32 is so effective that based on my experience it beats using REQ/minidsp in terms of results and the time it takes by a factor of 10 or more.

@RichB also can back up his statement that Room correction (Dirac) does not improve the sound.

I remember he did do some sort of review on Dirac, at least one version of it, so I did a search and found one of the graphs he posted, post#3 in
https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/emotiva-xmc-1-processor-with-dirac-room-eq-review.96353/page-3

He commented somewhere that his room was good at his main seat, but looking at the one graph below, and a few others he posted, I would say I have a better room, yet XT32 still helps me improving mine.

I really would love to see TLSGuy post his room/speaker responses, and I don't know why he is so sure "most rooms sound good", but then I guess it depends on how one define "most" and "good", can't argue in that sense.

So it seems YMMV.

Agreed, 100%!!

For me, Room Correction, DTS:X, ATMOS, 3D, 4K, 8K are all gimmicks.

4K, 8K are gimmicks for a lot of people, but I think for those who own 70" or larger screens and sit close, may benefit from such gimmicks.

3D in their current state definitely is gimmick and is not real, the effects are so fake and not even 3D by definition. As far as know real 3D is there but not commercially available, may have to wait for another 10-20 years, may be..

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I thought he had tried only the multEQ and multEQ XT versions, not the XT32. Can you provide a link? Or maybe @TLSGuy himself can clarify that. This raise a good point, because I did find XT barely adequate while XT32 is so effective that based on my experience it beats using REQ/minidsp in terms of results and the time it takes by a factor of 10 or more.



I remember he did do some sort of review on Dirac, at least one version of it, so I did a search and found one of the graphs he posted, post#3 in
https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/emotiva-xmc-1-processor-with-dirac-room-eq-review.96353/page-3

He commented somewhere that his room was good at his main seat, but looking at the one graph below, and a few others he posted, I would say I have a better room, yet XT32 still helps me improving mine.

I really would love to see TLSGuy post his room/speaker responses, and I don't know why he is so sure "most rooms sound good", but then I guess it depends on how one define "most" and "good", can't argue in that sense.

Agreed, 100%!!



4K, 8K are gimmicks for a lot of people, but I think for those who own 70" or larger screens and sit close, may benefit from such gimmicks.

3D in their current state definitely is gimmick and is not real, the effects are so fake and not even 3D by definition. As far as know real 3D is there but not commercially available, may have to wait for another 10-20 years, may be..

I recall you debating with @TLS Guy on his Audyssey graphs, so you are most likely correct on which version he has. I assumed XT32 because he has a Marantz Pre-pro.

Isn't it funny how a separates "high-end" only has XT and yet a Denon X3400 that you could get for less than $600 has XT32?

Anyway, your findings show actual objective graphs. Mine are only 100% subjective experiences.

As we've concluded (I'm sure many times before ),people just have to try for themselves.

For TLS Guy (XT),RichB (Dirac),and myself (XT and XT32),we do not find that room correction EQ's do us any benefits.

Here's another thing. Do we assume that flatter frequency responses = better subjective sound ?

At the end of the day, it is the subjective sound quality that is salient, not how FLAT we can get the frequency response in our rooms.

If you can get both flat frequency response and better sound, then that's great.

But the endgame is to get better sound, not just flatter FR.

I think we have a thread on "Subjective Sound Quality vs Frequency Response" somewhere.

Do we have a thread called "The Official Room Corrections Thread" with a poll to see if people have found room correction (Audyssey, ARC, Dirac, Trinnov, Lyngdorf) to be effective ?

I don't consider any so-called room EQ from Sony, Pioneer, Onkyo, Rotel to be true room correction EQ.

And as for the major room corrections (Audyssey XT32, ARC, Dirac, Trinnov, Lyngdorf) I am pretty confident that YPAO 64-bit is the worst room correction because it sounds like a fake DSP mode. I have not heard Trinnov, though. Who knows, it may be as bad as YPAO 64-bit.

 

[PENG]

Enough for REQ, just for now. Now some objective stuff:

The physical differences between the two are as expected, significant:

- People who like the gold/copper color and dislike the port hole, will prefer the Denon's front view.
- approx a lb lighter than the AV8801, 30.8 lbs vs 31.6 lbs (on my best bathroom scale, not by the specs on paper.
- The X4400H is about 1/4 inch less in height, that allows me to put one of my Infinity fan (@ADTG would know those things are relatively tall/or thick?) on top and still have a 0.5" gap (from the upper shelf) for it to breath.
- no more gold plated connectors, rca and all, Denon website says yes, they should fix that to avoid being accused of false advertisement. The gold plated ones were found on the AV8801 and my old AVR-4308CI.
- The display's color is blue, more like my old Sony ES, don't like it now but may get use to it.
- The display's resolution is poor/cheap looking, but so it the $3000 Marantz, iirc, the X4500H will have a higher resolution one, finally, or hopefully?
- Two attachable antenna for wifi, that is supposed to help, but I haven't tried it yet as I always hard wire it.
- Features I don't use are absent, i.e. Ethernet hub, balanced inputs, 7 ch analog in, remote control out, etc.....
- The X4400H has a much better vented top, so two small Infinity fans should solve all potentially heat related issues, including longevity.
- Less crowded internal, the AV8801 is jammed packed inside.

If one can forgive the plastic front of the Marantz, there is no way this cheap Denon can produce sound quality comparable to that of the Marantz, based on the physical differences/build quality.

I suppose if you magnify the above by a factor of 2-2.5, it should be how @ADTG must have felt about his first AVR-X3312/or 3311? looking at it side by side with his $7,500 AVP (that lasted only 8 years though).

On the electrical/audio side:
- AV8801 has the TI DAC, 1795, that is basically a modernized 1796 found in the Denon AVP and their second from top universal players, and top BR players.
- X4400H has the AK4458VN. On paper it has lower THD and higher DYN than the Yamaha X-A2070's ES9006A. I am happy to know it is the same one used in the Marantz flagship SR8012. The AV8801's TI1795 is only better in DYN/SN.
- The EI core transformer looks well shielded vs the AV8801's apparently oversized toroidal transformer.
- The power supply caps look small, my guess is that they are no more than 12,000 uf X2. Edit: Actually 15,000 uf X 2.
- X4400H has the latest surround formats, but also lost a couple of old ones.
- Has better 4K upscaling, can do 60 Hz, the AV8801 just 30 Hz.
- Audyssey calibrations is quicker in calculating at the end, this thing must have more powerful DSP than the much older AV8801.
- It seems to run slightly warmer than the Marantz, understandable because of the addition bias current of the power amp section, though should be more efficient as it is a newer design, and I turned the ECO feature off.

To state the obvious, I consider this an upgrade for what I need in terms of functionality and features, but a clear down grade in terms of build quality and electronic/electrical componentry in general.

For a subjective review on music and movie performance, I am going to need probably another week, after I have enough time to re-watch movies and music files, discs that I am very familiar with.

 

[PENG]

I recall you debating with @TLS Guy on his Audyssey graphs, so you are most likely correct on which version he has. I assumed XT32 because he has a Marantz Pre-pro.

Isn't it funny how a separates "high-end" only has XT and yet a Denon X3400 that you could get for less than $600 has XT32?

If I remember right, he has the AV8003 (the old AV flag ship) that came with the basic multEQ. Then he acquired an used AV7701, that has the XT version. They didn't update their lower model AVP to XT32 until the AV7702. For the 8800 series, the AV8801 was the first to have XT32, one reason I bought it.

Do we have a thread called "The Official Room Corrections Thread" with a poll to see if people have found room correction (Audyssey, ARC, Dirac, Trinnov, Lyngdorf) to be effective ?

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/room-eq-systems-for-avp-avr-users-thread.91544/page-7

As for debate, I might have debated the merits of REQ with someone before, but won't any more for reason stated, opinions and beliefs are not really debatable. I will still state facts that I know as I always try to do, so it is on record.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

I recall you debating with @TLS Guy on his Audyssey graphs, so you are most likely correct on which version he has. I assumed XT32 because he has a Marantz Pre-pro.

Isn't it funny how a separates "high-end" only has XT and yet a Denon X3400 that you could get for less than $600 has XT32?

Anyway, your findings show actual objective graphs. Mine are only 100% subjective experiences.

As we've concluded (I'm sure many times before ),people just have to try for themselves.

For TLS Guy (XT),RichB (Dirac),and myself (XT and XT32),we do not find that room correction EQ's do us any benefits.

Here's another thing. Do we assume that flatter frequency responses = better subjective sound ?

At the end of the day, it is the subjective sound quality that is salient, not how FLAT we can get the frequency response in our rooms.

If you can get both flat frequency response and better sound, then that's great.

But the endgame is to get better sound, not just flatter FR.

I think we have a thread on "Subjective Sound Quality vs Frequency Response" somewhere.

Do we have a thread called "The Official Room Corrections Thread" with a poll to see if people have found room correction (Audyssey, ARC, Dirac, Trinnov, Lyngdorf) to be effective ?

I don't consider any so-called room EQ from Sony, Pioneer, Onkyo, Rotel to be true room correction EQ.

And as for the major room corrections (Audyssey XT32, ARC, Dirac, Trinnov, Lyngdorf) I am pretty confident that YPAO 64-bit is the worst room correction because it sounds like a fake DSP mode. I have not heard Trinnov, though. Who knows, it may be as bad as YPAO 64-bit.

Excellent post. My only experience with built-in EQ so far is with the X4400H AVR. Personally, I have noticed an ‘improvement’ in the sound of the speakers when using Audyssey, but the difference has been subtle and not night and day. And my testing between direct mode and Audyssey EQ have been sighted. That of course opens the door to biased perceptions in my listening evaluations. Obviously, there are a lot of people on this forum who have way more experience than me when it comes to room correction software. This AVR is new to me and I’m still learning.

 

[PENG]

Excellent post. My only experience with built-in EQ so far is with the X4400H AVR. Personally, I have noticed an ‘improvement’ in the sound of the speakers when using Audyssey, but the difference has been subtle and not night and day. And my testing between direct mode and Audyssey EQ have been sighted. That of course opens the door to biased perceptions in my listening evaluations. Obviously, there are a lot of people on this forum who have way more experience than me when it comes to room correction software. This AVR is new to me and I’m still learning.

Did you use the App (the remote app) to flip between audyssey ref, flat, and off)? I found it easier and seem to be quicker (still a couple of seconds delay) that way than using the remote and onscreen menu. For subtle difference, the quick the toggle the better.

 

[TLS Guy]

As you know I did a three part review of my experience with Audyssey.

This is the in room measurement of the left main.

The HF droop is due to the roll off of omnimic.

This is the center.

Those are pretty good FRs, and impulse response.

Now I prefer to generally listen in the far field. Here is Audyssey on and off in my center rear seat.

Off

On

Now the auditory harm done by Audyssey was much worse than the these results would suggest. As you know I try and keep phase aberrations to a minimum in my designs. It was pretty clear to me that Audyssey was creating mischief in the phase domain. The downgrade to my speakers was huge and unmistakable.

Now I like the far filed as I prefer to get seats further back in the concert hall. Now note that Audyssey has tried to correct the appropriate fall off in HF with distance which is just wrong. This destroys the sense of space and distance, which this speaker system so beautifully portrays.

The other issue is that for its crazy dynamic Eq it sets the speakers at a low level. This upsets the gain structure of the pre/pro and significantly downgrades S/N ratio. So I have set the fronts back to zero db. I can hear this easily as the four 10" drivers are direct connected as this is an active system. With Audyssey levels I can hear slight hiss, with my setting no hiss.

Finally no room or concert hall is perfect, ALL affect frequency response to some degree. We are conditioned to hear sounds interacting with boundaries. That is why open air concerts are such a busted flush.

In this system despite the room, I can still hear the differences in concert halls around the globe, and that is as it should be. We should not be performing Eq on all but the worst rooms, and may be they are just not fit for music anyway.

Audyssey part one.

Audyssey part two.

Audyssey part three.

I don't consider the version of Audyssey an issue, especially since the later version did more harm than the earlier version on my 8003.

Yes, I am strongly recommending you all turn off Audyssey. You will enjoy your listening much more without it.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Did you use the App (the remote app) to flip between audyssey ref, flat, and off)? I found it easier and seem to be quicker (still a couple of seconds delay) that way than using the remote and onscreen menu. For subtle difference, the quick the toggle the better.

No, I did not use that App. I will try that next time in my comparison testing. Thank you for the tip.

 

[PENG]

As you know I did a three part review of my experience with Audyssey.

This is the in room measurement of the left main.

The HF droop is due to the roll off of omnimic.

This is the center.

Those are pretty good FRs, and impulse response.

Now I prefer to generally listen in the far field. Here is Audyssey on and off in my center rear seat.

Off

On

Now the auditory harm done by Audyssey was much worse than the these results would suggest. As you know I try and keep phase aberrations to a minimum in my designs. It was pretty clear to me that Audyssey was creating mischief in the phase domain. The downgrade to my speakers was huge and unmistakable.

Now I like the far filed as I prefer to get seats further back in the concert hall. Now note that Audyssey has tried to correct the appropriate fall off in HF with distance which is just wrong. This destroys the sense of space and distance, which this speaker system so beautifully portrays.

The other issue is that for its crazy dynamic Eq it sets the speakers at a low level. This upsets the gain structure of the pre/pro and significantly downgrades S/N ratio. So I have set the fronts back to zero db. I can hear this easily as the four 10" drivers are direct connected as this is an active system. With Audyssey levels I can hear slight hiss, with my setting no hiss.

Finally no room or concert hall is perfect, ALL affect frequency response to some degree. We are conditioned to hear sounds interacting with boundaries. That is why open air concerts are such a busted flush.

In this system despite the room, I can still hear the differences in concert halls around the globe, and that is as it should be. We should not be performing Eq on all but the worst rooms, and may be they are just not fit for music anyway.

Audyssey part one.

Audyssey part two.

Audyssey part three.

I don't consider the version of Audyssey an issue, especially since the later version did more harm than the earlier version on my 8003.

Yes, I am strongly recommending you all turn off Audyssey. You will enjoy your listening much more without it.

As you know I did a three part review of my experience with Audyssey.

This is the in room measurement of the left main.

The HF droop is due to the roll off of omnimic.

This is the center.

Those are pretty good FRs, and impulse response.

Now I prefer to generally listen in the far field. Here is Audyssey on and off in my center rear seat.

Off

On

Now the auditory harm done by Audyssey was much worse than the these results would suggest. As you know I try and keep phase aberrations to a minimum in my designs. It was pretty clear to me that Audyssey was creating mischief in the phase domain. The downgrade to my speakers was huge and unmistakable.

Now I like the far filed as I prefer to get seats further back in the concert hall. Now note that Audyssey has tried to correct the appropriate fall off in HF with distance which is just wrong. This destroys the sense of space and distance, which this speaker system so beautifully portrays.

The other issue is that for its crazy dynamic Eq it sets the speakers at a low level. This upsets the gain structure of the pre/pro and significantly downgrades S/N ratio. So I have set the fronts back to zero db. I can hear this easily as the four 10" drivers are direct connected as this is an active system. With Audyssey levels I can hear slight hiss, with my setting no hiss.

Finally no room or concert hall is perfect, ALL affect frequency response to some degree. We are conditioned to hear sounds interacting with boundaries. That is why open air concerts are such a busted flush.

In this system despite the room, I can still hear the differences in concert halls around the globe, and that is as it should be. We should not be performing Eq on all but the worst rooms, and may be they are just not fit for music anyway.

Audyssey part one.

Audyssey part two.

Audyssey part three.

I don't consider the version of Audyssey an issue, especially since the later version did more harm than the earlier version on my 8003.

Yes, I am strongly recommending you all turn off Audyssey. You will enjoy your listening much more without it.

I read it so I knew you did it. Thank you for saving me time finding it. I just wanted to see your in-room response with NO Audyssey.

All can say, or repeat what I said before, is that I found no evidence with it messing up the phase, at least not in the two rooms I have used it in. I have plotted too many graphs and spent too many hours on two Marantz prepros and three Denon AVRs to know what I have. Your findings are your findings just like what's my findings are mine. Neither is debatable if the backups are there.

Regardless, FRs can be very different from room to room. Concert halls are much bigger so it resembles more with anechoic and open field. That is fact, so also not debatable.

So as they say, YMMV........

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

As you know I did a three part review of my experience with Audyssey.

This is the in room measurement of the left main.

The HF droop is due to the roll off of omnimic.

This is the center.

Those are pretty good FRs, and impulse response.

Now I prefer to generally listen in the far field. Here is Audyssey on and off in my center rear seat.

Off

On

Now the auditory harm done by Audyssey was much worse than the these results would suggest. As you know I try and keep phase aberrations to a minimum in my designs. It was pretty clear to me that Audyssey was creating mischief in the phase domain. The downgrade to my speakers was huge and unmistakable.

Now I like the far filed as I prefer to get seats further back in the concert hall. Now note that Audyssey has tried to correct the appropriate fall off in HF with distance which is just wrong. This destroys the sense of space and distance, which this speaker system so beautifully portrays.

The other issue is that for its crazy dynamic Eq it sets the speakers at a low level. This upsets the gain structure of the pre/pro and significantly downgrades S/N ratio. So I have set the fronts back to zero db. I can hear this easily as the four 10" drivers are direct connected as this is an active system. With Audyssey levels I can hear slight hiss, with my setting no hiss.

Finally no room or concert hall is perfect, ALL affect frequency response to some degree. We are conditioned to hear sounds interacting with boundaries. That is why open air concerts are such a busted flush.

In this system despite the room, I can still hear the differences in concert halls around the globe, and that is as it should be. We should not be performing Eq on all but the worst rooms, and may be they are just not fit for music anyway.

Audyssey part one.

Audyssey part two.

Audyssey part three.

I don't consider the version of Audyssey an issue, especially since the later version did more harm than the earlier version on my 8003.

Yes, I am strongly recommending you all turn off Audyssey. You will enjoy your listening much more without it.

So, if you recommend turning off Audyssey, what methods, procedures and/or products do you recommend for EQ?

 

[PENG]

I can agree with TLS on one point, that is turn if off, on condition that if you are not willing to spend a lot of time doing it right, including using the best positions for the mic, experimenting different XO after the calibration, and making sure the room is quiet during the process, and taking measurements, among other things.

It's like medicine, not taking any is better than taking it without taking the right one the right way.

 

[RichB]

I thought he had tried only the multEQ and multEQ XT versions, not the XT32. Can you provide a link? Or maybe @TLSGuy himself can clarify that. This raise a good point, because I did find XT barely adequate while XT32 is so effective that based on my experience it beats using REQ/minidsp in terms of results and the time it takes by a factor of 10 or more.



I remember he did do some sort of review on Dirac, at least one version of it, so I did a search and found one of the graphs he posted, post#3 in
https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/emotiva-xmc-1-processor-with-dirac-room-eq-review.96353/page-3

He commented somewhere that his room was good at his main seat, but looking at the one graph below, and a few others he posted, I would say I have a better room, yet XT32 still helps me improving mine.

I really would love to see TLSGuy post his room/speaker responses, and I don't know why he is so sure "most rooms sound good", but then I guess it depends on how one define "most" and "good", can't argue in that sense.

Agreed, 100%!!



4K, 8K are gimmicks for a lot of people, but I think for those who own 70" or larger screens and sit close, may benefit from such gimmicks.

3D in their current state definitely is gimmick and is not real, the effects are so fake and not even 3D by definition. As far as know real 3D is there but not commercially available, may have to wait for another 10-20 years, may be..

As I stated in the XMC-1 review, I found that Dirac made a large change to the soundstage when the curtain set very low to operate only below 30 Hz. I preferred using REW to measure and PEQ to level out the bass response. PEQ did not have the same change to the soundstage. Measurements did not account for the soundstage observation. Revel representatives are have made many forum posts supporting the notion that well designed speakers performance can be degraded by REQ above the transition frequency.

When I originally tried XT32 it has the effect of drastically brightening the sound an boosting the rears at least 3B too hot. I would expect a number of observations of increased detail and improved surround.
The measurements posted above have no rounding. All measurements above are taken using the Dirac positions with the mic positions remain within a 4x3 foot area representing a couch. These mics are sensitive to position. With continuous measurements, I have found 15dB or more changes when changing the angle of the stand-mounted mic. It is no wonder that many just keep running REQ until the get a result that they like. This is perfectly fine, however, it is not apex of science that many believe they have achieved.

- Rich

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

If I remember right, he has the AV8003 (the old AV flag ship) that came with the basic multEQ. Then he acquired an used AV7701, that has the XT version. They didn't update their lower model AVP to XT32 until the AV7702. For the 8800 series, the AV8801 was the first to have XT32, one reason I bought it.



https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/room-eq-systems-for-avp-avr-users-thread.91544/page-7

As for debate, I might have debated the merits of REQ with someone before, but won't any more for reason stated, opinions and beliefs are not really debatable. I will still state facts that I know as I always try to do, so it is on record.

It's pretty funny that a flagship AVP doesn't even have XT, much less XT32. Geez.

But yeah, you've shown that XT32 can produce excellent in-room frequency response. That's 100% objective. Whether people like that or not is up to them (YMMV).

 

[KEW]

Again, I'd like to ask about EQ of bass frequencies for those who do not use Audyssey (or other variants of roomEQ).
As I understand the app, it allows you to turn Audyssey off say above 250 Hz, which seems like a very useful feature.
Are room modes not really a significant concern?
Most of what I read is that once you get a competent sub, the room pretty much controls the response. Do Auto roomEQ screw up the bass too? If so where is a good procedure for tuning a room beyond the sub crawl?

Edit: for the record, I'm not convinced either way on the Audyssey or no event. I plan to set up some listening comparisons to see what I hear.
However, the popular notion that room modes need to be controlled seems to conflict with the notion that Audyssey is at least useful for EQing the bass!

 

[lovinthehd]

I think it is for me because I have not seen the benefits with any of them.

But for some people who have seen the benefits backed up with measurements like @PENG, it is for real.

Of course, @TLS Guy also has his own measurements of Audyssey XT32 to back up his statement that Room correction is a gimmick.

@RichB also can back up his statement that Room correction (Dirac) does not improve the sound.

I’ve heard from other people as well about ARC not improving anything.

So it seems YMMV.

For me, Room Correction, DTS:X, ATMOS, 3D, 4K, 8K are all gimmicks.

Well, you are using Audyssey, just not for your L/R speakers....

Some manufacturers have decided to implement a Bypass L/R (or Front) setting. This uses the MultEQ filters that were calculated for the entire listening area, but it does not apply any filtering to the front left and right loudspeakers. The average measured response from the front left and right loudspeakers is used as the target curve for the remaining loudspeakers in the system. The subwoofer in this case is equalized to flat as is the case for all the settings described above. This is not a setting recommended by Audyssey.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It's like medicine, not taking any is better than taking it without taking the right one the right way.

A little bit dramatic there, don't you think ?

You take the wrong drugs and you could DIE.

Like I always say, this audio hobby isn't exactly brain surgery. It's not even medicine.

 

[RichB]

Again, I'd like to ask about EQ of bass frequencies for those who do not use Audyssey (or other variants of roomEQ).
As I understand the app, it allows you to turn Audyssey off say above 250 Hz, which seems like a very useful feature.
Are room modes not really a significant concern?
Most of what I read is that once you get a competent sub, the room pretty much controls the response. Do Auto roomEQ screw up the bass too? If so where is a good procedure for tuning a room beyond the sub crawl?

Edit: for the record, I'm not convinced either way on the Audyssey or no event. I plan to set up some listening comparisons to see what I hear.
However, the popular notion that room modes need to be controlled seems to conflict with the notion that Audyssey is at least useful for EQing the bass!

Room modes are the concern and equalizing below the transition frequency can be beneficial. I recommend using REW and a Mic like the miniDSP or a package like OmniMic to measure the room response.

Above the transition frequency, mic positioning produces huge changes and as such "corrections". When there are nulls (cancellations) from room reflections, EQ cannot correct them and any attempt to do so can stress your amplifier with no positive return.

Moving your sub(s) and multiple subs can correct the nulls.

- Rich

 

[RichB]

@RichB also can back up his statement that Room correction (Dirac) does not improve the sound.

In my room with my speakers, I preferred using PEQ to REQ even with curtains engaged to limit the REQ. Dirac on the XMC-1 seemed to have an effect on the sound-stage that was not defeatable and not to my preference. Others may prefer Dirac in my room.

I also find that processing the XLR inputs at all from the UPD-205 also produces a change in the sound-stage. The difference between Reference Stereo and Direct adds an AD/DA conversion that on-paper should not be detectable, but is. This is the case for the XMC-1 and for the AV8802 I have prior to this. However, I cannot speak to other processors.

- Rich