Those links from the company Audyssey are not helpful. Yes, once can understand that the newer version of the room correction can make more fine-tuned adjuestments in smaller steps. Ok.
But the question the consumer wants to know is: what does that mean? In other words has the new version been tested and found to sound better by 60% of listeners, or just 20%, or maybe none? If the listeners found it different, did they perceive it as "marginally better" significantly better",etc?
We dont know and they dont answer. For me as a marketer that pretty much confirms the perceived differences are margina at best or at worst dont exist at all. No company that had convincing data on this would hide it instead of using it in the marketing. Clearly the consumer test data they got on perceived value of this thing would only hurt their ability to sell the product, so they hide from publishing it.
This is not just a dig at Audyssey - its a failing of every single maker of these room correction systems. None of them provide a single shred of data on perceived benefit of the product in user tests. It must be ugly.
I'm not saying room correction is snake oil - it is early days in the development of this technology. Also at the moment the biggest barrier is the stone-age level of processing power in the chips that AV receiver makers insist on using. Basically if you have a current Iphone or Android phone, what you hold in your hand is like a Ferrari compared to the Lada in your AV receiver, which costs you more than your phone. So its not that room correction as a concept is useless. But what is implemented in AV receivers today clearly does not pass the muster in terms of ration of value delivered/consumer price paid.
