Unpopular opinion!

[privateeye]

I've owned several AVRs, starting with my first low/mid-range one years ago, which featured Audyssey MultEQ, the most basic version of Audyssey that also calibrates the subwoofer. After that, I upgraded to an AVR featuring Audyssey XT, and more recently, XT32. I have always remembered my first Denon with MultEQ very fondly. The first time I experienced the calibration results while using Dynamic EQ, I was very impressed; everything just sounded great.

Then, I upgraded my system to one using XT, and while it sounded decent, I was never fully satisfied with it. I must have calibrated it 50 times, finding that XT tended to overemphasize the high frequencies too much. Sound quality was a bit tinny and harsh—acceptable, but not ideal.

From there, I moved to my most recent AVR, which features XT32. This was a definite improvement over XT, and I've been mostly happy with the sound quality. However, I couldn't shake the feeling that my first AVR sounded better to me. This thought lingered in the back of my mind for years, but I never bothered to actually do a direct comparison until today. So, I set up my old AVR, ran Audyssey with my current configuration, and lo and behold, the basic version of MultEQ indeed sounds better to me than both XT and XT32. Dialogue has much more depth, the high end isn't so exaggerated, and everything just sounds correct and tight. This made me think of an old saying: "less is more."

I believe there's something to be said about the simplicity of MultEQ in comparison to the other versions. It's a simple algorithm that isn't trying to do too much, which I believe allows it to be much more consistent. While it doesn't work miracles, it just seems to do a solid dependable job regardless of the room it's working with. On the other hand, XT and XT32 try to do much more, which means there's a lot more that can go wrong.

Reading through the Audyssey thread on AVS, I've noticed quite a few people claiming that MultEQ is indeed better than XT, mainly because XT tends to excessively tinker with the high frequencies. However, I think I might be the only person who believes it's even better than XT32. I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but it is based on my experience using Audyssey alone, without any further tweaking post-calibration, outside of the basics like adjusting crossovers and levels. If you read through the forums, you'll find many complaints about the end result calibrations with XT and XT32, but you won't come across any complaints about MultEQ end results- I looked and it's always mentioned fondly. I think it's Audyssey's most dependable algorithm!

 

[isolar8001]

I've owned several AVRs, starting with my first low/mid-range one years ago, which featured Audyssey MultEQ, the most basic version of Audyssey that also calibrates the subwoofer. After that, I upgraded to an AVR featuring Audyssey XT, and more recently, XT32. I have always remembered my first Denon with MultEQ very fondly. The first time I experienced the calibration results while using Dynamic EQ, I was very impressed; everything just sounded great.

Then, I upgraded my system to one using XT, and while it sounded decent, I was never fully satisfied with it. I must have calibrated it 50 times, finding that XT tended to overemphasize the high frequencies too much. Sound quality was a bit tinny and harsh—acceptable, but not ideal.

From there, I moved to my most recent AVR, which features XT32. This was a definite improvement over XT, and I've been mostly happy with the sound quality. However, I couldn't shake the feeling that my first AVR sounded better to me. This thought lingered in the back of my mind for years, but I never bothered to actually do a direct comparison until today. So, I set up my old AVR, ran Audyssey with my current configuration, and lo and behold, the basic version of MultEQ indeed sounds better to me than both XT and XT32. Dialogue has much more depth, the high end isn't so exaggerated, and everything just sounds correct and tight. This made me think of an old saying: "less is more."

I believe there's something to be said about the simplicity of MultEQ in comparison to the other versions. It's a simple algorithm that isn't trying to do too much, which I believe allows it to be much more consistent. While it doesn't work miracles, it just seems to do a solid dependable job regardless of the room it's working with. On the other hand, XT and XT32 try to do much more, which means there's a lot more that can go wrong.

Reading through the Audyssey thread on AVS, I've noticed quite a few people claiming that MultEQ is indeed better than XT, mainly because XT tends to excessively tinker with the high frequencies. However, I think I might be the only person who believes it's even better than XT32. I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but it is based on my experience using Audyssey alone, without any further tweaking post-calibration, outside of the basics like adjusting crossovers and levels. If you read through the forums, you'll find many complaints about the end result calibrations with XT and XT32, but you won't come across any complaints about MultEQ end results- I looked and it's always mentioned fondly. I think it's Audyssey's most dependable algorithm!

AVS is room correction headquarters.
Here on Audioholics, you will see a lot of us don't care for what it does on a fundamental level.

I have a Pioneer VSX-LX305 that has MCACC (Pioneers version of Audyssey) and the holy grail of DIRAC.
I ran MCACC just to get the distances, delays, etc. going and then tailored the speaker EQ to my liking....it sounds fine to me that way.
This was after I did it all by ear first. What MCACC came up with was pretty close to my ear.
I had a Denon, and although Audyssey was OK (as long as you use that app)...I hated all of Denons "trickery" functions like Dynamic EQ.

Guess how many times I have ran DIRAC ? ZERO. Just don't feel I need it in my situation. (plus Ive heard its cranky as hell)

 

[privateeye]

AVS is room correction headquarters.
Here on Audioholics, you will see a lot of us don't care for what it does on a fundamental level.

I have a Pioneer VSX-LX305 that has MCACC (Pioneers version of Audyssey) and the holy grail of DIRAC.
I ran MCACC just to get the distances, delays, etc. going and then tailored the speaker EQ to my liking....it sounds fine to me that way.
This was after I did it all by ear first. What MCACC came up with was pretty close to my ear.
I had a Denon, and although Audyssey was OK (as long as you use that app)...I hated all of Denons "trickery" functions like Dynamic EQ.

Guess how many times I have ran DIRAC ? ZERO. Just don't feel I need it in my situation. (plus Ive heard its cranky as hell)

I've tinkered with the app/REW in the past but never delved into post corrections too deeply. I do think solely relying on an algorithm and one size fits all solution is probably not the best way to go. Even if you get a nice flat response that might not sound very good to a lot of folks. I'm a firm believer in using my ears as the final judging criteria.

 

[isolar8001]

I've tinkered with the app/REW in the past but never delved into post corrections too deeply. I do think solely relying on an algorithm and one size fits all solution is probably not the best way to go. Even if you get a nice flat response that might not sound very good to a lot of folks. I'm a firm believer in using my ears as the final judging criteria.

Reminds me of all of those that want their tv sets calibrated to total accuracy....the result isn't what most call pleasing or awe inspiring.

In audio/video...my eyes ears and brain are the three organs I have to satisfy, and that's best done by hand.

 

[privateeye]

Reminds me of all of those that want their tv sets calibrated to total accuracy....the result isn't what most call pleasing or awe inspiring.

In audio/video...my eyes ears and brain are the three organs I have to satisfy, and that's best done by hand.

100% agree. I used to be one of those people who chased reference level accuracy. Eventually it dawned on me one day- It just doesn't look that impressive. Now what I do is use accuracy as my base and make small deviations in order to make things look more "real life" accurate and vibrant. Professionally calibrated displays are pretty bland and new TVs are capable of so much more. It's so easy to get caught up on what you're supposed to like rather than what you actually do like. I think it's a big trap a lot of people in the AV world fall into.

 

[lovinthehd]

As I like to say, reference isn't necessarily preference.

 

[Hobbit]

The only correction I ever used is XT32. Is it perfect? No. Did it beat the heck out of white noise signals and an SPL meter followed by months of fine adjustment? A resoundingly Yes! It put me right in the ballpark and gave me a fine starting place to tweak to my own preferences.

 

[TLS Guy]

I've owned several AVRs, starting with my first low/mid-range one years ago, which featured Audyssey MultEQ, the most basic version of Audyssey that also calibrates the subwoofer. After that, I upgraded to an AVR featuring Audyssey XT, and more recently, XT32. I have always remembered my first Denon with MultEQ very fondly. The first time I experienced the calibration results while using Dynamic EQ, I was very impressed; everything just sounded great.

Then, I upgraded my system to one using XT, and while it sounded decent, I was never fully satisfied with it. I must have calibrated it 50 times, finding that XT tended to overemphasize the high frequencies too much. Sound quality was a bit tinny and harsh—acceptable, but not ideal.

From there, I moved to my most recent AVR, which features XT32. This was a definite improvement over XT, and I've been mostly happy with the sound quality. However, I couldn't shake the feeling that my first AVR sounded better to me. This thought lingered in the back of my mind for years, but I never bothered to actually do a direct comparison until today. So, I set up my old AVR, ran Audyssey with my current configuration, and lo and behold, the basic version of MultEQ indeed sounds better to me than both XT and XT32. Dialogue has much more depth, the high end isn't so exaggerated, and everything just sounds correct and tight. This made me think of an old saying: "less is more."

I believe there's something to be said about the simplicity of MultEQ in comparison to the other versions. It's a simple algorithm that isn't trying to do too much, which I believe allows it to be much more consistent. While it doesn't work miracles, it just seems to do a solid dependable job regardless of the room it's working with. On the other hand, XT and XT32 try to do much more, which means there's a lot more that can go wrong.

Reading through the Audyssey thread on AVS, I've noticed quite a few people claiming that MultEQ is indeed better than XT, mainly because XT tends to excessively tinker with the high frequencies. However, I think I might be the only person who believes it's even better than XT32. I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but it is based on my experience using Audyssey alone, without any further tweaking post-calibration, outside of the basics like adjusting crossovers and levels. If you read through the forums, you'll find many complaints about the end result calibrations with XT and XT32, but you won't come across any complaints about MultEQ end results- I looked and it's always mentioned fondly. I think it's Audyssey's most dependable algorithm!

I think the lot of them a based on a false premise, and I don't use any of them. I get excellent results with them disabled. All version if Audyssey I have had have been quality spoilers pure and simple and it's not subtle.