It's no secret that resident Axiom audio-guru Alan Lofft has no love for the (MCACC/YPAO/Denon 3805) room EQ features found on certian reveivers as is evident by this month's newsletter. My take on Alan's comments is that he seems to imply that if you have reasonably good speakers, then these EQ features are virtually worthless and will do more harm than good.
In reply to:
(Editorial note: Although I didn't receive a demo of the AVR-3805, it's worth noting that doing accurate measurements of listening-room frequency response aberrations is extremely complex, and correcting for room response errors using 8 bands of parametric digital EQ is essentially impossible. At worst, such digital auto-correction schemes have the potential of making good speakers sound bad by "correcting" the frequency response of an otherwise neutral, linear well-designed speaker. Users may mistakenly interpret small level increases introduced by the auto-EQ system as sounding "better," a common result of uncontrolled listening. I would advise enthusiasts to take these auto-EQ systems with a liberal dose of salt, and not base purchasing decisions on this particular feature.)
I'm just curious as to weather or not those members of this board who have purchased these various (Yamaha,Pioneer) receivers feel like they have wasted thier money on this particular feature. And would they be just as happy with a receiver that does not have this feature. Anybody care to comment?
I know that's a primary reason I'm considering the 55Txi when I buy. I don't have the foggiest how to calibrate a setup on my own so I was hoping it would give me a hand. If there's easy to understand relatively set instructions on how to calibrate, I guess it opens the door on other receivers. I would certainly welcome help or relevant feedback.
-Nick
Using EQ to enhance, neutralize or otherwise change a frequency response of a system within a particular room is not a new concept.
What is new is trying to make it in an idiot-proof or easy-to-setup box.
I am a bit leery of using the EQ on these very new systems. Some problems have already been reported on odd settings created by this function.
More importantly, trying to create a completely flat room response may not produce the type of sound that ppl want to hear. Just b/c the response is flat, this does not automatically create audio nirvana although some will argue it should be more audibly 'accurate'.
To that i say, so what?
Who says accuracy defines audio perfection?
Many live music performances in back room bars and clubs is anything but accurate in sound yet i know those who are searching for the 'live' sound for their stereo systems.
However i do applaud the idea of being able to correct for some extreme humps in sound created by that crazy, oversized lead sculpture that the wife decided has to sit right in front of the couch. I would not buy a receiver based on it having or not having this feature though.
That's my 3 cents.
That's a good 3 cents worth Chess.
I know that YPAO/MCACC is not perfect as I've seen some of the problems that you've alluded to. Most of the problems I've seen/heard of had nothing to do with the EQ portion of the setup but rather with the "phase(wiring)" check and "speaker size" check. I think many ppl are confused about the auto setup in that they think the EQ portion of the setup and the wiring, distance, size and level checks are all one-in-the-same.
Granted, if the ,d,s,l checks are not correct then the EQ will not be right, but the ,d,s,l setups can all be easily done manually though the onscreen menus and then skipped during the auto setup (at least on the Yamaha RX-V 1400/2400). For example, my 2400 often "sees" one of my speakers as being wired out of phase and "sees" my surrounds as large (possibly because they are rated down to 65Hz) which has nothing to do with the EQ setup. So I go into "manual setup" and give it the correct values. However, the 2400 is accurate on the distance and level checks.
I read somewhere recently -- I haven't been able to find the source, but I believe Dr. Hsu said it -- that the human ear naturally adjusts to the coloration a room adds to the sound and can rather quickly tune it out.
I'd hope that Dr. Hsu didn't say that. The room colorations can be more significant than those of the speakers if the speakers are relatively flat. Learning to tolerate a coloration caused by any factor, including the room, shouldn't excuse not making efforts to minimize it.
John, are you trying to take colour out of our lives?
I'm not a big fan of grey.
Sorry, chess, I thought that it was just black(e.g. SVS cylinders).
perhaps coloration was the wrong term, and it may not have been Dr. Hsu. My mind is going....
I use EQ on my system and would not be without it. My EQ is all digital. I use a BFD on the sub and have it flat within +-1db! The parametric EQ allows to correct for the room response, eliminating boominess. Some people create a house curve to satisfy their tastes (I like it flat...once you have listened to a flat bass response for a few days, it is hard to listen to anything else). My other speakers are adjusted using digital 31 band EQ's. The adjustments are very subtle, and tame certain undesireable artifacts such as honkiness, tinniness, or the ever unpopular shrillness in women's voices. To be fair, since I bought my Epic 80 system, There is pretty much NO EQ given to the speakers. They are quite close to flat in my room. Just simply a half decibel here or there (a 1/3 octave EQ is not quite as precise as a parametric, so small adjustments are needed to keep it from affecting adjacent frequencies).
One last thing. When I say the bass is flat, I mean that it took me several hours to measure from 15hz to 120hz, 1hz at a time. Then I had to plot the results, find my center frequencies, decide on my bandwidth, correlate that to the BFD number system, and program it all into the BFD, along with the cut or...in one case, a mild boost. Then the delay that is added by the digital EQ's must be factored in and adjusted to keep time alignment correct. It is a slow process with gratifying results.
When you start posting, "Dai....sy, ....Dai....sy, ....give ..me ...your ...an ....swer ...do...." then we'll know that your mind is going.
Without the EQ feature I could never match my Maggies with my VP150 and QS8 in HT. The sound was too far off that any movie sounded off because the sound characteristics of my mains were very different than my center and rears. After calibration with the Elite MCACC feature the speakers work together rather well and balanced.
I only use EQ calibration for movies. I listen to music in 2 stereo mode as it was made to be.
I have an RX-V1400/M60/VP150/QS8/Hsu VTF-3R. I tend to agree with Alan Lofft. I don't fully trust YPAO. The wiring, distance, and level checks work OK. However it sometimes chooses a 200Hz bass crossover. The bass output YPAO selects seems insufficient for my tastes, but maybe that's just me. I'm suspicious about the EQ settings -- sometimes it picks fairly large + and - boosts/cuts close together. E.g, +5db at 120hz, -3db at 200hz.
Tonight my system just didn't sound right so after re-running YPAO several times I turned off the EQ by switching to graphical-flat. It sounded a lot better afterward.
No matter how well YPAO works, it does nothing for my SACD player, which uses the RV-V1400 multichannel analog in. For that I have to do a manual level calibration, manual speaker size/config selection, and there's no EQ available since analog in bypasses the RX-V1400's EQ.
I think in theory things like YPAO and MCACC are great, and the current products are decent early steps towards a highly refined, comprehensive auto calibration. However there's a way to go before this is sufficiently robust, reliable, and easy to use.
Maybe the problem is with YPAO.
In my instance I use MCACC for EQ calibration. I do not use the distance or level checks. I do that manually.
After EQ calibration I can play this demo bouncing ball that jumps from one speaker to the next and as it circles the room it sounds tonally correct and balance. Before calibration the ball sounded differently from the mains to the center and the rears. I do not agree with Alan Lofft in his view of calibration for Home Theater at least. I can see his point in relation to music. A balance properly calibrated video and sound presentation in Home Theater can provide a much more enjoyable experience. As with my example I have different sets of speakers and sound tonally mismatched. The MCACC in my case blends those speaker quite nicefully for home theater. Yes this inadvertantly may change the FLAT responce curves of my Axiom QS8 and VP150 speakers but the general presentation as a whole in MY setup is much better. The Elite series has a button than can disengaged the MCACC calibration. I do that when I listen to music.
I personally think that even the VP150 and QS8 tonally sound a little different. Try playing your test pink noise with the VP150 and QS8 and toggle back and forth. I would be astounded to hear you say "Oh they sound the same". If they sound the same why are not people running QS8 for a center channel? They are both FLAT and they sound the same...so why the hell not.
I share your same view that like YPAO and MCACC are great and help lots of enthusiasts but the software still needs to be refined. As with systems that have all of the same speakers coming from the same manufacturer and have the same drivers there is usually no need to EQ calibrate the speakers. But for systems that have different set of speakers from different companies...EQ calibration can help quite a bit...or not...
As there are GREAT people on this forum that PREACH GREAT DOGMAS. All opinions on here should be taken with a grain of salt. Some are wrong and some are right. Try it out for yourself and come to your conclusions.
Seeing as how the QS8 is far from directional, I'd have a hard time using it as a center channel. I look forward to testing out your theory that they sound so different when I receive them.
They're supposted to ship today. I haven't received a FedEx code. Should I cross my fingers?
In reply to:
As there are GREAT people on this forum that PREACH GREAT DOGMAS. All opinions on here should be taken with a grain of salt. Some are wrong and some are right. Try it out for yourself and come to your conclusions.
Amen!
I think this whole idea about speakers and timbre matching may not be what some ppl think it is.
This
little review defines them pretty well.
I don't think alot of ppl really know what timbre matching is and certainly, with the very different aspects of sound dispersion (spatially) between a QS8 and a VP150 that many really have the wrong idea about what they are hearing such that it is being described as a non-timbre matched pair of speakers.
How is it possible that 2 speakers, built by the same company, with the same cabinet designs, with the same materials and drivers would not be timbre matched?
If a timbre match cannot be attained by these means, then theoretically no two speakers will ever be matched.
Thanks for the link.
I am not looking for an EXACT match...but a close likeness of sound be it direct firing or dispersed. For instance if you have a helicopter start on your right ..fly to your left and then zoomed off to your left rear surround...would you expect to have the sound of the helicopter (pitch and timbre) flow nicely from each of those speaker with almost the same sound. This would provide a more lifelike or at least continuity of the same sound throught the Home Theater environment. The reason why Dolby Pro Logic, DD and DTS was created was to immerse the audience with lifelike enveloping sound. Having all speakers tonally and tibre matched (just as close as possible..not exactly match because you are saying it is not possible)
Hence why some people have upgraded their rear surrounds from Polks to QS8 because the QS8 matches their VP150 and M60 more closely.
Timbre and pitch matching by making sure all your drivers in your speaker array are closely similar makes a better presentation. Hence the many dicussion about individuals here matching the M60 with the Qs8 rather than the Qs4...and with the rest of the Axiom line. But the other individuals have different brands and drivers have speakers that do not match in timbre and pitch. By using EQ calibrating software like YPAO and MCACC it tries to match tibre and pitch as close as possible. Yes this mucks up the frequency response of some speakers...to make it less flat. But I find over all presentation for Home Theater a lot better for MY situation.
I still don't get why people carry on with the flat frequency CRAP. No one here can tell if a speaker has a flat frequency or not...by giving a good listen. Your ear will tell you what sound you like or not.
I laugh all the time when someone says the Axiom are the best sounding speaker..they have a flat frequency. Speakers like the Revel Ultima, Wilson Watt Puppy 7, B&W 801 do not have a flat frequency and cost many times the Axioms. If all those speakers plus a M80 or M60 were in a the same room and they had a choice to walk away with any of the speakers after they gave a listen but only one. I'd like to see who walks out of that room with those M80.
Axioms are great speakers for the price and speakers around its range. Hands down. It is by no means the final word. A lot of people here talk like it is.