Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater receivers? Sherwood, Denon, Yamaha?

I am currently running a Denon 3806. Really a pain in the butt receive but with good sound. My father is running a Yamaha (maybe V2600 or something)using the same Axiom speakers. His sounds much better than mine and is much easier to manipulate. I will probably switch to the yamaha but an curious about the Sherwood these good folks are selling. What are the oppinions out there on the Sherwood product versus Yamaha and Denon?

The receiver itself won't sound different unless you have messed with tone or eq controls. All solid state receivers are designed to have a flat frequency response from 20hz-20+khz. Also, the room and speaker placement will make a huge difference in what you hear. I doubt it is your Denon.

Are you using Auddessy? How have you calibrated your system? If so that can be messing up the sound quality of your Axioms as well as if you are using any tone controls. Also your room has an influence on the sound which will contribute to the differences you note between the two systems.

ok sounds right. I set up my fathers room and my room. Now he has the QS8 and the EP350 versus my QS4 and EP175. we both have the W150 and W22. Perhaps I just did a better job setting up the sound settings on the yamaha and the speaker differences are that much better.......

not using Auddessy? dont know anything about it?

Aaron, as the previous replies indicated, the least likely reason for a difference in sound between the sound which you're getting(which you describe as "good sound")and your father's is the receiver. Certainly a Yamaha isn't superior to a Denon(or vice-versa). Consider all other aspects of the setups, not the receivers, except if special sound processing modes are in use with one or the other.

Your Denon should have Audyssey MultEQ XT auto setup where you can take multiple measurements with your microphone from each seat in the room at ear level. I even updated my firmware on my 3808 and now use Audyssey's Dynamic Volume and Dynamic EQ, makes things so much better contrary to some opinions.

Check at AVS - there is a HUGE Audyssey thread there with participation from one of the inventors.

As others have said, the biggest influence in your sound is your room. If everything else is equal (same speakers, properly calibrated, same material) your room will still make it sound different. The trick is to optimize the speaker placement and then calibrate (run Audyssey).

Thanks! Sounds like I have a LOT to learn! I will try Auddessy.

I have always been a big fan of Pioneer's Elite line (good features for a good price), but there have been reports of various issues lately with some functionality, and firmware updates needed to get things working out of the box etc... My next receiver purchase will have me looking very closely at Denon. Of course, they are generally a bit more pricey, so we'll see.

Hi aspicer1,

As SirQuack well knows, I'd be remiss if I didn't fulfill my role as official Audyssey naysayer. Don't expect Audyssey multi-EQ to be an electronic band-aid to compensate for poor setup.

It may help smooth out problems with standing waves (bass boom) but in the case of already neutral speakers like Axioms it has the potential to degrade sound quality. A measurement microphone in a room is like a single ear with no brain and all rooms are different. I'll acknowledge that Audyssey may help in some situations or with poor quality speakers.

So try and do your speaker setup and crossover settings as well as possible and then you can experiment with turning Audyssey on and off to see if there is an audible improvement. Keep in mind that sometimes our ears and brain may perceive a difference in sound quality as an "improvement", just because there is a difference.

Regards,
Alan

I have a much older Pioneer receiver (VSX-45) with a 5 band MCACC. I would say that in my room with my Axiom speakers; my ears and brain perceive the sound to be an improvement with the equalization from the MCACC on. Just my perception of course.
Bill

I have one of the newer Marantz AVR's with Audyssey multi-Eq and I have to concur with Alan on his assessment of this set-up method. At best, it his somewhat hit and miss and in being able to compare the differences on and off, to my ears in my environment anyway, the difference is negligible. Among the drawbacks that I have noticed in pretty well ALL these EQ systems is that with the final result, sometimes crossover settings are not the optimum and bass response is cutback way too much. I ended up doing a manual calibration.

It is also interesting to note in a recent interview with one of the heads of Marantz, with their newer AVR's(including mine), it was made quite clear that they made the philosophical decision to make Audyssey multi-eq calibration "unavailable" when playing back ALL the lossless audio tracks on Blu-Ray. In this particular case, they wanted the sound coming out of the AVR as pure as possible. Interesting.

Was it is philosophical decision, or is that just the way marketing spun the issue of their DSP not having enough power to both decode the HD codec, and then process it with Audyssey?

When I was shoping around for receivers, I chose Denon (AVR-590)for great features at the price point and that it came with Audyssey (MultEQ, DynamicEQ and Dynamic Vol).

For me, Audyssey really made an improvement in sound quality as I have an extremely sub-optimal setup and listening area. I did end up changing crossover points (personal preference), bumping up my center channel level, and am running the sub about 4dB hotter to suit my ears.

For watching movies at night, with little kids in the house, DynamicEQ and Dynamic Vol are great!

I have to agree with Alan and the others though and say that it will not compensate for a poor setup.

Alan,

The measurements are taken at multiple locations (up to 8 with the built in Audyssey and 32 with the stand alone product). It all well and good to have nice flat speakers in an anechoic chamber, but little good that does in the family room with glass windows and hardwood floors. Even with my limited ability to test (REW and a cheap microphone), I can see that Axioms speaker are NOT flat in MY ROOM. Want better testing? Check out the reviews in Stereophile magazine.

I'll say this for the 99th time... I still do not understand what you have against Audyssey. At least with this post I think it may be that you may not actually know how it works....

Needless to say, my M60's sound much better with that without.

I got the info from an interview done late in 2008 by Audioholics during one of the shows just prior to the release of the new design AVR's. This seems to be their philosophy since it spans the entire range of product regardless of price. Since others such as Onkyo and Denon(Marantz's sister company) seem to apply Audyssey in all cases, I doubt there would be much more in design cost, if any, to do it. Ironically enough, in recent years, despite the connection, I found reviewers generally prefered the sound of the Marantz over the Denon.

Dave, I have to say I'm on your side will Audyssey. I agree with Alan when talking about receivers from the past and taking one measurement from a single position. Audyssey is a totally different animal whos whole purpase is to account for rooms being different, taking multiple measurements, etc. It is not a parametric routine. I think if Alan would read up on the topic, and maybe visit with Tomlinson Holman (founder of THX), and Chris K. the creators of this product, he might find a different outcome.

So, what is it you like better about the sound of your fathers system and on what program material?

Its hard for us to help you 'fix' your sound if we don't know what you don't like.

Actually JC from Axiom in looking at my photos said I had several problems with speaker placement that might be the real issue. my center speaker is so close to the ceiling that it should be slightly angled downward. My side surrounds are way to low and too far behind my first row. My rear surrounds are also too low and too close together. Basically he said that my chairs being high backs are blocking out much of my surround sound and my center is reflecting off of the ceiling which is distorting the sound. That makes sense because i have had to increase the channel levels of my center and my surrounds to get a balanced sound. I set my fathers up and his center is below the screen. The surrounds are placed differently and the sound is much more precise.

truth be told I am asking all of these questions because i am moving and building a new room. I like the look of mine and want to recreate it in many ways. I think i have learned that I should be happy with my Denon 3806 if I do a better job of speaker placement and receiver set up. Everyone seems to be saying that as long as the receiver is a decent quality the brand is not necessarily as important as speaker placement and sound set up. The new room will not have the stone pillar as there is no support beam to deal with. The room will be 19x18 with 9' ceilings so i think i will trade up to the qs8 and the ep350. I am replacing my speakers in my current room with stock builder inwalls, leaving the seating and projector to rent the house with a working theater (will rent it fast and for more my realtor says). I was going to leave my Denon too because I was frustrated with continuous attempts to improve the sound quality. Now that i know the speaker placement is more likely the problem i am thinking of buying a cheap receiver to replace the Denon and bring the Denon to my new house. Does that sound like the best plan?

I was going to say the same thing about your center. It is best to have the tweeters for the front/left/center to be as close to ear level (when seated) as possible. Obviously, this is not always possible. In my situation, my center is right below the screen, but slightly tilted upward. You want a balance soundstage from left to right, having the center way high screws that up for movies and multi channel music. One alternative is to have dual centers, one above, one below, which gives you the same affect as your left/right and makes the dialog dead center.

I would not say your surrounds were located in that bad of a position from the pictures I saw above. Mine are 7ft off the g round and work great.

Perhaps it is the reverse, that you are not understanding how it works in a big picture presentation.

The Audyssey can ONLY compensate (somewhat) for the room artifacts in limited locations (where the equalization mic was placed when Audyssey was in use).
There are far more than 8 finite positions in a room, shifting a foot in either direction will not reproduce the exact same frequency response curve. Audyssey cannot compensate for every one of these 8 points individually either. It simply takes an average of that which occurs across the 8, but what results does it actually provide?
If you have a huge bass hole in seat #7 and 8 but not any of the other 6 locations, the 'average' is still affected by that large anomaly and what sounded ok in seats 1 through 6 originally, now sound worse because of the effect Audyssey took into account from seats 7 and 8.

Another shortfall, Audyssey has very limited equalization capabilities considering the ENTIRE audio spectrum spans 20Hz - 20,000 kHz (give or take but the general range of the human ear).
Do you really think an 8 band equalizer is good enough to properly smooth that huge range?
There is a reason why sound control boards (e.g. at concert halls) have alot more than 8 sliders.

Try to think more broadly before slamming someone who has far greater experience and knowledge of the electronics and open your mind to alternate perspectives regarding the problems of the system. If you like Audysey, go crazy, but it is far from a simple solution to fix all that is really going on sound wise within a room, contrary to what the marketing and hype portrays.

As for 'linear response speakers', Axiom doesn't quote that their speakers will be linear in response at everyone's home. However if the goal is to have the most accurate reproduction of sound from the source, one has to start with flat response equipment, including speakers. The only universal way to measure that without room effects from the speaker company's design spaces is to use anechoic chambers.
It equalizes the field when comparing frequency spectrums from any source.

Chess, note that the separate manual equalization feature with 7-8 bands has nothing to do with the Audyssey equalization which may make hundreds of adjustments.

Simple room treatments and a SPL meter is all I will ever need! Its a shame nowadays that for a lot people this is an after thought.

Simple room treatments and WAF do not necessarily go together very well, for many of us room treatments are just not possible.

what Fred said:






First off if you haven’t calibrated both your systems either with a SPL meter or the receivers test tones then try that. If both systems aren’t calibrated it could just be that by luck you got his system closer to what you like than yours.

If both systems still sound different when they are calibrated and if it’s not too much trouble you could try your Denon in his setup or his Yamaha in yours and see if they sound the same. Try to calibrate them the same if possible. If there’s little difference then you know it’s not the receivers causing it.

Then if possible bring his QS and EP to your place or take yours to his and try them out. If they sound mostly the same in the same room then you know it’s not the speakers causing it. Which pretty much narrows it down to room and speaker placement within the room.

My guess is that you both have different speakers in different rooms with yours not placed and/or calibrated as well as his which are all combining to make a noticeable difference.

I know this all sounds like a pain but by doing all this you will gain a better apreciation of what makes things sound better or worse for you allowing you to make a more informed decision


Audyssey was a big selling point for my first Denon and so far it turned out to be the biggest waste of time I’ve had. Now I only use the SPL meter and a tape measurer because I prefer the results and it’s faster than even the auto setup. Of course now I want to probably waste more time with Trinnov if someone can ever really get it to market.

Since you haven't spent any time learning that Audyssey is NOT an 8 band equalizer (not even close), how can you slam me???????????? Please, do some research.

Secondly, what would you propose doing about the limitations? Is there something better?

Lastly, I realize that Alan has years of experience. I also realize that Tomlinson Holman and professor Chris Kyriakakis may have a clue as well.

That's my error. Writing too quickly. I was referring to Audyssey as the whole EQ system in the receiver and not specifically the Audyssey option of the choices for EQ.

As JohnK pointed out, the manual option is limited to the parametric bands. However, the actual Audyssey option, although claiming not to use an averaging method, states they use a clustering method to "combine measurements so that acoustical problems are better represented, thus allowing the equalization filter to perform the appropriate correction at each location.".
Umm, how does a $1500 receiver manage to correct for audio 'faults' at each of 8 different locations in a room?
Clustering, such as is done in statistics to gain information about groups with seemingly large random variance within and between groups, STILL uses an averaging of sorts (comparison of variance and means) to identify clusters that are different. With that information, one can deduce where an audio difference would 'need' to be corrected with a higher probability of occurrence.
For example, one measures 5 dB down in 200 Hz at 6 of the locations, but only 5dB down in 350Hz at one location. The Audyssey would likely correct for the 200 Hz anomaly but not the one at 350 Hz.
Audyssey still uses an 'averaging' if the assumption of their clustering method is as described. In the end, it ultimately still only guesses at a single frequency adjustment curve to 'best' fit all 8 locations measured within a room.
At best it may reduce very large peaks or deep humps but again, depending on where the mic is placed those 8 times, it could worsen the sound at the seating area which is not necessarily indicative of the sound represented at the locations measured depending on the results of the clustering.
The more flat response a room at that exists to begin with, the better the Audyssey function will be at its interpretation.
The more wacky the sound is across the room, the worse its interpretation.
Well that doesn't really help people with bad rooms then does it?

I'm not claiming to make any recommendations on how to improve the sound in a room. In fact, in my media room i haven't bothered to EQ or add acoustic treatments of any kind. We put in carpet, big plush chairs, have a room that is not a perfect square or rectangle (has a ceiling with broken heights and an angled wall, with painted walls and french doors that recently had curtains installed.
It is by far the best listening room i've ever heard though i have yet to measure any frequency responses with software so perhaps this is a mental bias because i like what we did with the room. I do know i'm not 100% happy with our surround placement but with limited space, frankly i don't care. It works well enough. Of all the people who've auditioned speakers here over the past 5 years, all have agreed that the speakers sound phenomenal in the room and two have commented their Axioms didn't sound as good in their own places as they did when they were here.
Reason: room effects, obviously.

I really don't see the point of fighting a losing battle, for the time, effort and cost to eek out flattening a few decibels that most probably wouldn't even notice. I suspect there are less obvious differences to be heard than what many report without being able to easily test, blind A/B a before and after situation.

I've learned not to believe everyone or everything that one reads or 'learns' about audio even from pros (though some are more honest than others). Many of those you may think 'know' something, are really just selling another belief to sell a product whether they know it or not.
Don't just buy into the ideas but rather follow the science. Does it really make sense or not?

Chess,

Thanks for the detailed elucidation of the complexities of rooms and electronic measurement and correction of room problems.

Dewd:

Of course I understand how Audyssey operates. I've known Tom Holman for 20 years or more. He's done excellent work over the years and while I haven't always agreed with some of his theories (particularly the use of dipole surrounds in modern surround systems) I admire his research and dedication to improving sound reproduction both in cinemas and in the home. On the other hand, he does have a financial interest in the royalties from Audyssey so I naturally question some of the claims.

I don't "hate" Audyssey or similar systems. By all means use it for initial setup, even with some its acknowledged erratic behavior with subwoofers. I just don't want enthusiasts thinking that Audyssey is some sort of electronic panacea that will work magic in any home theater setup.

I'd prefer everyone do a careful manual setup using an SPL meter and then listen, evaluating what they are hearing. Look at the furnishings and reflective surfaces. Elaborate room treatments are not necessary in most domestic rooms. Simple additions such as draperies, a rug or two, and adjusting speaker or subwoofer placement may dramatically improve sound quality.

Then try out Audyssey if you want to tinker. Switch it on and off, and if it helps correct some bass humps, great, use it.

Regards,

Alan

Thank you Alan. And I agree 100% with the idea that everything should be done to improve the sound BEFORE running any EQ. I agree with others that it will not fix a poorly designed environment. What it will (and does for me) do is take my best effort and make it better (flatter), especially with my sub.

Some folks do not like flat bass. They 'prefer' some boomy-ness. That is fine, but it is their preference and not what Audyssey was designed to do. Saying that Audyssey does not work because it doesn't make your preferred sound is just not fair.

Well, this is one of those "everybody is right" cases. I was all jazzed to upgrade my geriatric Denon AVR 3300 to something with an auto-set up to cure some problems i had. Then I moved into a smaller, but dedicated HT. Many improvements right off the bat.

Then I ejected the TV for a projector, which let me move the speakers further out into the room, and further from the sides. Big improvement in imaging and clarity.

Then I moved the sub to dead center about a foot from the front wall. Bass leveled out very nicely. From a small 10" B&W sub I can feel LFE in my toes, butt and intestines with a general absence of boominess - although I don't claim my little B&W is like the Axiom big dogs.

The point is, with options to change the sound path (including sound deadening and less furniture) you can achieve great results. I honestly see no need to upgrade my AVR now. [Well, buying a pro amp did a lot on that front as well as it fixed the harsh top end. ]

But, if you don't have those options, as many don't, and I did not for years, the hope and search for dramatic improvement from a computer chip is not a fool's errand. To me, it is no different than the debate over bass and treble adjustment. Purist say fix the room, get new speakers, etc. But the fact is, sometimes you just gotta turn down the treble or push the bass to make your room sound 'right' on your budget. The chips are no different...use it if it works, but don't count on a prefect fix to room interaction by changing the sound at the source.

Great post, Charles.

My, such a learny thread. I think just opening it upped my IQ by a point or two.

My original question still stands. I still don't know what we are helping with other than "doesn't sound as good as my dad's."

Hopefully making some adjustments helps things, but it is still worth while trying to give a little more detail to pinpoint issues.

Maybe it's just the difference in the rooms? I've had noticeable shifts in performance just based on having my set-up in different sized and shaped rooms.

How many times are we going to debate Audessey anyhow?

Until I get an actual answer as to "why not use it"? To this point Alan keeps saying don't use it but never states why he believes it is bad. Finally, he responded in this thread. I still don't know why, exactly. "Acknowledged erratic behavior with subwoofers" is news to me. References would be nice.

The point is for the original poster to first look at his room and speaker placement. That is always the first step. Get the system sounding as good as possible then add Audssey.

I know it seems like I'm a fanboy. I'm not really. I just know it works if setup correctly and do not like it when something is dismissed without reason. I react similarly when someone says that Axiom speakers are too bright.

Auddessy and the auto setup/Denon did strange things with my crossover making them way to high, setting speakers to large and also maxing out my pre-out levels for my subwoofer to +12, another time it was set way to low, and the auto-on wasnt working as should. This would cause erratic, sub optimal performance. Gosh knows what it did with the equilization. I tried running it mulitple times and still was getting funny results but better. My speaker levels and distances for the most part where fine but overall I was not impressed. I did a full reset on my Denon and set up everything manually after that. Just my experience, I realize other people like it and that is fine by me.

As a generalization, I agree with you on both counts. But in the highly subjective world of audio, I have no doubt that in some rooms Axioms speakers might just be bright... at least to someone's ears. As a matter of fact anyone used to, and in love with the sound of laid-back speakers such as Bose and the like, I have no doubt my Axiom set up would be considered 'bright'. So I'm with you on debating anyone who comes along and says "Axioms are too bright". It's not a fair blanket statement... what I mean when I say 'blanket statement' is that it certainly doesn't cover every Axiom speaker, room condition, or listener preference. However, if someone were to say, "I think Axioms sound bright"... well, how can I argue with a single persons opinion?

To me this is where Alan stands with Audessey. I don't hear him saying, "nobody should use Audessey because it won't help anyone". What I hear him saying is, "Audessey shouldn't be considered a cure-all because it won't help EVERYBODY out in EVERY conceivable situation", and that's all I hear him saying. He personally doesn't like it, that's all. You do like it, and nobody can say you're wrong in liking it.

So just like someone else already said, you're both right.

Bottom line is that it works for some and not others. Different strokes, and all that Kumbaya stuff...

Not strange at all. First, it is the AVR, not Audssey that set your speakers to large. Until recently, the AVR would set them large if Audyssey measured under 80Hz. Very simple (and recommended) to change them to small. The +12 means your volume on your sub was too low. Newer AVR models have an extra step the warns you about this before you finish the whole process.

Again, I'm not saying use it. I am saying that most folks who say it doesn't work usually have it setup wrong (or their room is so poorly setup that nothing can help it).

I will say one thing, there is a huge difference, in favor of Audyssey, in the overall sound, sub performance, etc. when I go back and forth between Audyssey on/off. You can play a song or movie and cycle through on/off with the touch of the remote button. The performance with my Axiom speakers, and frequency response is much better for all seats with Audyssey enabled.

I will also say the newest Dynamic Volume and Dynamic EQ offerings are awesome as well. It appears those that doubt the technology have never used it. Or, they did not follow the proper setup instructions, so if they get poor results they blame Audyssey, not themselves.

Before I ran Audyssey, I always do my manually tweeking that Alan mentions. Audyssey improves things that much more to my ears, that is what is important.

I tried it multiple times with the subwoofer volume at half to 3/4. It was not set too low, adjustments would make the pre-out level too low or too high, it couldn't get it right. I found it sounded better with Auddessy off anyways so it really didn't matter. Not a big deal but it was worth trying it out.

And you don't think that with different equipment setups, in different rooms, with different listeners, there won't be variables in whether or not people believe that Audyssey worked well or not?

Because it works for YOUR ears, in YOUR room, with YOUR equipment doesn't mean others will have the same results. No one gains knowledge if you just spout your opinions as facts that apply universally.

Personally, I'm not "for" OR "against" Audyssey... though I'll say that I really love the dynamic volume and dynamic EQ options...

In about 4 months I will get to try Audyssey out in my new house with a much different lay out. It should be interesting to see if I hear the same changes as I did with my smaller more compact area.

Why not to use it is if you don’t like how it makes your system sound. Conversely, why to use it is if you like the way it makes your system sound.

However, here’s the rub for someone like me who doesn’t like it for now:



I have set Audyssey up correctly more times than I can count in 3 different rooms and got very similar results (though not exactly the same results) that I didn’t like. In anticipation of someone who always asks, the answer is “yes,” I have followed the checklist posted at AVS something I’m pretty good at since I run maintenance and operational checklists for a living.

Just as you don’t like it when “something” is dismissed without reason I don’t like it when “someone” (especially me) is dismissed without reason (“…works if setup correctly“). While I accept there are likely purists out there who dismiss Audyssey out of hand and others who don’t use it optimally there are actually very many of us who do know how to use it and still don’t feel it works in our situations.

I can’t speak to others intentions in entering these debates but mine is simply to point out to any new people out there using Audyssey that it’s ok not to like how it makes your system sound. And that not liking it doesn’t require that you are incompetent at setting up and calibrating your system.

I also reserve the right to change my mind about Audyssey since this is not a religious crusade for me. It’s possible the implementation of Audyssey in my receiver is faulty, less likely that all 3 rooms are unmanageable (in the same way) and highly unlikely that it‘s user error.

Note, I’m also one of those “nonconformists” who considers Dolby Pro-Logic 2 and 2x a mixed bag. Again not because I’m being a purist but because of how it sounds to me. In the end how our systems sound to us and those we share them with is all that really should matter.

Cheers,
Dean

Dean,

Liking the results and setting it up correctly are two different things. If you don't like the results, don't use it just like if you don't like the sound of Axiom speakers, don't buy them. But we were not talking about likes and dislikes. I was replying to the blanket statement "Don't use it".



Exactly!!!

Lol, hey I'm not for OR against Audyssey either. In fact I've only heard it the one time over at SRoodes place and it was a definite 'degrade' in the audio performance with it on. You'll have to ask him but I would have to assume Steve did all the measurements and all that stuff one would consider in setting it up correctly. But here's the thing, Audyssey is a room 'correction' system right? So what if you've put so much work into your room that it doesn't need correcting? Then what does it do?

Nevermind, silly question. Undeniably I will assume that it is common knowledge that ALL rooms have some sort of flaw in it that needs correcting right? But you know it's occured to me, with even the highest of hi-end audio companies being lucky to have 75% of all customers liking their product, how would it be possible for Audyssey to expect a better approval rating than that?

This might be the highest subjectively rated hobby out there, there basically is no 'right or wrong', there's only what a particular person likes & what he doesn't like. So if 60% of the audio world liked what Audyssey did for them, they would be doing a superb job. Because the fact is what you consider an improvement I may deem as unlistenable, and vice-versa.

That's why everyone can give all the reasons they want reguarding their views on Audyssey... the people who are on whichever side of the they are on right now will remain on that side indefinately. Unless someone like Grunt who is currently on the 'don't care for' side of the line but can't stop himself from tinkering finally finds a setting he likes well enough to leave Audyssey on!

First I will never stop tinkering. Hell I’m planning to eventually put up sliding rails to mount my QS8s from with Full Metal Brackets so I can continue to tinker even after they are wall mounted.

That said I gave up on tinkering with this iteration of Audyssey. I really wish it did work for me, because I do like part of it’s effect especially here in my largest room so far. It noticeably enhances the 3D nature of the surround sound-field so that discrete sounds like the glass and concrete exploding around you at the beginning of “Appleseed” don’t just come from various directions but you also distinctly hear them hitting right next to you and all the way out past the walls.

OTOH what it does to the front soundstage is awful. The EQ curve it applies makes male voices sound very hollow and tinny. The best example is “Master and Commander” where Russell Crowe’s voice sounds like he’s talking through two tin cans connected by a string. No exaggeration it’s really that bad.

Nor am I a purist. I do like Dolby Pro-Logic 2 and 2x for some things but not universally. I also like some of the virtual room modes like “Jazz Club” for some things but again as always for me it’s source dependent.

I’m sure my next receiver will have some room correction capability, more than likely Audyssey since it seems more and more that SN’s and Outlaw’s implementation of Trinnov is a not starter.

So I may drink the cool-aid some day…spiked with tequila of course.

Cheers,
Dean

Talk about 'blanket' generalizing statements.


Maybe we should just start a poll: who is a fanboy and who are never-have-used-Audyssey-so-really-don't-know-it-works great haters?

Wow! I missed that one. Makes me feel a little bad quoting Dave when Randy serves up a big fat one like that right over the center of the plate.

I guess I’m on the blue team.

Ahh Dean, I thought you just liked me more.

Remember who I work for…so don’t ask and especially don't tell.