I'm wondering what the group's success and/or experience has been with digital room correction systems like Audyssey & Trinnov when used with the Axiom Surround speakers - QS4 / QS8.

My own experience is - ummm - nothing yet. But I understand that the processor listens in with microphone(s) and identifies various characterists of the sound source. In the case of these surrounds, you have mutiple speakers elements sending out sound in a multitude of directions, with even more reflecting surfaces, etc...

So what happens to the room correction readings and the resulting "maps"? Does it even get a reading?

I love Audyssey, can't comment on Trinnov. It has nothing to do with the sound source, it has to do with your rooms characteristics (every room is different) and adjusting the system to give you the best performance possible. Audyssey has a suite of products, it would be best to read the overview.

http://www.audyssey.com/technology/index.html

Axiomaholic,

I am interested in this one too. My amp uses this sort of system for the setup too. When I get my speakers mounted on the weekend, I'll have a play around.

If anyone has already played with this sort of thing and has some views, please speak up.

IMO these programs are flawed. Audyssey can't tell the difference between room and speaker deficiencies and will try to correct both. Well designed, linear speakers are in no need of these auto correction programs and room issues can be fixed with simple treatments.

My advice would be to still try audyssey with it on and off and see what you like best. What you like and thinks sounds best is all that matters in the end.

I feel that my room benefitted from running Audyssey, but I've not tried setting it up with an SPL meter or done much in the way of room treatments(thick rug over hardwood exception). People generally either love or hate Audyssey but I'd agree with what Doc says, give it a try and see if you like it.... it should get you in the ballpark.

I notice a huge difference for the better with Audyssey turned on. My room was treated by me with DIY acoustic panels and super chunk bass traps as well. Dr. have you actually tried Audyssey, and followed the correct setup instructions?

What is your factual basis to say it is flawed and that it can't accomplish what you say. I'm sure the creator of THX would love to have a chat with you.

thanks guys,

In my particular case, I'm playing with the new Trinnov. Here's a link to someone chatting about it: http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Sherwood-Newcastle-R-972-7-1-Channel-A-V-Surround-Receiver.shtml excerpt:"I hesitate to use the word "magic" -- this is, after all, based on solid acoustical science -- but I'm rather mystified by how natural the Trinnov Spatial Modes sound. It genuinely sounds like my front speakers are more than a foot to the left and right of their actual locations. The soundfield as a whole doesn't come off as even slightly processed."

I may go as Dr. House and keep it off, but it could be cool and I definetelty plan to play with it. However, back to origional question: which is not so much, is room correction good or bad, but does room correction work with the QS4's. I'd like some sense of result before I order.

Adrian - you mentioned some benefit from Audyssy - is that with QS4 or QS8's? Did you have any trouble getting a "read" on test tones coming from those speakers?

There is no harm in trying it out axiomholic. I would recommend doing critical analysis with Trinnov turned on and off (these programs add to the cost of the unit, mine as well try it). Its impossible to say what (if any) benefits this program will have. Every room is different, and there is also so many different variables involved in every setup.

Sorry folks,

I think I got confused, I was thinking of the auto surround calibration function with Recievers where you plug in a mic and put it where you sit and the amp calibrates itself.

Has a\nyone had much luck with QS8s with this mechanism?

As far as I know, no one's had any problem with the QS8s with this.

I've seen reports of Trinnov specifically failing with QS8s, and other di/bi-pole speakers. It uses the high frequency clicks to figure out where the speaker is in 3D space. The problem is speakers with 2 tweeters pointing in different directions seem to be in two places at the same time.

I guess Trinnov can't play "Where's Waldo".
As for another room correct system, Anthem's ARC doesn't have any problems with QS8 (graphs show some pretty hectic curves, though!).

Now, I'm confused, what were they talking about then??

And the forum claims two new victims!

Make that three.

That would be QS8's. I believe I've run Audyssey 3 times over the last year and I know my left surround is a bit iffy, in that Audyssey has given me some fairly different readings on that particular speaker(-3 to -6db). I'm thinking that because that side is fairly devoid of furniture and basically just bare drywall, it is boosting freq's so Audyssey is taming that. I'd feel better if I got consistant readings on that side though...maybe I'll try it again and see where it's at when I get time.

I ran audyssey when I first got my axioms and was not at all impressed. It turns out that I did not follow the instructions very well (I had the mic too close to a back wall, set mic to far outside the listening area (on my side couch.) I have run without it for almost 2 years. I just re-ran it this past weekend following all guides and FAQs to a T. It turns out that I still really don't care for it. It kills the bass on my m80's and makes the vocals sound "tinny". I re-ran it a second time just to make sure and it sounded the same.

I know a lot of people have said good things about Audyssey, but I have never experienced it. I am finding that it did a great job of setting my speakers distances and channel levels, but what sounds the best is the "EQ OFF" option that audyssey has

EDIT: FYI the version of Audyssey I have used is the MultiEQ XT that comes built in the Denon 3808. I do not have the "feature pack" upgrade (Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume.)

thanks guys...

point of clarification - yes - the room correction I'm talking about is where you have a microphone and your AV unit is programmed to send out a series of sounds. The unit them analyses sounds and offers you the option to pre-process your output so that after coming out of speakers and bouncing around your room, they sound closer to the engineer's intended reproduction.

I raised the question because I've hear of one guy who commented he was having an issue with Trinnov bring able to get an accurate "read" on the output of his di or bi pole surrounds. ClubNeon provided some good information --- the chirp, coupled with what may be Trinnov's better accuracy (i.e. lower tolerance for accepting a confusing signal) may make this challenging. But I'm getting ahead of myself - I don't want to pass judgement yet - although years in development - this is such a brand new unit that Neon and I may be talking about the same guy's experience... too small a sample obviously.

As a seller of both the newcastle and obviously favoring multi-pole design for their surrounds, hopefully the Axiom folks can do some testing and chime in on this pairing soon.

Any time I have spoke with someone from axiom they recommend to not use an EQ

Nut, a confusion sometimes arises because the auto-setup systems have two separate areas of operation: 1)calibrating speaker levels and delays for distance; 2)applying correction for room effects which apply to all speakers, regardless of their quality. As to auto-calibration, this is likely more accurate than can be done manually with a SPL meter, considering the added element of human error. Audyssey room correction, especially when combined with Dynamic EQ to compensate for lower volume levels, has been found to be quite effective by many(including me)and works well regardless of the dispersion characteristics of the speakers being used.

Thanks JohnK

The problem with the new Trinnov room correction software is that it doesn't use a single mic. Up until now the setup/correction software has just been concerned with frequency and time. Only the distance to the speaker was calculated. So they setup software would send out a click to each speaker and time how long it takes for the front edge of the sound pulse to reach the mic. That first blip would be considered the shortest distance from the speaker to the mic. Any additional sound would be from reflections.

Trinnov uses a 4-mic capsule. It doesn't just measure the time it takes for the rising edge of the click to reach one mic, it also uses the delay between each mic in the cluster. The mics are arranged in a 3D pattern that when knowing the slight delay between each one, you can compute the distance, angle around, and elevation above the measuring position. Trinnov uses this to virtually remap the speakers position in space (by mixing content into neighboring speakers with phase and delay adjustment). The problem comes when a speaker has more than one high frequency driver, and even more so when they are pointed in different directions. The mic cluster gets two rising edges, with a very small delay between them, and even worse each tweeter may be "heard" first by different mics. So the calculations are completely thrown off. The Trinnov processor either can't locate the speaker in space, or guesses its location completely wrong.

Hi Axiomoholic,

To paraphrase a famous psycho-acoustical scientist and former president of the Audio Engineering Society world-wide (Dr. Floyd Toole), a pod of 4 microphones (Trinnov) or various measurement locations (Audyssey) are no match for two ears and a brain, and manual calibration with an SPL meter.

As has been pointed out, these systems are error-prone with bipolar or dipolar surrounds and subwoofers. They have their greatest utility with inferior non-linear speakers. And as Sir Quack has pointed out, they may sometimes be effective with certain rooms.

Certainly try them out if your receiver came with them, but do not rely on them or view them as a magical electronic "fix" that will somehow be superior to what you can accomplish with your ears, a pink-noise signal and an SPL meter. Compare the results from manual calibration with either Audyssey or Trinnov turned on, then off. With smooth, highly linear speakers like Axioms, the use of the auto-EQ functions of either Audyssey or Trinnov usually result in degraded sound quality.

Regards,
Alan

Just to add one note on another correction method - I have a Pioneer receiver with the MCACC. I also let it do it's thing, but then turn off the EQ setting it comes up with as I also find the sound is just 'thinner' with the EQ engaged. I do however find the standing wave correction improves things in my room.

I find just the opposite with the Pioneer MCACC. The sound is fuller with the EQ setting turned on. It probably all depends on the room.

Fully agreed - for my room my treble goes up and bass goes down, just less depth/richness/texture with EQ on.

Hi axioomoholic,

I’d love to here your impressions of the R-972. I had waited months for it to finally start shipping because it looked like it would have a couple features I was very interested in including Trinnov, however when people started reporting all the flaws in the first units I deceded to skip this first generation of “affordable” Trinnov capable machines. I’m still interested in how weel it works with the QS style speakers, if the speaker remaping works well and AFAIR it was going to be capable of storing more than one calibration setup.

As for using Audyssey I’ve had mixed luck. (anticipating the inevitable question yes I’ve always followed the instructions in the thread at AVS to the letter). In my Denon Audyssey made my speakers sound hollow and tinny, however I have to believe there was something defective in that unit as no one could possible have deemed what I was hearing as an improvement.

In my present Onkyo Audyssey is also a mixed bag because of how they chose to implement it. Audyssey does a good job smoothing out the bass from my subwoofer however, it also rolls off the highs something I don’t like for most music. Unfortunately the Onkyo unlike the Denon doesn’t have the option to use a “Flat” curve only the “Audyssey” curve which rolls off the highs. Some have suggested I just boost the treble when using Audyssey but it just doesn’t sound the same.

So for me right now I turn Audyssey on for movies and games but off for music.

I haven’t detected any problems so far with the QS8 when using Audyssey in 3 different rooms.

Have you looked to see if your Onkyo can be upgraded to Audyssey Pro? It's about $500 for the kit and the license, but it does allow for custom curves, and more measurement locations to be averaged together.

No I haven’t looked into it, but I will check it out. However, I based on the results I’ve heard with the stock Audyssey setup I can’t imagine giving them another $500 especially considering there are at lest 15 things I can think of off the top of my head that will improve my listening viewing experience better than a more expensive version of Audyssey.

I haven’t really looked but have you seen any independent testing done to verify what Audyssey is really doing (results), as I understand the concept. Everyone seems to have an opinion on how it great/poorly it works but getting any real information seems hard to come by.

I also very much dislike the way Audyssey changes the sound of my speakers. I find it accentuates the highs and makes them sound "bright". I also don't like how it plays with my subwoofer, as Alan mentioned.

Question-Some of you guys mentioned that it makes your Axioms sound "tinny", is that a nice way of saying "bright"? Just trying to learn.

Thanks

Often the people that downplay Audyssey have never tested it, so their comments are useless or hearsay. I can say with my Axiom speakers which are not inferior, switching Audyssey off/on it is clear winner what sounds better to "my ears", which is what is important. Also, the graphs don't lie either on a flatter FR.

That goes for everything, and unfortunately it easily outweighs empiricism IMO.

When I say tinny I usually say it as “hollow and tinny” the way it sounds when you string to tin cans together and try to talk between them. On my Denon I could get a snapshot of what was causing this by copying over the Audyssey curve to the manual EQ and was seeing a -6dB to -9dB cut in the 125Hz -500Hz ranges. I came to believe it was a defect in the equipment, however I’ve heard of enough other people describing the same thing that I’m not sure about that.

So if someone wants to simulate what I was hearing from Audyssey on my Denon just use manual EQ to lower that those frequency bands 6-9dB and have a listen. Then try to tell me that it sounds right better with a straight face.

OTOH I’m not have that problem with my new Onkyo, however because that problem is gone I can now easily hear the high frequency roll off of the Audyssey curve. It kills the ambience in most of my music.

I think it is definitly more room dependent than we are led to believe. I liked my system with Audyssey on but I also liked it with it off. I found the system sounded more open and airy with Audyssey running than with it off, but by no means did it ever sound bad without it.

Just too many vairables involved IMHO for blanket statements (for or against Audyssey) to be made. It's subjective as well; two people can react differntly to the same result just based on personal preferences. Basically, I say if you have it then try it, and if you don't like the results then leave it off. Personally I like what it does for me, but that may change once I try it with the Axiom's.

Randy is right the graphs don’t lie. The Audyssey curve has a high frequency roll off which is exactly the design feature exhibited by many speakers which I bought Axiom’s to avoid. Now if your processor allows the selection of the “Flat” curve then you won’t have that problem however not all manufactures allow that choice.

I downplay Audyssey because I have tested it dozens of times and found it is not the end all and be all of home audio. It’s a tool and like any other piece of equipment it has it’s plusses and minuses. If it was ideal in it’s standard implementation they wouldn’t be selling a “pro” version for those who want more or something different out of it than what Audyssey has decided is best for the masses.

As I’ve mentioned before in my system the benefit is tighter smoother sounding bass from the LFE channel at the expense of less ambience from the rest of my speakers. This fits perfectly with how Audyssey describes their system working. It has a finer filter applied to the LFE channel and the Audyssey curve rolls off the highs. So for me the choice is easy to use Audyssey for movies but not for music.

I would also reiterate that besides being room and listener dependent as just mentioned Audyssey is also speaker dependent as mentioned earlier which is why Audyssey recommends only using direct radiating speakers. IMO selecting speakers based on the EQ program your planning to use is a little backwards as I’d prefer to select the speakers I want and then use EQ if it benefits.

Can you choose different curves on the 3808? If so, how do you go about it?

Thanks

Yes, go into the menu audio parameters section.

Audyssey works out well for me, but I don't have any QS series speakers yet.

Like grunt, I'm finding that I like the sound better using the Flat curve on my Denon 590 than the Audyssey curve. I'd imagine that you would be able to select between the different curves on the 3808 with just a push of a button. I can go between Audyssey, Flat, Manual, and Off by pressing the MultEQ button on my remote.

Thanks guys. I took a look at the manual on my computer, and surprise surprise, I couldn't find anything illustrating how to choose different curves.

True that. A PS3 with a few games and a handful of blu-ray disks or Auddyssey . You can get an OPPO BDP-83 for around $500 as well .

Just a thought here guys - from a complete amateur,

Why don't you run audyssey with some el cheapo sides to get the room calibration and then plug in the axiom qs8s. If the sw is ignorant of multi/dipole speakers, why not give it what it assumes and then introduce the real speakers.

Of course, this is coming from someone who won't be hearing the QS8s until tomorrow afternoon when i install them...

But the other speakers wouldn't have the same sensitivity as the QSxs, most likely, so the calibration would be totally invalid.

Ack. Understood.

I'm thinking that may work to some degree if the frequency response and sensitivity of the two sets of speakers are similar. Of course you can always go in and manually change the setup too.

"that may work to some degree if the frequency response and sensitivity of the two sets of speakers are similar"

Maybe Axiom could throw in some free M3s with every Qs8 sold?

hehehe

Audyssey, if run correctly, make my Qs8's perform better than regular calibration using an SPL meter, built in pink noise, DVE, etc...

jm2c

Exact same thing here!

I didn't realize this question would bring on so many response, thanks all for your input!

I learned a bit more about trinnov, and why any di-pole / bi-pole speakers could be misread by the series of mics that unit uses.

Someone also had great advice in saying don't let the audio correction tech dictate the choice of speakers.

But all in all, in not sure I'm much further ahead. I could certinaly be wrong, but I think Trinnov's going to be a whole new league - and I'd like to have the option to use it when appropriate. BUT, I also want the highly praised attributes that the QS speakers will surely bring to my less than ideal room.

The r-972's on the way now - finally - so I'll first focus on learning its cababilities before I get surrounds speakers - and hopefully, in time, I'll be able to get some more feekback on how trinnov operates with bi-poles (if at all) before I have to make a decision.

hmmm.. maybe a future software firmware trinnov upgrade will let you designate that bi-poles are in use, and it could modify its reading technique to "protect" itself against getting confised by numerious incoming sound waves... hint - hint.. ?

S/N and by association, Trinnov, are aware of the problem with multi-poled speakers.

I am not sure why Audyssey does this but here is what the EQ curve looks like if I use the "Copy Audyssey Flat" option for the manual EQ. Curve shown is for the m80's, so you can see why there is a serious lack of bass when the EQ curve is on.

Is that for the left or right M80? Is that particular speaker located in/near a corner? Audyssey must be picking up (or think it's picking up) too much base for some reason.

Dean, I wasn't aware of your high frequency roll-off problem with the Onkyo. Although it's correct that Onkyo doesn't provide a separate manual setting to specifically choose between the "Audyssey" and "Flat" curves, that doesn't mean that it can't be done to suit your preference. This has been discussed in several posts, especially on AVS, and the best summary of the options that I can recall is at p.366 of the "Audyssey" thread here , where Rickard from Stockholm describes his excellent study of the issue. You'd presumably be interested in his "a" and "b" categories which allow selecting the "Flat" curve. For example, for music, DPLIIx THX Music could be used.

David, you may be misinterpreting the so-called "copy" feature on the Denon. First, as Dr. Kyriakakis has emphasized, it doesn't in fact copy the many adjustments which Audyssey makes and is just a "crude"(his language)representation at a few specific frequencies. Also, if you're implying that the 63Hz number shown is the actual response at that frequency, that isn't correct; it's the approximate change being made at that frequency, presumably because an elevated room response near that frequency needs to be reduced.

The only way I know to get a close idea of what audyssey has done is to utilize the copy feature. I read in another thread that the manual EQ (even with the copy feature) does not use all of the audyssey corrections.

With the EQ on, the speakers sound REALLY thin and lacking of bass. I think it is over compensating for some reason and turning things down a little too much.

The EQ curve shown is the one for "fronts" not a specific speaker. The right M80 is a a few feet from a corner and the left m80 is a few feet from the hallway and opening into the kitchen. When viewed separately, both speakers get a similar adjustment as shown above

This is using Audyssey or Audyssey Flat (ie. not Audyssey Bypass L/R)? Something's not right then because based on your description of where your mains are located, they should be gettig results that are different not similar.

Also, make sure your receiver has the most current firmware. Updates for my Denon supposedly corrected some Audyssey flaws.

Thanks John, he tried to explain that to me in one of the Onkyo X007 threads at AVS but I he didn’t link to that post and I couldn’t understand what he was trying to get at. If I’m reading that list correctly only the THX modes use the Flat curve which then give the option of using Re-Eq but doesn’t require it. I’ve always been using Cinema, Music and Game up to now which explains why I’m always hearing the roll off of the Audyssey reference curve.

I’ll give those a try this weekend after I rerun the calibration since I just put up my curtains which I’m sure completely destroyed the curve Audyssey already calculated.

I will have to ask him if the flat curve also applies to DPLIIz THX which would make sense if it applies to DPLIIx THX.

Cam –

Copying curves is slightly misleading. From my understanding, if you copy the curve and make manual changes, you cripple Audyssey. In effect, you remove all the filters and are basically using the manual EQ function. I’ll let someone else who understands this program better than go into further detail.

I have had good luck with Audyssey. I prefer it on.

I would also add that all receiver based Audyssey programs are drastically scaled down versions of their stand alone system. Receivers just don’t have the processing horse power required to run the full blown program. It’s almost like taking a knife to a gun fight. You can only do so much with the knife.

Thanks, I don't know any of the steps, i.e. copying curves to change them to flat etc.

I may have done things wrong as well but I can say that in my particular room, the results sound much closer to those described by some as 'thin'. I hate fluffy words for describing sound but that one comes the closest in my mind. I am much happier not using it.

Cam, there's no way to manually "tweak" the many adjustments that Audyssey makes in the frequency and time domains. The one option that the Denons include is to select either the "Audyssey" or "Flat" curve. They're identical except that the "Audyssey" curve includes a small high frequency roll-off(2dB per octave above about 4KHz as best as I can tell)which can be helpful on some material with an over-emphasis in the high frequencies.

I've been very interested in the information of this thread. I've had my Axiom system running for about 4 months now (M22s, VP150, QS4s)...when I first purchased my Denon receiver, I blindly ran the Audyssey Auto Calibration. Ever since then, I have been running with the MultiEQ turned...I never turned it off to hear the difference because I figured "the receiver knows best!" I know, I know...it was a newbie mistake.

Anyway, this morning, I pulled out my RadioShack analog sound meter and tape measure and manually calibrated speaker distance and volume level using the built in receiver test tones. Then I turned off Audyssey. WHAT A DIFFERENCE!!

I've been listening to many albums listed in the "Stunning recordings" thread and while many times people describe the musicians as seeming to be in the room with them, I have not experienced this. After turning off Audyssey, I can finally say that I understand now what people are talking about! Vocals are full and rich...and I was amazed that I can hear the subtle sounds of the singers inhalations. Amazing! Like others have said, the Audyssey MultiEQ calibration just sounds flat, thin, and lifeless. I feel like I've lost 4 months of my life

After saying all of this, I do actually have one question for the knowledgeable people on this forum. When I first set up my system, I did check the speaker volume levels with my sound meter, making sure they were all at 75db. This morning when I redid the calibration, I noticed that my right main speaker had become much "quieter"...in other words, I had to turn the channel level up by 2.0db to bring the level back to 75db. Nothing has changed in my setup or room. Is this amount of volume change natural as the speakers "age?" Is there something I should be concerned about or check into? Thanks in advance!

First, in anticipation of those who will assume you didn’t properly set up Audyessy here is the “’Official’Audyessy thread” with a detailed setup guide just in case.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14456895#post14456895

Second, about your right main speaker. I’m guessing there’s probably not anything wrong. I’ve had speakers measure up to 2dB-3dB different just by moving the SPL meter a few inches in either direction if the speaker was near a wall or other object that sound waves could reflect off. Moving the speaker or seating or any objects near them could also effect it including adding/deleting a rug literally anything. Just angling the meter a little more toward or away from the speaker could change the reading 2dB. If you really suspect something is up with speaker check each driver to make sure it’s working. It’s possible wires got disconnected or the a driver just failed, but my guess it’s just a measurement anomaly. Also since you just now discovered it with the meter I’m guessing you never noticed it while listening. Meters and test/calibration equipment have driven many an enthusiast insane.

You’re findings about Audyssey sound similar to mine. I just don’t like what it does to my best recorded music. If you do rerun Audyssey I suggest you first tweak your setup to get it sounding the best you can to your ears w/o using EQ and then try Audyssey again to see if it helps. Also if you Denon was like mine it give the option of selecting several Audyssey curves of which I found the “Flat” curve did the least damage to good recordings.

Thanks grunt!

Checked the drivers in my M22, everything seems fine...all connections are okay as well. I will chalk this up to "speaker abnormality" for now...and will check again with the SPL in a few weeks!

Yes, my Denon has the choice of several Audyssey curves. Just curious, I don't understand how the "Flat" curve is any different than having MultiEQ turned off?

Turning EQ off just means your speakers are not using the room correction EQ curve calculated when you ran the setup. The Audyssey reference curve I think Denon just calls it “Audyssey” tries to correct for room speaker interaction to give you a flat frequency response but near the top end it roll off I think John mentioned at -2dB/octave. Not a huge amount but noticeable to me. The “Flat” curve tries to maintain a flat frequency response all the way across.

Some people like the high frequency roll off because some recording have a high frequency boost or are just poorly mastered and this sort of tames them. I don’t like it because much of the music I listen to has a lot of ambience which the roll off ruins for me.

I cut and pasted this from the AVS forum, where a similiar discussion was talking place.

The following is from the VP of director and market for Sherwood Newcastle, pretty encouraging for me...

"While bipole and dipole speakers can be more difficult to locate, our office system and my home system both utilize dipole surround speakers without issue with the current R-972 firmware. Early editions of the firmware were usually but not always successful. I have also successfully calibrated systems using planar magnetic speakers with the R-972 and Curt has similar success with Accoustat type planar electrostats. If we can get an unambiguous signal at 5 kHz, speaker recognition and accurate localization should not be a problem. Jeff"

I expect to be calibrating QS4s in a few days using the MCACC systems in one or two of my Pioneer receivers, and I'll report back if anything special happens. But since I'm not set up to measure the frequency response of my system, it's hard to imagine what I could tell you about calibrating the QS4s specifically.

I wouldn't trust these reports one hears that a calibration failed for certain speakers. What people usually mean is that the speaker distances detected are not the same as what they measure with a tape. Well, who cares about that? If you think your tape measure will give better results for calculating delays than the acoustic distance, you can simply set the distances manually. Measuring distances is not what you need an automatic calibration system for -- it's just a minor convenience.

I really, really like MCACC. I've spent many hours with a Radio Shack sound pressure meter and various calibration DVDs, but never had much confidence that I was actually improving the sound of my system. MCACC relieves you of the drudgery and uncertainty of using an SPM, and lets you do several calibrations, then sit back in your chair and listen to program material, flipping back and forth among your calibrations, to judge which is best. You just can't do that using only an SPM.

I know about Audessey and Trinnov only from reading reviews and user comments. Audessey does not seem to provide much user control, and I'm a fiddler, myself. The Trinnov system sounds very interesting, but the Sherwood Anderson receiver that has it is much too expensive, for me. One of my 7.1 Pioneer receivers with MCACC, the 817, cost me $146 last summer with free shipping from Amazon. There is no way I would ever, ever pay $1800 for a receiver.

The current Pioneer receivers do not handle height or wide speakers, unfortunately, but I'm hoping this year's models will. Now I have enough speakers to add height, but not yet a receiver to power them. More expensive Pioneer receivers than mine do know how to equalize subwoofers, but mine does not, so that's something else I'll be looking for (preferably handling at least two subs) in my next receiver. I might have to get an Onkyo and deal with Audessey.