YPAO vs Audyssey

[erict]

Has anyone that used YPAO and switch to a receiver that has Audyssey found their speakers sounding even better? It just seems Audyssey is a tweakers best friend unlike YPAO.

[centauro74]

Me me me, My son burn my 663, I bought my denon 3311ci and what a difference the surrounds are more present and the image is amazing now. Before I used to increase the center channel couple db higher cause was to soft in some movies, now I don't need that anymore, I can just turn Vol Eq Day and
buala.

[erict]

Originally Posted by centauro74

Me me me, My son burn my 663, I bought my denon 3311ci and what a difference the surrounds are more present and the image is amazing now. Before I used to increase the center channel couple db higher cause was to soft in some movies, now I don't need that anymore, I can just turn Vol Eq Day and
buala.

That seems to be the consensus from what I have read about Audyssey. Anyone else?

[rpatt]

Sounds like you're contemplating a move to a pre/pro Eric.

[Spurrier Sucks]

More opinions would be great. I am giving a hard look at making a switch also.

[erict]

Originally Posted by rpatt

Sounds like you're contemplating a move to a pre/pro Eric.

Why yes I am

[erict]

Originally Posted by Spurrier Sucks

More opinions would be great. I am giving a hard look at making a switch also.

My 663 has been a great receiver but I really believe there is more to be had out of my gear audio wise if I step into the world of Audyssey. YPAO is just to basic and not a tweakers friend. I just want to get a dedicated pre/pro that utilizes Audyssey.

[rpatt]

Originally Posted by erict

Why yes I am

I've been keeping my eye on the Marantz AV7005 & AV8003 on ebay. Accessories4less has had the AV8003 for as low as $1200. It seems that the AV7005 is too new to get a low price on. What have you been looking at?

[LordoftheRings]

Me personal opinion about Audyssey, YPAO, and Advanced MCACC Auto Room Calibration & EQ systems.

Audyssey is a much more sophisticated system that employs several digital FIR filters (Finite Impulse Response) of much finer resolution and in particular in the Bass where it counts the most!
And not only it applies those filters in the full Audio Frequency Range (from 10 Hz to 24 Khz in products that have at least Audyssey MultEQ, but also in the Time Domain to take into consideration the first reflections in your room, which are from your walls, ceiling and floor).

There are several threads here at Blu-ray Forum (one of them is a 'Sticky' by Big Daddy) which explain the 'inflections' of the Audyssey system.
Please refer to them, and see for yourself if you consider Audyssey to be a superior system with way more digital filters of much higher resolution.

For me, it definitively is! You don't need to be an expert to understand and to verify/confirm why!

This being said,m there will always be some compromises when using digital EQ in any system. And what might works great with Movies might no be as good with serious Music two-channel Stereo listening. YMMV

And there are other people that like to manually 'tweak' by themselves!

But there is no doubt in my mind that a system like Audyssey MultEQ XT32 is one if not the very best out there, among ARC from the Anthem Statement D2v/ARC1 pre/pro ($7,500), with it's combination of both FIR and IIR (Infinite Impulse Response) digital filters, better than the Parametric variety with separate 'Q' adjustment, but which works only in the Audio Frequency spectrum with very limited bands.
There is also TRINNOV, that works in the Frequency audio Range and Time Domain as well, but adds 3D Remapping with Horizontal and Vertical plane dimensions. And it also adds manual parameter adjustments as well separate target curves that you can select from its memory. It also has a Center channel 'Lift'. Plus you can change the position of any speakers in your room!
But TRINNOV is not popular YET because of only one consumer product from the Sherwood Newcastle AV receiver, the R-972 which have few flaws in the implementation of its HDMI connections plus others...
And we don't know just yet about their newer receiver, the R-876.

It is all a question of intelligent implementation of these various systems and their true efficiency.
And Audyssey has a long proven experience so far, and for me as well several other people it works good enough to be the top gun in our list!
>>> Just check the "Official Audyssey Thread" over at AVS Forum! That should be your very best indicator with the HUGE amount od posts and viewings!

One last thing: Audyssey takes 6, 8, or up to 32 mic positioning measurements in your room, to give you a much more accurate reading of your overall room acoustics! It is from a much larger and overall balanced area where more people could enjoy different seating positions! And not just one person!
Room acoustics are not from only one position in your room, but from several more!
A Parametric Equalizer only works for only ONE SINGLE position! And you need much more than only seven, nine, ten, or fifteen bands EQ!
The more capable separate ones (Rane, Soundcraftsmen, mini-DSP, Anti-mode, Behringer, etc.) use thirty bands or so, plus some specifically for the lower bass frequencies (Subwoofer).

It is in the Bass, below about 300 or 250 Hz that digital EQs are most useful!
A separate Subwoofer EQ is a very good thing (essential) to have the very Best Balance of Bass in your room! And you also need a good mic, like an ECM8000 or similar, with a Phantom Power (pre/amp), and also you need to take measurements in your computer from a system like REW equalization & measurement.

* There are tons of information at "The Shack" and several other Audio Forums on REW. And there are other systems as well, free programs from your PC.

Hope this helps a bit to align you in the right direction, and with a basic and important set of information.

Cheers,
Bob

[erict]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Me personal opinion about Audyssey, YPAO, and Advanced MCACC Auto Room Calibration & EQ systems.

Audyssey is a much more sophisticated system that employs several digital FIR filters (Finite Impulse Response) of much finer resolution and in particular in the Bass where it counts the most!
And not only it applies those filters in the full Audio Frequency Range (from 10 Hz to 24 Khz in products that have at least Audyssey MultEQ, but also in the Time Domain to take into consideration the first reflections in your room, which are from your walls, ceiling and floor).

There are several threads here at Blu-ray Forum (one of them is a 'Sticky' by Big Daddy) which explain the 'inflections' of the Audyssey system.
Please refer to them, and see for yourself if you consider Audyssey to be a superior system with way more digital filters of much higher resolution.

For me, it definitively is! You don't need to be an expert to understand and to verify/confirm why!

This being said,m there will always be some compromises when using digital EQ in any system. And what might works great with Movies might no be as good with serious Music two-channel Stereo listening. YMMV

And there are other people that like to manually 'tweak' by themselves!

But there is no doubt in my mind that a system like Audyssey MultEQ XT32 is one if not the very best out there, among ARC from the Anthem Statement D2v/ARC1 pre/pro ($7,500), with it's combination of both FIR and IIR (Infinite Impulse Response) digital filters, better than the Parametric variety with separate 'Q' adjustment, but which works only in the Audio Frequency spectrum with very limited bands.
There is also TRINNOV, that works in the Frequency audio Range and Time Domain as well, but adds 3D Remapping with Horizontal and Vertical plane dimensions. And it also adds manual parameter adjustments as well separate target curves that you can select from its memory. It also has a Center channel 'Lift'. Plus you can change the position of any speakers in your room!
But TRINNOV is not popular YET because of only one consumer product from the Sherwood Newcastle AV receiver, the R-972 which have few flaws in the implementation of its HDMI connections plus others...
And we don't know just yet about their newer receiver, the R-876.

It is all a question of intelligent implementation of these various systems and their true efficiency.
And Audyssey has a long proven experience so far, and for me as well several other people it works good enough to be the top gun in our list!
>>> Just check the "Official Audyssey Thread" over at AVS Forum! That should be your very best indicator with the HUGE amount od posts and viewings!

One last thing: Audyssey takes 6, 8, or up to 32 mic positioning measurements in your room, to give you a much more accurate reading of your overall room acoustics! It is from a much larger and overall balanced area where more people could enjoy different seating positions! And not just one person!
Room acoustics are not from only one position in your room, but from several more!
A Parametric Equalizer only works for only ONE SINGLE position! And you need much more than only seven, nine, ten, or fifteen bands EQ!
The more capable separate ones (Rane, Soundcraftsmen, mini-DSP, Anti-mode, Behringer, etc.) use thirty bands or so, plus some specifically for the lower bass frequencies (Subwoofer).

It is in the Bass, below about 300 or 250 Hz that digital EQs are most useful!
A separate Subwoofer EQ is a very good thing (essential) to have the very Best Balance of Bass in your room! And you also need a good mic, like an ECM8000 or similar, with a Phantom Power (pre/amp), and also you need to take measurements in your computer from a system like REW equalization & measurement.

* There are tons of information at "The Shack" and several other Audio Forums on REW. And there are other systems as well, free programs from your PC.

Hope this helps a bit to align you in the right direction, and with a basic and important set of information.

Cheers,
Bob

Bob, thank you for your input You bring up that a separate subwoofer Eq being essential. Is this what the Audyssey Sub EQ HT does? I see that this is only included with MulyEQ-XT32. Is this something that is used separately (separate setting)or is it automatically implemented within Audyssey?

http://www.audyssey.com/aboutus/pres...y-now-on-avrs-

[Spurrier Sucks]

Originally Posted by erict

My 663 has been a great receiver but I really believe there is more to be had out of my gear audio wise if I step into the world of Audyssey. YPAO is just to basic and not a tweakers friend. I just want to get a dedicated pre/pro that utilizes Audyssey.

I feel the same about my Ymaha. I've just read reviews of Audyssey and it has me curious, plus I've really been wanting to give Marantz or Denon a try.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by erict

Bob, thank you for your input You bring up that a separate subwoofer Eq being essential. Is this what the Audyssey Sub EQ HT does? I see that this is only included with MulyEQ-XT32. Is this something that is used separately (separate setting)or is it automatically implemented within Audyssey?

http://www.audyssey.com/aboutus/pres...y-now-on-avrs-

Audyssey Sub EQ HT is already implemented in receivers like the Onkyo 3007, 5007, 3008, 5008 and also some higher end Denon receivers.
It is part of Audyssey and is included on those products.

And it is only to Calibrate TWO Subwoofers, independently and with a final summed up response. And it is similar to the Audyssey separate Sub EQ.
But the Separate adds more to regular Audyssey MultEQ and MultEQ XT (512 x Resolution) or the same as Audyssey MultEQ XT32.

Lol, it is complex when you don't know, but it is very simple when you do.
You just have to be familiar with the different flavors of Audyssey and their overall Resolution.

And there are other separate digital Sub EQ systems as well from different companies.

But Eric, with a receiver or pre/pro that has Audyssey MultEQ XT32, you have an incredible amount of Resolution.
The people that get a Separate Sub EQ is because they can use the REW system to perfectly tweak the response of the bass in their room.
The difference with the integrated Audyssey in pre/pros and receivers is that you CANNOT manually adjust the response. And in the Bass it is highly desireable that you do so.

So the pros of balanced Bass normally use a separate digital Sub EQ in which they can manually adjust the Bass frequency response. And by using a PC software system like REW with graphs that represent what is recorded in your room.

[sandman922]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Audyssey Sub EQ HT is already implemented in receivers like the Onkyo 3007, 5007, 3008, 5008 and also some higher end Denon receivers.
It is part of Audyssey and is included on those products.

And it is only to Calibrate TWO Subwoofers, independently and with a final summed up response. And it is similar to the Audyssey separate Sub EQ.
But the Separate adds more to regular Audyssey MultEQ and MultEQ XT (512 x Resolution) or the same as Audyssey MultEQ XT32.

Lol, it is complex when you don't know, but it is very simple when you do.
You just have to be familiar with the different flavors of Audyssey and their overall Resolution.

And there are other separate digital Sub EQ systems as well from different companies.

But Eric, with a receiver or pre/pro that has Audyssey MultEQ XT32, you have an incredible amount of Resolution.
The people that get a Separate Sub EQ is because they can use the REW system to perfectly tweak the response of the bass in their room.
The difference with the integrated Audyssey in pre/pros and receivers is that you CANNOT manually adjust the response. And in the Bass it is highly desireable that you do so.

So the pros of balanced Bass normally use a separate digital Sub EQ in which they can manually adjust the Bass frequency response. And by using a PC software system like REW with graphs that represent what is recorded in your room.

i can honestly say my 5008 produces some sweet bass from my two subs me likey some audyssey xt 32

[LordoftheRings]

If I may say: Yamaha receivers are great receivers, in particular their newer Aventage line. They may not have Audyssey but their YPAO implementation is not bad; some people like to tweak manually (if they know what they're doing though), and Yamaha basic sound quality is in my opinion one of the very best! Detailed, affirmed, strong presence, good depth, tight bass with natural punch, and just simply NATURAL.

Personally I prefer the basic sound quality of Yamaha receivers (higher model ones though) over Denons, Onkyos, Marantzs and Pioneers.

For two-channel Stereo listening without any DSP or Auto EQ; just direct Stereo, they are the very best!
And for Movies too they are excellent, very clean, clear, and precise!
Plus their DSPs are theee very best out there, period!

* It all boils down to PREFERENCE!
Me I really like what Audyssey does for my Subs! With Movies.
For Music, I NEVER use Audyssey. I'd rather use my Yamaha receiver of yesteryear for that duty.

See, it ain't that easy after all! You have to know your priorities and also listen to different ones to find out which one is the right one for you.
Then you live with it till it becomes obsolete in the technologies department!

And there are people that use two or more system setups (like me) and that is the best way I think.
But most people use only one system, and some use it 50/50 for both Movies & Music, and others more for Movies (lots of people here I believe), and few with the emphasis on Music (but these people usually choose a high-end receiver; like a Lexicon one, or an Anthem one, or an Arcam one, or a Rotel one, or a McIntosh one, or ...a Yamaha RX-Z11, or a Denon AVR-5308CI, or a Pioneer Elite SC-09TX, or a Sony ES STR-DA5600ES,
or an HK AVR 7550HD, or a NAD T785, or an Integra DTR-80.2, or an Onkyo TX-NR5008, or they simply go for separates).

Bob

[sandman922]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

If I may say: Yamaha receivers are great receivers, in particular their newer Aventage line. They may not have Audyssey but their YPAO implementation is not bad; some people like to tweak manually (if they know what they're doing though), and Yamaha basic sound quality is in my opinion one of the very best! Detailed, affirmed, strong presence, good depth, tight bass with natural punch, and just simply NATURAL.

Personally I prefer the basic sound quality of Yamaha receivers (higher model ones though) over Denons, Onkyos, Marantzs and Pioneers.

For two-channel Stereo listening without any DSP or Auto EQ; just direct Stereo, they are the very best!
And for Movies too they are excellent, very clean, clear, and precise!
Plus their DSPs are theee very best out there, period!

* It all boils down to PREFERENCE!
Me I really like what Audyssey does for my Subs! With Movies.
For Music, I NEVER use Audyssey. I'd rather use my Yamaha receiver of yesteryear for that duty.

See, it ain't that easy after all! You have to know your priorities and also listen to different ones to find out which one is the right for you.
Then you live with it till it is obsolete in the technologies department!

And there are people that use two or more system setups (like me) and that is the best way I think.
But most people use only one system, and some use it 50/50 for both Movies & Music, and others more for Movies (lots of people here I believe), and few for the emphasis on Music (but these people usually choose a High-End receiver, like a Lexicon one, or an Anthem one, or an Arcam one, or a Rotel one, or a McIntosh one, or ...a Yamaha RX-Z11, or a Denon AVR-5308CI, or a Pioneer Elite SC-09TX, or a Sony ES STR-DA5600ES,
or an HK AVR 7550HD, or a NAD T785, or an Integra DTR-80.2, or an Onkyo TX-NR5008, or they simply go for separates).

yea i only use audyssey for movies for music i prefer pure audio, who suggested that to meit was you boblook what you've gone and done

[erict]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

If I may say: Yamaha receivers are great receivers, in particular their newer Aventage line. They may not have Audyssey but their YPAO implementation is not bad; some people like to tweak manually (if they know what they're doing though), and Yamaha basic sound quality is in my opinion one of the very best! Detailed, affirmed, strong presence, good depth, tight bass with natural punch, and just simply NATURAL.

Personally I prefer the basic sound quality of Yamaha receivers (higher model ones though) over Denons, Onkyos, Marantzs and Pioneers.

For two-channel Stereo listening without any DSP or Auto EQ; just direct Stereo, they are the very best!
And for Movies too they are excellent, very clean, clear, and precise!
Plus their DSPs are theee very best out there, period!

* It all boils down to PREFERENCE!
Me I really like what Audyssey does for my Subs! With Movies.
For Music, I NEVER use Audyssey. I'd rather use my Yamaha receiver of yesteryear for that duty.

See, it ain't that easy after all! You have to know your priorities and also listen to different ones to find out which one is the right for you.
Then you live with it till it is obsolete in the technologies department!

And there are people that use two or more system setups (like me) and that is the best way I think.
But most people use only one system, and some use it 50/50 for both Movies & Music, and others more for Movies (lots of people here I believe), and few for the emphasis on Music (but these people usually choose a High-End receiver, like a Lexicon one, or an Anthem one, or an Arcam one, or a Rotel one, or a McIntosh one, or ...a Yamaha RX-Z11, or a Denon AVR-5308CI, or a Pioneer Elite SC-09TX, or a Sony ES STR-DA5600ES,
or an HK AVR 7550HD, or a NAD T785, or an Integra DTR-80.2, or an Onkyo TX-NR5008, or they simply go for separates).

Bob you bring up some good points. I do love the sound of my Yamaha but was thinking I could gain more using Audyssey. It's a tough choice and I do like the new aventage line. Maybe YPAO isn't that bad I'm all movies and not music.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by erict

Bob you bring up some good points. I do love the sound of my Yamaha but was thinking I could gain more using Audyssey. It's a tough choice and I do like the new aventage line. Maybe YPAO isn't that bad I'm all movies and not music.

Hey Eric, change is good too.

[erict]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Hey Eric, change is good too.

You are correct and all options are open

[Spurrier Sucks]

WOW! After reading through this and another thread like this at the emolounge I am more confused and less sure about change now. I may just go out and actually listen to what I can before making a decision. Thanks LOTR for making this an easy process.

[erict]

Originally Posted by Spurrier Sucks

WOW! After reading through this and another thread like this at the emolounge I am more confused and less sure about change now. I may just go out and actually listen to what I can before making a decision. Thanks LOTR for making this an easy process.

Makes you..... doesn't it