Audessey vs MCACC vs YPAO

[PlacervilleGuy]

When I bought my Pioneer Elite AVR, oh about 7 -8 years ago, automatic setup and room correction systems were fairly new, and those who employed them had their own proprietary systems. These "auto-setup routines" were mostly panned in the AV press as "dubiously effective" to "I left it off".

When I bought my Pioneer, their MCACC system had been getting moderately better press, and I've been pretty happy with it. I am one of the folks who finds it works pretty well, and definatly makes music sound better.

However, in the intervening years, Audessey came along and in a few short years became THE auto-setup and auto-EQ technology in the AV industry. If the AV press is to be taken at it's word, it is the ONLY one that "actually works". At least it is the only one that the AV press seems to actually USE and like the result.

Audessey's big trump seems to be that their algorithm uses 3 - 8 measurement positions, where my unit with MCACC only does ONE.

But I just read a review of Pioneer's new Elite AVR and the reviewer stated that MCACC "made everything good". This is the first reviewer I've seen who made positive statements about a non-Audessey auto-setup. So, my question is, has Pioneer updated it's MCACC to try to compete with Audessey, in that MCACC now also measures multiple seating locations, and does a good job of it? And what about Yamaha's YPAO? Who's got the best room-correcting auto EQ??

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by PlacervilleGuy

When I bought my Pioneer Elite AVR, oh about 7 -8 years ago, automatic setup and room correction systems were fairly new, and those who employed them had their own proprietary systems. These "auto-setup routines" were mostly panned in the AV press as "dubiously effective" to "I left it off".

When I bought my Pioneer, their MCACC system had been getting moderately better press, and I've been pretty happy with it. I am one of the folks who finds it works pretty well, and definatly makes music sound better.

However, in the intervening years, Audessey came along and in a few short years became THE auto-setup and auto-EQ technology in the AV industry. If the AV press is to be taken at it's word, it is the ONLY one that "actually works". At least it is the only one that the AV press seems to actually USE and like the result.

Audessey's big trump seems to be that their algorithm uses 3 - 8 measurement positions, where my unit with MCACC only does ONE.

But I just read a review of Pioneer's new Elite AVR and the reviewer stated that MCACC "made everything good". This is the first reviewer I've seen who made positive statements about a non-Audessey auto-setup. So, my question is, has Pioneer updated it's MCACC to try to compete with Audessey, in that MCACC now also measures multiple seating locations, and does a good job of it? And what about Yamaha's YPAO? Who's got the best room-correcting auto EQ??

I can't speak for Auydessey or YPAO, but I attached some info from Pioneer's website that discusses the nuances of MCACC and how it is applied....

MCACC stands for Multi-Channel Acoustic Calibration System.

It's an automatic sound field adjustment system that enables you to precision-tune your system to your living room, just like a sound professional, but with minimum effort.

A microphone monitors the sound environment and an equaliser (either 5 or 9-band, depending on which model of amplifier you have) optimally adjusts the sound parameters.

The result sounds like a professional recording engineer has fine-tuned your amplifier or home cinema system.

MCACC was created as a joint effort between ourselves and professional sound engineers at AIR Studios; it's unique to Pioneer, so you won't find it on any other products.

http://www.pioneer.eu/files/eur/MCAC...ontrol/top.swf

Lastly, there is an excellent thread on MCACC over on AVS Forums. I can't attach it becuase I am at work and they block the site, but it goes very much in depth with the subject.

[PlacervilleGuy]

Thanks, but that doesn't really answer my question. Just Pioneer marketing BS.
Then again, maybe it does answer the question. From that, it appears that MCACC still only measures one point in the room, and based on that, I'm guessing they HAVEN"T updated the algorithm.

Anyone else wanna weigh-in?

[kareface]

Originally Posted by PlacervilleGuy

Thanks, but that doesn't really answer my question. Just Pioneer marketing BS.
Then again, maybe it does answer the question. From that, it appears that MCACC still only measures one point in the room, and based on that, I'm guessing they HAVEN"T updated the algorithm.

Anyone else wanna weigh-in?

I'm looking into a new preamp and it just so happens that I've researched this very topic recently. Here is the problem with Audessey and the benefit that mcacc offers. Audessey covers larger area better then mcacc will. Unfortunately its coverage of larger areas in some instances will be at the expense of better sound at the main listening potion. With Audessey you get a greater number of filters, but their use puts a greater strain on the AVR/preamp. Because of the complexity of the Audessey algorithm it doesn't allow for manual calibration of the results. If you don't like the results that Audessey provides, you're boned. Even worse is most AVRs/preamps that run Audessey don't allow you to save EQ toggles. All of your music, movies and TV shows all using the same FIR settings. Why would the offer a toggle anyways? If you can't customize the EQ profile then being able to toggle between profiles is pointless.

MCACC on the other hand isn't as complex. This has up sides and down sides. The down side is that is doesn't apply as many filters as Audessey and it isn't as effective for covering larger spaces. The up sides are it takes less processing power to run, leaving more headroom for HD audio decoding. Because it's simpler you can actually fine tune the results and save EQ profiles that can be toggled between. This is huge. All sound tracks are not the same, applying the same FIR filters to everything may be great for some things and crap for others. Even if Audessey does more, if it does it in the wrong way what does more really get you?

With that said, I would like to clarify something. I think Audessey will be better for 90+% of the market. This is for 2 reasons. MCACC works much better in rooms that have been properly designed for acoustics. If you have taken the necessary steps to improve the acoustics prior to EQ, then MCACC in my opinion is the better option. However, most people don't dampen, position their speakers poorly and have a poor understanding of equalization. Audessey is better for the average person who isn't an expert in acoustics or many not understand EQ's. Most people don't know that room acoustics accounts for over 50% of what you hear and focusing more on acoustics for correction rather then exclusively equalization will produce infinitely better results. There are more complex versions of Audessey, external FIR EQ's that allow for calibration. Given an option I'd love to have a full Audessey EQ, but they cost an arm and a leg and are much harder for the average person to setup, so I'm leaving them out of the comparison.

[kingofgrills]

I have used versions of Yamaha's YPAO calibration system for a few years now, and I really find it to be very useful for room calibration. With YPAO you can run the auto setup feature, then manually adjust or fine tune any aspect of it. So I'll typically run YPAO, letting it setup speaker distances, size, LFE cutoff, etc., and then I will fine tune those settings with my SPL meter.

I've been really pleased with the results. The drawback with Audyssey is that since it's 3rd party and licensed to manufacturers, the extent to which each receiver allows you to modify the settings can be limited.