Room EQ Comparison

[Sittler27]

If I have Audy XT32, is it worth it to upgrade my AVR just to get Anthem ARC?

 

[AustinJerry]

If I have Audy XT32, is it worth it to upgrade my AVR just to get Anthem ARC?

I don't know, not being familiar with ARC. But I can definitely say that upgrading to a processor that supports Dirac Live with Dirac Bass Control will definitely get you a better sounding room correction.

 

[Eric SVL]

If I have Audy XT32, is it worth it to upgrade my AVR just to get Anthem ARC?

I have no experience with ARC, but it would have to have something like Dynamic EQ for me to consider switching to another room EQ system.

 

[CHFels]

I have no experience with ARC, but it would have to have something like Dynamic EQ for me to consider switching to another room EQ system.

As this post goes to show, it all depends on how you use Audyssey and how happy you are with the results. If you have Dynamic EQ switched on at all times and don't like the sound without it, then probably neither ARC nor Dirac will make you happy (or at least, it would take you a while to adjust). On the other hand if you sometimes listen to music without Audyssey engaged at all, and value audiophile things like pinpoint imaging, soundstage depth, vocal purity and so on, then maybe you would be happier with an Anthem or Lyngdorf or Arcam or NAD. In addition to the superior room correction, all of these tend to be better-sounding amps in the first place than anything from Denon or Marantz that sports XT32.

 

[Eric SVL]

As this post goes to show, it all depends on how you use Audyssey and how happy you are with the results. If you have Dynamic EQ switched on at all times and don't like the sound without it, then probably neither ARC nor Dirac will make you happy (or at least, it would take you a while to adjust). On the other hand if you sometimes listen to music without Audyssey engaged at all, and value audiophile things like pinpoint imaging, soundstage depth, vocal purity and so on, then maybe you would be happier with an Anthem or Lyngdorf or Arcam or NAD. In addition to the superior room correction, all of these tend to be better-sounding amps in the first place than anything from Denon or Marantz that sports XT32.

I do value "audiophile" things like pinpoint imaging, soundstage depth, vocal purity and so on and Audyssey has no direct effect on them other than via its adjustments to frequency response. The much better bass and slightly accentuated treble of Dynamic EQ, based on volume level, serves to enhance these things in the 5 systems I have used it with so far. There have been no downsides or I wouldn't use it.

As far as "better sounding amps" than Denon, you wouldn't be able to make that claim after a blind test.

 

[AustinJerry]

As this post goes to show, it all depends on how you use Audyssey and how happy you are with the results. If you have Dynamic EQ switched on at all times and don't like the sound without it, then probably neither ARC nor Dirac will make you happy (or at least, it would take you a while to adjust). On the other hand if you sometimes listen to music without Audyssey engaged at all, and value audiophile things like pinpoint imaging, soundstage depth, vocal purity and so on, then maybe you would be happier with an Anthem or Lyngdorf or Arcam or NAD. In addition to the superior room correction, all of these tend to be better-sounding amps in the first place than anything from Denon or Marantz that sports XT32.

I was a long-time Audyssey user, so I am very familiar with how DEQ sounds. However, other than the Reference Level Offset, there is little user control. With Dirac Live, there is a powerful capability in the use of custom target curves to tailor the entire frequency range to the listener's liking. And the typical processor that supports Dirac Live has several memory slots in which calibrations with different custom targets can be stored, and then called up with a simple button press on the remote. This allows setting the response curve to suit varying source types, say music vs. movies. The custom target curve capability alone sets Dirac Live apart from Audyssey as my room correction of choice.

 

[Eric SVL]

I was a long-time Audyssey user, so I am very familiar with how DEQ sounds. However, other than the Reference Level Offset, there is little user control. With Dirac Live, there is a powerful capability in the use of custom target curves to tailor the entire frequency range to the listener's liking. And the typical processor that supports Dirac Live has several memory slots in which calibrations with different custom targets can be stored, and then called up with a simple button press on the remote. This allows setting the response curve to suit varying source types, say music vs. movies. The custom target curve capability alone sets Dirac Live apart from Audyssey as my room correction of choice.

Audyssey has a curve editor and an unlimited number of curves and speaker configurations you can save.

 

[AustinJerry]

Audyssey has a curve editor and an unlimited number of curves and speaker configurations you can save.

True. My experience with Audyssey was before the Audyssey app was released, and my only Audyssey-capable processor is the 8802a, which does not support the new app. So to be fair, Audyssey may rival the capabilities of Dirac Live now.

 

[Travis Ballstadt]

Audessy has definitely improved over the past couple years, but Dirac and ARC are big steps above it, in my opinion. I prefer ARC to Dirac, having gone from a Dirac processor to an ARC processor. ARC took me instantly (literally the first run out of the box) to the equivalent of 2 1/2 years of Dirac fiddling, and was very customizable from that point.

These are just opinions, though. Everyone’s will be different based on all the variables, and the fact that audio quality is objective.

There is no room correction more effective and accurate than room treatment.

 

[CHFels]

I do value "audiophile" things like pinpoint imaging, soundstage depth, vocal purity and so on and Audyssey has no direct effect on them other than via its adjustments to frequency response. The much better bass and slightly accentuated treble of Dynamic EQ, based on volume level, serves to enhance these things in the 5 systems I have used it with so far. There have been no downsides or I wouldn't use it.

As far as "better sounding amps" than Denon, you wouldn't be able to make that claim after a blind test.

From what you say, Eric, it sounds like you will be happy sticking with XT32. If it ain't broke, ...

 

[Sonnie]

To clarify... in most cases audiophile things like pinpoint imaging, sound stage and depth acuity should be improved with Audyssey, Dirac Live, ARC, Audiolense, etc... unless you have something an extremely high percentage of the audiophiles in the world don't have, which is the perfect room with perfectly placed speakers. Despite having a very symmetrical room and symmetrically placed speakers, during our speaker evaluations, all of these characteristics improved when we engaged Dirac Live, and every participant was able to identify and preferred the improvement in sound.

With most rooms, the frequency mismatch from one speaker to the other is sufficient enough to tarnish these characteristics to at least some affect. The recording engineer typically has frequency matched speakers when he/she creates the music, so to hear what was intended to be heard, our speakers need to be frequency matched as well, which is where the various equalization systems will help. It's not easy to get there without them, which is why we are seeing more and more audiophiles in the elite high-end groups start to prefer and use these systems.

 

[Eric SVL]

I do agree that you need proper speaker setup to get good imaging, but with quality speakers sample variation is small enough to not affect imaging. Sure, you could get a lemon, but I think you'd hear that anyway in the frequency response. If you get a pair of speakers that measure so differently that it messes up your tonal balance and thus imaging, you need to send them back for replacement.

With most speakers I limit my equalization to the room transition frequency and below, or sometimes slightly higher than that. It is especially true in this case that soundstage will be improved because all rooms will benefit as there is no "perfect room" for bass aside from no room at all.

 

[Eric SVL]

Audessy has definitely improved over the past couple years, but Dirac and ARC are big steps above it, in my opinion. I prefer ARC to Dirac, having gone from a Dirac processor to an ARC processor. ARC took me instantly (literally the first run out of the box) to the equivalent of 2 1/2 years of Dirac fiddling, and was very customizable from that point.

My experience with Dirac was that it was very powerful in shaping a speaker's response, but what you say about fiddling is very true. I could never get my sub bass "right" with Dirac V2, whereas XT32 + Dynamic EQ gets it right nearly every time without any fiddling. They really perfected what the slope should be at various volume levels. It's funny because that's 10-year old tech now. And Dirac still does not have an affordable multi-sub equalization scheme. We will see if Pioneer or Onkyo can change that, but all of their electronics that feature Dirac will get more expensive than current offerings.

However, I no longer have my Dirac AVR so I won't be able to do a direct comparison.

There is no room correction more effective and accurate than room treatment.

This statement I can't 100% agree with. Most of what I use room EQ for can't be achieved by room treatment. The treatments I would use are to help refine the setup further.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

With most speakers I limit my equalization to the room transition frequency and below

To quote Dr Olive from his oft cited (but never understood, by proponents/peddlers of elixirs) scientific/non-conjecture study of some magic EQ products:

Dr. Sean Olive November 4, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Room correction will improve poor loudspeakers like the ones you have indicated, but why put an expensive bandaid on a scab if you can easily avoid getting the scab in the first place?

And of course, still free An enticing marketing story

Won't even bother with the iso-ward room treatments thing, a lost cause.

cheers

 

[simplex]

Interesting thread, yet not so easy to retrieve first hand information from Accucal:

 

[Sonnie]

I do agree that you need proper speaker setup to get good imaging, but with quality speakers sample variation is small enough to not affect imaging. Sure, you could get a lemon, but I think you'd hear that anyway in the frequency response. If you get a pair of speakers that measure so differently that it messes up your tonal balance and thus imaging, you need to send them back for replacement.

It's not the speaker that I would be most concerned with... it's the interaction of the speaker with the room that typically makes them out of frequency balance. As alluded to, most folks don't have the perfect room, and asymmetrically placed speakers along with asymmetrical rooms will cause the speakers to be quite different in their frequency response. Seen this about fifty-eleven times when I was in tech support with SVS and customers were placing their speakers in living rooms, great rooms, bedrooms, etc... rarely did the frequency response between speakers match due to room interaction. Those that had symmetrical theater rooms (like mine) didn't usually have any issues, other than poor response for both speakers that sounded much improved after equalization.

 

[Sonnie]

I think we may have gotten off track here... this really shouldn't be about whether Room EQ is effective or not, but rather a "Comparison" of Room EQ offerings per the original thread. Sorry about that.

 

[AustinJerry]

And Dirac still does not have an affordable multi-sub equalization scheme.

I recently implemented Dirac Live Bass Control on the HTP-1. I find the results quite good. And I am coming from years of tweaking with various MiniDSP products to get quite good multiple sub integration. The value of DLBC is that is a completely automated solution, and replaces the extra complexity of the MiniDSP hardware.

When you say Dirac does not have an affordable multi-sub equalization scheme, do you mean that the $500 cost of the DLBC add-on software is too expensive, or do you mean that processors that support DLBC are not affordable?

 

[Eric SVL]

I recently implemented Dirac Live Bass Control on the HTP-1. I find the results quite good. And I am coming from years of tweaking with various MiniDSP products to get quite good multiple sub integration. The value of DLBC is that is a completely automated solution, and replaces the extra complexity of the MiniDSP hardware.

When you say Dirac does not have an affordable multi-sub equalization scheme, do you mean that the $500 cost of the DLBC add-on software is too expensive, or do you mean that processors that support DLBC are not affordable?

The total cost there is $4500, right? So compared to under $1k for a current XT32 + SubEQ AVR, it's a tough sell unless there are other reasons (not Dirac related) you want/need the HTP-1 in your setup.

 

[AustinJerry]

The total cost there is $4500, right? So compared to under $1k for a current XT32 + SubEQ AVR, it's a tough sell unless there are other reasons (not Dirac related) you want/need the HTP-1 in your setup.

True. But when I made my decision, Dirac Live was a "must have". And I speak from years of experience using Audyssey with a Pro Kit. And the Audyssey processor I had was not less than $1K (it was a Marantz 8802a). I claim that the Marantz produced better audio than a sub-$1K AVR. To me, audio quality is the primary consideration, and I found Dirac Live to be a better sounding solution.

 

[Shiu Ng]

True. My experience with Audyssey was before the Audyssey app was released, and my only Audyssey-capable processor is the 8802a, which does not support the new app. So to be fair, Audyssey may rival the capabilities of Dirac Live now.

I know you are an expert on Audyssey based on your experience. However, based on my numerous REW curves, I am confident to say if you use XT32 with the App and Ratbuddysey you will find that it is now very comparable to Dirac Live except I do believe Dirac will likely do better with impulse response. I did try comparing it with Dirac's two channel trial version, in terms of FR only, Audyssey actually did better improving on my room mode dips.

 

[AustinJerry]

Well, Dirac Live now has the Dirac Live Bass Control, which can equalize multiple subs, including optimizing the sub-sat splice, which widens the gap between Audyssey and Dirac.