MCACC

[thejez]

Do any of you guys with discerning ears ever use the MCACC feature of your reciever? Does it do a good job calibrating everything?

[MrMcGoo]

I have used three generations of MCACC. The Advanced MCACC in the 56TXi and 59TXi is significantly better than other versions. In the better versions, distances and levels are extremely accurate. Advanced MCACC reduces bass cancellations.

Pioneer stated the trend toward auto seup and acoustic room correction in receivers. I have read stories about the Denon 5805 ($6,000 MSRP) not living up to specifications. I believe that the reason for the problems is that Denon is behind in R&D. In essence, Pioneer has developed its technology over 5 years. It is difficult to catch up quickly.

This fall, Pioneer is likely to take another step forward with its new models to keep ahead of Denon and Yamaha.

Bill

[thejez]

this is good news because I dont think i am capable of doing a good job myself. I think this will be a factor in my purchasing my next AVR...

[thejez]

ok how cool is this:

"In addition, the VSX-59TXi enables you to actually view your room's EQ curves-before and after equalization-on your PC, via an RS232C interface."

omg wow...

[MrMcGoo]

The 59TXi allows the data to be sent to a PC via an RS232 female to female serial cable. Pioneer software allows you to graphically view the data on your PC and it is compatible with Micrsoft Excel.

I wish that I had the skill set to model the data and fine tune it, but the 59 does a better job that I can ever hope to do without a lot of work.

What I can say is that the Advanced MCACC is a major step forward in my room. Many movies have the sound of echos in appropriate situations. I never realized that my prior configuration was cancelling most of the echos. The 59 lets me hear what is there as the sound designer and director intended.

The automatic distance setting may appear to be off on subwoofers, but let the Pioneer set the distance. You will get a perfect splice between the sub and the full range speakers.

The only major weaknesses are a global crossover and a typical Japanese receiver amp section. It makes rated power, but is weak with very low impedance loads like the RF-7s. The current model does not have HDMI switching yet either. The remote is good, but the prior remote was better.

Bill

[picky]

Like Bill (McGoo), I am a Pioneer MCACC fan, too. However, I must bow to the master as Bill has far more experience with the Pioneer products that I. Although, I have the older 49TXi that Bill mentions may not seem to do as well as the newer iterations, I have yet to experience the newer version so I'll have to take his word for it. What I can tell you is that I don't know what I may be missing because I am 100% pleased with the sound I am achieveing with our existing setup. If the newer version does a better job (and I believe what Bill says), perhaps I will upgrade in a couple of years. It's just trying to get over that initial sticker shock ($4,500) a second time that is holding me back! ...oh, and the WAF, too!

[dragonfyr]

MCACC: Get the best from your home theater speakers<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

This article is all about optimizing the sound from your home theater speakers.

Yep, everything that they think YOU should know!

If you just happen to have a professional recording studio in your home, you can stop reading now. For everyone else: read on to learn how to achieve a remarkable improvement in sonic performance-without hiring an expert.

The audio from movies and music is carefully and precisely mixed on very sophisticated equipment, in rooms that have perfect acoustics. But what happens to this audio when it's played back in your media room? Unfortunately, you'll most likely lose some-or maybe most-of the extreme precision from the original mix. Room size and shape, wall textures, hard wood floors, the quality and relative size of your speakersall of these factors affect audio performance.

Acoustic calibration

In order for your speakers to perform at an optimal level in your media room, they need to be fine-tuned for that very room. It sounds complicated, but select Elite and Pioneer receivers have made it really easy. It's called Multi-Channel Acoustic Calibration System, or MCACC.

MCACC- a Pioneer world's first-evaluates your speakers and the acoustic characteristics of your media room, then calibrates the audio levels accordingly, for professional-quality sonic performance. Essentially, MCACC is precisely calculating how big a signal to send to each of your speakers, and exactly when to send it. MCACC works in any room, regardless of shape or size, and set-up is easy

The benefits of MCACC

With MCACC, you can have the ultimate home theater-one that's customized for your own home. Here are few of its benefits:

A more natural sonic mix between speakers and a much wider sound stage.

An improved sound field, especially from surround speakers.

A longer reverb that is more like that of the original soundtrack.

More sonic detail. Now, certain sounds which were previously masked by other sounds can be heard for the first time on your system.

Funny, reverb masks these sounds! IF you had reverb! So make up your mind!

How MCACC works

Three levels of MCACC are featured in various Elite and Pioneer AV receivers:

Manual

Automatic - 2 types

Advanced

Manual MCACC

Manual MCACC utilizes the front left speaker as a reference point to begin the calibration process. Specially developed test tones are generated by the receiver and emitted through the speakers; using the receiver's remote, you'll be coached through a few simple steps until the tones being reproduced by each speaker are aligned to the front left reference channel. By using this reference point for your ears, you can ensure that each speaker delivers sound back to your listening position at precisely the correct time and at the same level. If you have assembled your surround speakers piece by piece, rather than buying them as one system, Manual MCACC will result in a big sonic improvement.

Automatic MCACC 1

Automatic MCACC 1 makes speaker calibration even simpler. Receivers with this feature provide a sensitive calibration microphone-which you'll place at your typical listening position in the room. Once all your speakers are connected to the receiver, simply press the calibration button and Automatic MCACC 1 begins its analysis to determine the number and type of speakers connected, their distance from the listening position, and their sound pressure levels. Once the initial set-up calibration has confirmed your specific speaker configuration, Automatic MCACC 1 automatically makes all the necessary adjustments for you. It will know how many speakers you have, whether they're large or small speakers, how much delay (if any) is required for each-so all of your sound arrives to you at precisely the same time-and sound levels, so all of the sound reaches you at the same volume.

Whoopee! Several thousand dollars for a feature that you can do with a click track.

Automatic MCACC 2

Automatic MCACC 2 does everything that Automatic MCACC 1 does with the addition of a nine-band digital equalizer, which automatically performs frequency response measurements to each channel for final calibration. Here's how it works: once Automatic MCACC 2 has checked and adjusted for the number and type of speakers, channel delay, and channel levels, another series of sound "sweeps" are emitted to measure your room's "acoustic signature". The goal is to identify and neutralize areas of the room that are adversely affecting the overall sound-field, and then make the equalization adjustments necessary to create a true studio environment in your home. This allows you to get the most out of each of your speakers. Hard walls, furniture, open areas, and vaulted ceilings are examples of acoustic obstacles that are now easily and accurately overcome. Once your room's equalization measurements are taken, Automatic MCACC 2 applies equalization to each of up to 7 channels. This sounds like a long process, but all it requires from you is positioning the microphone and pushing a button on the remote.

That's it! Yep, its F#$%&$* Magic! So, but does it come with the magical Monster cables as well?

In addition, our Elite VSX-55TXi and VSX-53TX provide manual control of the equalizers and have two "custom memories" so you can fine-tune the system for various sources and place your settings in memory. Automatic MCACC 2 also provides a "front align" mode that will adjust your "effect speakers"; center and surrounds, to the same tonal characteristic as your main front speakers. This is a very useful feature for systems that utilize different brands of speakers that may have different frequency response characteristics.

Advanced MCACC Just when you thought it couldnt get worse!

Advanced MCACC takes all of the benefits of Automatic MCACC 2 and adds several groundbreaking improvements.

Professional Acoustic Calibration set-up takes into consideration the reverberant qualities of your media room, and uses this information to adjust the frequency response more accurately for human ears. It distinguishes the difference between the direct sound from each speaker and the reflected sound off your room's walls.

Interesting!!! As the single factor that distinguishes between large and small acoustical spaces is the fact that small acoustical spaces lack a reverberant field!! Do you have to pay for the extra reverberant fields or do they just through them in for the extra $1000 or so bucks?

Advanced MCACC performs two separate equalizations for the room and for your speakers. Once set-up is complete, you can select one of these two EQ settings:

All-Channel EQ: equalizes all speakers to neutralize ambient reflections and create a much flatter frequency response.

Front Alignment EQ: equalizes only your "effect speakers" (center, surround right and left, surround-back right and left, and subwoofer) to match the tonal character of your main front right and left speakers. If you prefer to have your main speakers "left alone", select this setting.

Advanced MCACC gives you some choices about how to handle the calibration process:

Auto Pro: the receiver outputs test tones, and automatically adjusts the frequency balance for each speaker in accordance with the reverb characteristics in the listening room.

Manual Pro: the receiver measures the room acoustics with reverb and displays this information on a connected TV screen. Once the reverb characteristic in each frequency band is measured, you can select which timing frequency to use for manual calibration.

Advanced MCACC also features X-Curve, a popular measurement used in professional theaters and dubbing suite designs, which compensates for psycho-acoustic effects depending on the size of the listening room. Pioneer has developed a "living room-sized" version of X-Curve that's perfect for home entertainment tuning. Using Advanced MCACC, X-Curve compensation will generate perfect flat frequency response, which not only calibrates the physical tonal balance but also corrects for the human brain's interpretation of the sound as it's affected by the size of the room. The X-Curve can be implemented manually or automatically.

In addition, the VSX-59TXi enables you to actually view your room's EQ curves-before and after equalization-on your PC, via an RS232C interface.

Neat! So you can see it via your computer!!!!! It must be sophisticated!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I cant help but make a few observations here!

A feature adding how many thousand to adjust the delay for several channels fine, its your money! Is it a feature that I would pay for when a tape measure or a click track could effectively do this? NO!

And as far as Professional Acoustic Calibration set-up takes into consideration the reverberant qualities of your media room, and uses this information to adjust the frequency response more accurately for human ears. It distinguishes the difference between the direct sound from each speaker and the reflected sound off your room's walls.

Its called FM. You cannot correct for reflected signals, nor room characteristics by EQing non-minimum phase signals. And I dont care how much they charge for the feature!

In small acoustical spaces there is no reverberant sound field. It is precisely what defines and separates a small acoustical space from a large acoustical space!

Reverberant sound field behavior is extremely well understood.

Sabine, Hopkins-Stryker and the Boner, Peutz and <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Davis modifications define a very well understood area of acoustics. An area that was verified with the advent of time based measurement methodology.

Schultzs work on the non-existence of reverberant sound fields in small acoustic spaces was additionally verified by the advent of time based measurements, and the quality of the work was exceptionally well done.

To quote from Schultz:

In a large room, if one has a sound source whose power output is known, one can determine the total amount of absorption in the room by measuring the average pressure throughout the room. This total absorption can then be used to calculate the reverberations time from the Sabine formula. This method fails badly in a small room, however, where a large part of the spectrum of interest lies in a frequency range where the resonant modes of the room do not overlap but may be isolatedIn this case the microphone, instead of responding to a random sound field (as required for the validity of the theory on which these methods depend), will delineate a transfer function of the roomIt does not provide a valid measurement of the reverberation time of the room.

In a small acoustical space there is no D_c, no well-mixed sound field, and hence, no reverberation. There is merely a series of early reflected energy. Consequently the measurement of the reverberant field becomes meaningless in such environments.

The control of early reflections becomes most meaningful precisely because there is no reverberation to mask them.

There is a wealth of information re3garding this well understood area of acoustics. And unfortunately I suspect that few are really interested, so I will not pursue details futher!

The bottom line. If you think the interaction of acoustic sources with room acoustics is a valid area for concern (and it is hard to imagine why someone would not feel this way!), and you think that spending an additional $1000-2000 is a worthwhile investment, then instead of spending it on an additional button for your receiver and its inferior global crossover and a typical Japanese receiver amp section, why pray tell would you not invest that money in having your room professionally analyzed and uniquely treated!?

I find it amazing that we have a lengthy discussion of what can be equalized and what cannot, but when someone walks in with an EQ solution that costs several thousand dollars, too many run to join the line!

But whatever you do, DONT consider actually having the room analyzed and treated! Or even spending $1400 for the SIA SMAART Live and the SIA SMAART Acoustical Tools packages to actually measure and EQ what CAN be EQd! But I am truly amazed that in one thread the consensus is that spending a few hundred dollars is FAR to expensive to spend on room analysis, but we are more then willing to through our money away on nonsense such as this!

Im sorry folks, but the degree to which folks do not realize the folly of this procedure correlates directly to the failure of this site to educate and inform. And if logic and that dry fisiks stuff isnt sufficient to get your attention, then I dont know how else to say it in a way that will cause folks to wake up and recognize the BS!

And this behavior merely confirms and reinforces the fact that Bose and Monster have indeed discovered a proven approach that people are hungry for an over-hyped canned BS solution that promises magical results rather then to understand and employ sound proven methodology to actually solve a real problem. And if you will spend money on this crap, may I suggest that you really WANT a magical Bose system! You CANT have it both ways!

[MrMcGoo]

Dragon,

There you go again blowing more smoke. Contempt before investigation is not exactly sound scietifically.

Advanced MCACC works. I would not spend the money if it did not. Many consumers that do not buy the expensive wire are buying Pioneer's Advanced MCACC.

If it didn't improve the sound, Meridian, Lexicon, Denon, Yamaha and H/K would not be going down the same path. The only debate is which approach is the best and which system works the best.

You need to look at an RTA before and after and listen for yourself.

[dragonfyr]

Yes, they have a secret black book of quantum acoustics that no one else is privy too!

Just as Bose and their processing implies an advancement over classical acoustics!

But those marketing brochures sure are fancy! And in color! Whose do you prefer?

And magic cables work too! Or people would not spend money on them! And let's not forget the 'exotic' transmission line wave radio! Or the exotic 'direct/reflecting' unintelligibility systems.

To quote from Pioneer's brochure!:

If you just happen to have a professional recording studio in your home, you can stop reading now. For everyone else: read on to learn how to achieve a remarkable improvement in sonic performance-without hiring an expert.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

And without being limited to the same tools and rules of physics the PROs have to use!

Gee whiz! It would seem that those Pros would simply buy one of these units and save alot of time and effort!

And if these are worth the several thousand dollars, why is not acoustical analysis and treatment worth a fraction of that? Or is that 'logic' stuff just more of that 'flawed' fisiks stuff (move over calculus!)

And then back to the RTA and the frequency domain! ...for the flatlanders' look at all things acoustic!

I dare say the tin foil lining in one's hat is the most critical determining factor! After all, it pays to filter out that darned cosmic radiation. It does seem to impede logical thinking!

And regarding "contempt before investigation", we have had many converstations with many of the principal engineers involved with this technology! And add Velodyne to your manufacturers list! Unfortunately they do not list 'market forces' and 'marketing' in their fancy brochures, and the pressure to add a compelling advantage to their brochures!! Besides, Monster and Bose own the rights to most of the other trendy catch phrases! And funny, there is no mention of the fundamental limits to the technology that they know exist! And why use this IF you don't have access to the pixie dust that the pros use? What DO the pros use? DSP????? Why not?

And "familiar" with this processing!? What do you think I have made MANY repeated references to regarding what you cannot EQ! I am sorry if you have not been aware of the algoritms and development of this technology! Pick up a few JAES or JASA issues and begin reading!

[MrMcGoo]

Dragon,

I was wrong about the smoke. It is more like verbal diarrhea.

Please stop pretending that you know things that you don't, it gets monotonous.

It doesn't raise the level of discourse on the forum to critique a marketing brochure either. Be advised that marketing people make up the Pioneer brochures and the engineers and scientists design the Advanced MCACC.

[dragonfyr]

Then please explain how they examine the reverberant field of a small acoustical space? Funny those 'pros' say it cannot be done! Especially as the very definition of a small acoustical space is the very absence of a reverberant field! oh!?

And why don't the 'pros' simply emply some magical DSP solution! It sure would be simpler then learning how to deal with all the measuring equipment and then buying and installing all of the room treatments!

And where, pray tell, does the the brochure BS stop and the truth begin? Especially when you would think they could make it all factual! Or do they just think it would be too complicated for those willing to spend several thousand dollars on such gear!? Hey, they got their money, why confuse them!?

So please explain how they examine the reverberant field of a small acoustical space? And how, by examining the transfer function of a room they can adjust the reflected component independently of the direct signal? You know - to compensate for walls and the furniture...

Do you have ANY basis for the technology other then a marketing brochure and that they are 'experts'? And an RTA which does NOT show the individual components in the time domain?!

And flat frequency response is not the single ultimate goal of accurate sound reproduction. Otherwise you would NOT be dealing with Klipsch!

As thus far you you provide no more understanding of this other then the apparent ability to walk into Best Buy and purchase one! Especially as you buy into this magic yet you declared that Nyquist and Heyser spirals were nonsense!

Bottom line, this method is still fundamentally limited by what can and cannot be effectively EQ'd, regardless of the whether it is driven by an IC or a PRO!

[johnyholiday]

FFT is the acronym for Fast Fourier Transform. FFT is a computer algorithm to perform the Fourier Transforms rapidly. The correct use of Fourier Transforms is subject to several constraints. First, the data must be stationary (non-shifting) over the observation period. Secondly, an integer number of cycles must be used in the analysis. The Nyquist theory of sampled data systems states that there must be at least two samples per cycle. These constraints pose a dilemma for analysis of data.

For example, if we have data consisting of 64 points , the longest cycle we can measure is 64 . The next longest cycle is 64/2=32 . The next longest available cycle is 64/3=21.3 . The next cycle is 64/4=16 , etc. The 64 data points simply does not provide good resolution to identify the cycles because there is a 5 data point gap between measured results right in the most active cycle region. The only way to increase resolution is to increase the data length. However, if the data length is increased there is a significantly lower probability that the cycle has not shifted over the entire data length. In fact, it is downright unlikely.

Thus the use of FFTs is not advisable http://www.mesasoftware.com/FFT&MESA.htm

[Steve_L]

I've got the lowly Pioneer VSX-1014TX-K

I know experts could spend a good deal of and probably come close to the seamless balance that MCACC provides with the touch of a button, but this just works so well.

I've tried tinkering and tweaking the settings slightly after letting MCACC do the grunt work, but I always just end up falling back to the MCACC settings.

It just works that well.

I'm not sure what the marketing people are doing, and still don't understand what the last C stands for in MCACC, BUT I love what the Pioneer engineers did. Coming in a AVR that has the powerand features of the 1014 and the costs less than $500. I'm a happy camper.

[jdm56]

I've had the Pioneer Elite VSX-55TXi for not quite two years, and to my ears, the sound is just flat better with the MCACC than it is without. And that to me is pretty much the end of the argument.

This $1700 receiver cost me "only" $1125, so I don't feel the inclusion of MCACC made the unit more expensive than it should be. Pioneer's suggested list prices have always been grossly jacked-up beyond their street price anyway, and that has nothing to do with the MCACC feature.

Sure, I think there is undoubtably a degree of advertising hyperbole in Pioneer's claims, but still there is an honest to goodness, real-world audible benefit to audiophiles who can't afford to spend thousands of dollars on test gear and room treatments, and who don't want their music or HT rooms to look like a recording studios.

As to reverberant fields in small rooms, I think what Pioneer is talking about is the effect of reflected sound combining in or out of phase, with the direct sound, at the listener's ears. True, early reflections which reach the listener in less than 30ms or so of the original are generally not "heard" as distinct reverb, but they do effect the sound we hear, as they will either re-enforce the dirct sound, or partially cancel it at some frequencies. And it is this total sound mix that judicious use of a good EQ can improve.

[dragonfyr]

----------------

On 6/20/2005 1:02:57 AM jdm56 wrote:

...

As to reverberant fields in small rooms, I think what Pioneer is talking about is the effect of reflected sound combining in or out of phase, with the direct sound, at the listener's ears. True, early reflections which reach the listener in less than 30ms or so of the original are generally not "heard" as distinct reverb, but they do effect the sound we hear, as they will either re-enforce the dirct sound, or partially cancel it at some frequencies. And it is this total sound mix that judicious use of a good EQ can improve.----------------

I don't mean to sound rude, but EQ cannot fix the early reflections that you refer too. But these techniques are and have been well known for some time! But it seems that every 15 or so years they are reinvented! In fact, isn't it about time for Polk's methods to resurface!?

And I suspect Pioneer knows exactly what reverb is - or if not, they have joined the ranks of Bose who intentionally misrepresent what the most naive of their ranks should know!

This is absolutely what equalization cannot do. It is not just my opinion or feeling! I can quote from the who's who of acoustics and audio! And theory and every other reference in the field! And as much as some think that at some point you just throw out physics and consult the Kabala or the Ouija board, it can even be verified empirically!

I suspect what they are doing, as they will not discuss it as it is proprietary ( because if they dare it will get blow out of the water by a first year physics student) is similar to what another piece of FM gear does (called SIM). It sounds like they are vector averaging. And unfortunately, it does not result in the best sound. Rather what it does is to render the sound field more 'uniform'. And while it may seem relatively nice, in that the radical distinction between good and bad is minimized, it is in fact rendering the sound field universally mediocre.

Another technology that is similar to this effect is the Bose 901. Now I am not here to bash Bose, but their approach is instructive here. And pertinent

First, recall that the design of the Bose 901 resulted from Amar Bose's claim that Q didn't matter. What that meant was that overlapping sound fields and the superposition they afford, "didn't matter". Now if you look at a spectrograph of the distributed sound field of a 901 it is an amazing piece of work, and unlike almost anything else you will see. Rather then defined fields, it looks like a <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Jackson Pollack painting. It is completely chaotic and 'random'. There is not "good sound" anywhere. Rather it is distributed mediocrity. And not a sound I would pay for. And I would much rather prefer decent sound in a smaller sweet spot then mediocre poor sound everywhere. Is it better? No! In fact it is uniformly poor. But you do not notice the changes in the sound field.

So rather then raise the bar, what we have in fact done is to lower our standards. Go to ProSoundWeb and read Sam Berkow's interview. Sam is one of the developers of SIA SMAART - which by the way uses MLS to analyze the sound system and to identify precisely the 'parts' that CAN be EQ'd and is widely used by SR companies - and which, if you are not interested in the full compliment of tools TEF provides, I would highly recommend!! And its intelligent use will result in a system that sounds much better then the DSP sampled and processed system! And ironically Sam was the first to model the Bose 901 sound field in a 3space volumetric image back in ~1991, and is very upfront about what can be done and what cannot with an EQ (among many other things!).

But the physics of this is well known. And we have discussed this methodology with the engineers at Velodyne (and others) at length! And while they are all trying to find ways to market their products and to differentiate their products, it is important to understand the limitations. And the driving force is the attempt to add value added features to differentiate their products.

And for those who think that a properly tuned room looks like a space ship, or that universally mediocre DSP processed sound if preferable to a properly tuned room (and I will stick my neck out and suggest that few on this site have actually ever been in a professionally well treated room - one done utilizing the state of the art tools and methods), but it amazes me thsat so many are so quick regarding their attitudes and quick conclusions and how quick they are to make erroneous assumptions about the field of acoustics! So many have merely scratched the surface and dealt with only bass traps &/or then toyed with (sorry to say) really lousy products to control absorption and reflection - using a 'linear' material that is good only for a particular frequency band stop and which does NOT address the specific frequencies necessary to effectively address the non-linear requirements for diffusion and absorption, such that what you expect and settle for are NOT what can be identified and achieved if proper tools and materials are used.

But I fear that trying to explain this is a waste of time for too many, as so many have already made up their mind based on others who have read a little about acoustics, and who, with all do respect, do not have the training (yep, in acoustical physics!) or experience in the field. And now others will be very offended at this, despite the fact that the statement is accurate for most people here! But for some reason folks think that acoustics is easy and only requires an RTA and an equalizer!, while areas such as crossover design, or electronics, on the other hand, require education! And I only wish that it only took a DSP chip, and an EQ to feed back an inverse frequency domain transfer function to flatten out the response! But it does! And what so many of you think as being radical and new are 20 years old!! Altec's system from 1990 was an exceptional implementation of the system. The irony is that they were rejected as the limitations and fallacies were identified. But with the marketing demands being what they are, and the high end audio systems becoming mid range home theater systems, these methods are returning in the form of marketing tools used to differentiate the mid range from many companies high end - not because they work so much better, but because marketing can sell the hype and use it as a bell and whistle distinguishing their product.

And this power of marketing is exactly what Bose and Monster discovered >25 years ago. So welcome the newcomers to the club! And, while I am not here to say their owners are wrong, they love their speakers too! And it does sound different from the experience of bad to good to bad sound fields in a listening area. But please dont tell me that well understood acoustical physics have just been overcome once more by a mediocre technique that is well understood, but which does not raise to the level of acoustics done as well at it should be! Rather it is acoustics as some will settle for<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

As Pioneer says - for those who either can't or are not willing to emply a professional!

[jdm56]

With all due respect, it would seem that the essence of what you're saying is that features such as Pioneer's MCACC are not good for improving sound. Now I would agree, that from a strictly acoustic point of view, it's better to get the room right first, at least to the extent a person can, considering financial and/or asthetic limitations. But the fact remains that it is very easy to determine, subjectively, if MCACC improves the sound or not; you just listen to it! And I think most that have it and have used it would at least say it makes an audible difference, and I would guess most of those would also say it is an improvement. I certainly would. Maybe not in every system, in every room, but in my experience, it does help considerably.

I'm gonna have to disagree on the small-room reverb issue. I think you are saying that EQ doesn't affect reflected sound, but you seem to be separating the reflections from the original, and as regards EQ, you can't do that. Look at it this way: If at a given frequency the direct and the reflected sound combine at the listener's ears to produce a 6dB boost, it stands to reason that a 6dB cut at that same frequency would approximately wipe out that room-induced effect. Where am I wrong here?

[Cal Blacksmith]

I use the Yamaha equivilant YAPO, it does a great job, quickly, of setting up the room. I have found that the system is accurate, produces great results and is easy to use. It probably could get better with a professional setup, but it achives 90% of the results with 1% of the effort. For most users, this is all the setup they will ever need.

[krispykoilz]

I've owned the Pioneer Elite 56TXi for about 7 months now. I like the sound, it's my first Pioneer. The MCACC is easy to use and works great and at the time I purchased the reciever was the most consistently accurate auto setup of all the brands. It does sound good, to my ears anyway when I use "ALL CH ADJUST". The 56TXi also has the capability to use your computer to help analyze the results but I have yet to download the software from Pioneer. Most of the time I listen with the "A. CAL EQ OFF" setting. I don't know exactly how far auto adjust can rectify for all the problems that can present themselves in your/a listening environment. Check out this thread for more info,

http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/view.asp?mode=viewtopic&topicID=66813&num=30&sessionID={EA359421-4B82-4D05-ACF7-7769A9BEC54C}&pageNo=1

Oh, and I do like the new AIR STUDIOS logo that Pioneer is using on its recievers. LOL. No really, I do.

[picky]

There are obviously some very strong opinions here, and there should be: It's a forum after all and we all have opinions. Life would be boring if we all had the same opinion.

Let me just say that I am not one to take sound lightly. I used to engineer commercial stage sound years ago, so I know what it's like to try an EQ a room down that has really poor acoustics.

I am not prone to buying snake oil or gizmos that promise to repell every mosquitto within 500 feet using ultrasonics, etc. I am not a Bose fan.

In short, I spent 26 months working on my theater to make sure I got the room right first. I've gone to the trouble of installing acoustic membrane in all of the walls and acoustic melamine foam in the ceiling. The walls are constructed to help block early reflections. Then, I added the Pioneer.

Those here whom have heard my room first hand have written here in their own words (Michael Hurd and Colterphoto1) that the room sounds right to them. Both have written glowing reports about the room. Yes, it is quite small and it probably could use more echo time. But, for whatever it's worth, in my own opinion, it is one of the best-sounding rooms I have heard. I am VERY happy with what Pioneer has done with these receivers, which range in price from about $1,100 to nearly $5,000.

To those whom feel threatened by this "Magical Hocus Pocus" in-a-box: I recommend you steer clear of spending any money on it. Why? Because it will baffle the crap out of you!

[dragonfyr]

----------------

On <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />

6/20/2005

7:41:36 AM

jdm56 wrote:

I'm gonna have to disagree on the small-room reverb issue. I think you are saying that EQ doesn't affect reflected sound, but you seem to be separating the reflections from the original, and as regards EQ, you can't do that. Look at it this way: If at a given frequency the direct and the reflected sound combine at the listener's ears to produce a 6dB boost, it stands to reason that a 6dB cut at that same frequency would approximately wipe out that room-induced effect. Where am I wrong here?

----------------<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Yes, while that is the classic view when viewed in the frequency domain, and with all proper and sincere respect, it

is

completely wrong.

And this can be demonstrated objectively with the proper equipment. And it is something that is no longer debated in the field of acoustics. But many things that are no longer debated in acoustics live on here. Heck, it seems that this is the place they come to hang out AFTER they have outlived their lives in the study of acoustics.

And the

fact

that you cannot EQ non-minimum phase signals was perhaps the very first casualty in the advent of the study of the time domain. And ironically the concept was first researched and posited by the developer of the 1/3 octave equalizer! It was not posited by someone who had some opposition to equalization! Rather it was corollary to the fundamental understanding of what could, and what could not, be equalized.

And it is very frustrating to continue, after much of the information has been presented in other threads, to simply encounter more opinions based upon common sense, that simply persist in the classical thinking and it is apparent that we are back at square one. After all, the sound seems to change when you move the knob.

And, despite the very

definition

of that which defines a large acoustical space from a small acoustical space, we even still debate whether a small room exhibits a reverberant field. It seems rather a waste of time to attempt to discuss what amounts to step 30 in a process when in the middle of the discussion half of the audience is disagreeing or misunderstanding the use of the

fundamental terms. And that is not to denigrate anyone. Folks come from all different backgrounds. But the frustration comes when so many here seem to think that all of the research happens as a result of the discussion on this forum, and that no one has investigated these subjects at length. But somehow the science of acoustics has progressed.

And the fact that someone or some company markets a technique and says it can do magical things does not change the fundamental physics. Yes, it makes changes. But is it a real solution, or a masking of other issues, with a result that that is merely moving a problem around?

And these issues can all be analyzed objectively. The final arbiter is not someones subjective judgment, although there will most probably be the same legion of folks to jump up and down and assert that they have ears, as if that proves something. There are real physical phenomena at play here, and they can be quantified and qualified. And they indeed have been!

But it is rather fruitless to attempt to debate the methodologies employed in the various EQing the rooms acoustic response systems, when the seeming majority still thinks that you can EQ non-minimum phase signals. And that tone controls correct for room anomalies! And that the frequency domain can correct for time domain issues. And even if someone says, OK, these cant correct for the time domain issues, everyone still runs right back to the position that a marketed system claims to do exactly that.

The true irony is that people are choosing to opt for easy answers that do not require an awareness of, and the effort required to learn the changes that have occurred in the field of acoustics. Does this mean that anyone is stupid?

Not necessarily! Oh a few, sure! But most simply do not know! After all, unless you spend considerable effort and seek out some rather unusual sources, the average person will not study this in school. But nevertheless the sources do exist. And some are distinctly better then others. And it is a field that is changing almost daily. And the most dramatic changes have occurred in the past 30 years. Yet most go on as if nothing has advanced. And many are not only content to do so, but they actively fight and deny that change has occurred as evidenced by their opinions.

Yes, companies can market all sorts of nifty techniques. And they can market them too! And the fact that you hear a difference does not make the fundamental science sound. After all, MILLIONS absolutely LOVE how the Bose systems sound.

And I dare say this forum is easily split between those who say that Monster cables (or even more exotic cables) make a real difference in their listening experience! And far too many who might say that regular cable will suffice, actually have Monster cable, but because of the rep here, will not admit it. Yes, you can buy what you want, and I wouldnt try to change that if I could! Despite my seemingly crazy ideas! I will persist in thinking that logic makes a better tool then the insight and coercion of a few enlightened folks as many would prefer to do in the world of politics. All that means is that I suspect ALOT of folks here have Monster cables!

So, if you decide that you want to stretch a bit outside you comfort zone, I can point you to some sources that you will have to wade through. But I find myself spending far more time unproductively here simply debating whether a marketing brochure is nonsense only to have those supporting it say, sure it is nonsense, its a marketing brochure! But the engineers really know and They do it right behind closed doors. Sure they do!

As I mentioned, this discussion was held with a select group of Velodyne engineers, and the problem is that marketing is a larger force in business then the engineering of a product. As the bottom line to business is selling product at a particular price point to a designated market demographic, and not advancing some arcane but correct principle in a pyrrhic victory that does not advance sales with glossy images. And this technique, along with so many by Polk, Bose, Monster, and others are quickly gathered up by so many who fancy themselves iconoclasts as they hold their PWK BS buttons tightly, all the while claiming that that fisiks stuff (and the one statement that will forever stand out like a beacon from this site: that calculus is fundamentally flawed!!!) to be secondary to their earsas if there is a separation! But that separation is precisely the one between feelings and fact. After all, your ears experience illusion just as your eyes do. And for many, this is accompanied by a voluntary leap of subjective faith as well.

So for all who would reject that acoustical physics stuff, forget the reflections, and forget the time domain. It is complicated and confusing anyway. Be happy instead! All that complicated stuff just makes life seem more difficult then it need be anyway.

For you folks the answer is simple. Just by an RTA and an equalizer (hey, in this case it doesnt matter if it is parametric, 1/3 octave, or what format you choose! Get the cheapest one! In fact get several!), and just have fun. After all, subjective enjoyment is the goal.

The rest of us silly folks who have chosen to study this stuff and to invest in ridiculously expensive gear and use fundamentally flawed tools such as calculus and that silly fisiks stuff with all that confusing (and flawed!) math, will sit around and worry. And wonder. And listen to how great systems such as Bose are. Of course, as Pioneer is so quick to tell you, there is another world where those professionals live. And you have opted for systems for use where professionals are not employed. So whatever you do, dont listen to them either! Or suddenly you might start seeing problems everywhere. And solutions requiring more then a few knobs and a big wallet.

Have fun!

My purposes will be served if I can simply learn the detailed details (the actual measurements) of the non-PRd Jubilee throat!!!

And I am always humored by the folks who spend 18 years and thousands of dollars to correct a room, yet have never brought in tools adequate to model and provide proof of performance measurements for any subsequent treatments. But then I guess a psychic could be cheaper! After all, aren't they "professional"?

Has

anyone

here every worked with someone who has brought in a TEF or MLSSA or SMAART and actually analyzed and treated a room?