[fayeanddavid]

I read and see really good reviews/reports of the latest Audyssey Eq systems..............

How does the Yamaha YPAO stack up against Audyssey (thinking latest generation models, Aventage 1010 upwards)?

I guess they are both tasked with the same thing, giving the flattestroom reponse they can, do they deliver and is one significantly better than the other?

Yamaha normally "do their own thing" and YPAO is a point in use, how good is it, does it follow the Audyssey route but branded differently?

[Quaddy]

there is no contest as far as i am concerned, i have gone from YPAO to Audyssey in my room, a tricky room, the audyssey has been able to produce a much more even and saturated soundfield and just sounds much more authoritative - i don't know the technical differences, i *think* audyssey does things to a much higher resolution and low level degree

the only thing i liked the yamaha/ypao more for is music over my onkyo/audyssey - the yamaha had much more umph and finesse - but thats down to the hardware not the calibration method - but for movies and tv, the audyssey > ypao

[PSM1]

Which Yamaha and Onkyo models did/do you have? Just wondering if the difference is due to an upgrade in models (and hence and upgrade in calibration system).

[Quaddy]

yam z11 / onk 5008

[fayeanddavid]

Originally Posted by PSM1

Which Yamaha and Onkyo models did/do you have? Just wondering if the difference is due to an upgrade in models (and hence and upgrade in calibration system).

I think that there by may hang the tale!

Yamaha have always done their own thing, part of me says it has to work, but the other part says audyssey seems to get excellent reports

i really like the Yamaha sound on my set up, but I have bypassed YPAO as it just didn't do it for me, I have selected Flat on the set up, set distances and run SPL levels.

What about Audyssey in a Yamaha AVR somebody!!

[l34052]

Ive not used an avr with ypao yet however i do have an audyssey receiver and the sound is excellent, for me personally audyssey would be the decider and i dont think i'd buy a new avr without it.

Im eyeing up the onkyo 818 with audyssey xt32...

[the_dude2]

having demoed an Onkyo 818 and an Anthem MRX 300 i can say for me that i thought the Anthem was better in the demo. And in my room it is incredible. Bass is now so well integrated and not boomy. i would recommend trying an Anthem before buying. Its well worth a demo at least.

[Arcam_boy]

I have a Yamaha 1065 which has the YPAO and seemed to work pretty well and offered a nice sound.

I've also had an Arcam AVR500 which had very basic calibration software but seemed to work pretty well in my room.

I've now got an Onkyo 609 which uses audyssey. I don't know if its the amp but I find it terrible. It just can't blend the subwoofer in at all. It sets it really low and although it seems the most comprehensive out of the other two its the worst one for setting the speakers up I've encountered.

My friend has an Anthem MRX500 which I helped him set up and the calibration system on that thing is incredible. It even comes with a calibrated mic and is able to plot various graphs of what's going on in your room (if you can understand them) so you can send them off to Anthem and they can suggest how to improve your set up.

From what I've seen I think the ARC is quite a way in front of audyssey and even the xt32 version.

[IRobot]

Low bass frequencies cause the biggest issues in a room. xt32 flattens the bass response, raising dips and cutting peaks but YPAO doesn't do anything with sub bass frequencies.

[goujam]

Originally Posted by Arcam_boy

I have a Yamaha 1065 which has the YPAO and seemed to work pretty well and offered a nice sound.

I've also had an Arcam AVR500 which had very basic calibration software but seemed to work pretty well in my room.

I've now got an Onkyo 609 which uses audyssey. I don't know if its the amp but I find it terrible. It just can't blend the subwoofer in at all. It sets it really low and although it seems the most comprehensive out of the other two its the worst one for setting the speakers up I've encountered.

My friend has an Anthem MRX500 which I helped him set up and the calibration system on that thing is incredible. It even comes with a calibrated mic and is able to plot various graphs of what's going on in your room (if you can understand them) so you can send them off to Anthem and they can suggest how to improve your set up.

From what I've seen I think the ARC is quite a way in front of audyssey and even the xt32 version.

I find the 609 has problems with the sub but I've put that down to it using 2eq which doesn't eq the sub !

[Arcam_boy]

Possibly that's why I said I'm not sure it it's the amp or not as I've heard a couple of Denons 2311 and 4311 and they both eq'd the sub much better.

I'm not sure how many variations of audyssey there are but that might need to be a consideration as well as I don't really rate the 2eq much from personal experience but guessing the xt32 is quite a bit better?

[fayeanddavid]

And does any one out there know (Yamaha knowledge techies) what the YPAO does in terms of bass management?

Does seem "not much" from the thoughts preceding, and I wonder if their latest amps (1020,2020,3020) have benefitted from improved eq at all

Seems strange for such a well regarded avr product range to have the YPAO eq as perceived/actual weakness??

[l34052]

Originally Posted by Arcam_boy

Possibly that's why I said I'm not sure it it's the amp or not as I've heard a couple of Denons 2311 and 4311 and they both eq'd the sub much better.

I'm not sure how many variations of audyssey there are but that might need to be a consideration as well as I don't really rate the 2eq much from personal experience but guessing the xt32 is quite a bit better?

Have a look HERE it gives you the lowdown on each version of audyssey and much more.

[ajbaker]

A fascinating thread, a question that I had not even thought to ask given that I'm in the market for a new amp.

Having done a little more research it seems as though the latest low to middle range Onkyo amps only have the very basic Audyssey 2EQ calibration method.

Working on the assumption that YPAO now does low level calibration on the most recent amps, would this be a reason to prefer Yamaha over Onkyo? Or is manual calibration so easy that I have nothing to worry about?

Andrew

[goujam]

Originally Posted by ajbaker

A fascinating thread, a question that I had not even thought to ask given that I'm in the market for a new amp.

Having done a little more research it seems as though the latest low to middle range Onkyo amps only have the very basic Audyssey 2EQ calibration method.

Working on the assumption that YPAO now does low level calibration on the most recent amps, would this be a reason to prefer Yamaha over Onkyo? Or is manual calibration so easy that I have nothing to worry about?

Andrew

The problem I have with 2eq is that I like to use the audyseey features so I can't manually set the amps eq. So if I use audyseey 2eq I would ideally like to manually set the sub only but you can't do this. Also on the onkyo 609 I can't copy the audyseey settings and manually set them in the equaliser.

[ajbaker]

joujam, I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying. It would appear in the Onkyo 609 manual, on page 33 under the heading "Changing the Speaker Setup Manually", you can modify these settings after automatic calibration.

[goujam]

Originally Posted by ajbaker

joujam, I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying. It would appear in the Onkyo 609 manual, on page 33 under the heading "Changing the Speaker Setup Manually", you can modify these settings after automatic calibration.

You can adjust the levels and distances but not the room correction (equalizer)

[goujam]

If you look on page 48 it says is audysseey is turned on it prevails over the manual settings

[fayeanddavid]

Originally Posted by ajbaker

A fascinating thread, a question that I had not even thought to ask given that I'm in the market for a new amp.

Having done a little more research it seems as though the latest low to middle range Onkyo amps only have the very basic Audyssey 2EQ calibration method.

Working on the assumption that YPAO now does low level calibration on the most recent amps, would this be a reason to prefer Yamaha over Onkyo? Or is manual calibration so easy that I have nothing to worry about?

Andrew

And that is the challenge Andrew; does the assumption that the YPAO now does low level calibration hold true??

And then, how good is it?

[snlsrchr]

I had an Onkyo w. Audessy and got two slightly newer Yamaha RX A800s with Ypao.
In the room where I used them both they both seemed to do a good job, though I have a Snell Sub 24 in that room which is excellent on its own. I can't yet tell for sure whether either system corrected in the sub base freq range. The product description for the Yamaha says it corrects for distance, and sound pressure, size and some other parameters. I do believe it adjusts equalization for each speaker (except for the subwoofer speaker separately), since it rolls the bass below an adjustable frequency for each channel over to the sub. This YPAO system displays adjustable equalization charts for each speaker. I have purchased an Omnimic system from Dayton Audio in order to test all my speakers. I should be able to get a second read also in the form of a similar chart to compare the accuracy of the YPAO rendering.
I have heard that both systems do have the most problems with the low frequency bass and with the subwoofer. Twice I got incorrect distance readings for my subwoofers from YPAO. It made a huge difference in the "punch" and coherence of the low bass after I measured and manually corrected. Other times it got the distances perfect. I will let the forum know what I find with the Omnimic,

[fayeanddavid]

Originally Posted by snlsrchr

I had an Onkyo w. Audessy and got two slightly newer Yamaha RX A800s with Ypao.
In the room where I used them both they both seemed to do a good job, though I have a Snell Sub 24 in that room which is excellent on its own. I can't yet tell for sure whether either system corrected in the sub base freq range. The product description for the Yamaha says it corrects for distance, and sound pressure, size and some other parameters. I do believe it adjusts equalization for each speaker (except for the subwoofer speaker separately), since it rolls the bass below an adjustable frequency for each channel over to the sub. This YPAO system displays adjustable equalization charts for each speaker. I have purchased an Omnimic system from Dayton Audio in order to test all my speakers. I should be able to get a second read also in the form of a similar chart to compare the accuracy of the YPAO rendering.
I have heard that both systems do have the most problems with the low frequency bass and with the subwoofer. Twice I got incorrect distance readings for my subwoofers from YPAO. It made a huge difference in the "punch" and coherence of the low bass after I measured and manually corrected. Other times it got the distances perfect. I will let the forum know what I find with the Omnimic,

Interesting read:
Would I be correct in thinking that you consider the current YPAO capable of managing room response and eq in a similar manner to the Audyssey 32 (is it 32 or xt 32 or something?) and can match Audyssey?
Your comments re low level frequency are quite common I think, although I did leave my sub at the distance YPAO selected (having set a measured ddistance, then reverted to the YPAO calculated distance) and no doubt the LF integrated much better, before it had sounded as if it was on it's own making a noise.

Will be very interested in your futher labours and results.

Thanks for joining the thread.

[Crossfire1]

Originally Posted by snlsrchr

Twice I got incorrect distance readings for my subwoofers from YPAO.

Its correcting for delays in the subwoofer amplifier circuitry.

The way that I was told to set the subwoofer distance manually or phase , was to reverse the polarity of the left and right speakers. (Negative to positive, positive to negative etc)

Then download and play a test tone at the crossover frequency and using a spl meter adjust the distance so you get the least amount of bass at the listening position. When you then connect your speakers back up correctly , the subwoofer delay should be correct.

Make sure you use a 2 channel stereo setting along with the subwoofer when using the test tone.

I am not sure if this would be considered a good way of doing it but its always worked well for me.

I really disliked 2eq on my Onkyo 509 receiver , I usually left it turned off because I hated the way it made my system sound. Upgraded to a yamaha and the ypao is doing a much better job in my room. I havent used the higher end versions of audyssey so I cant comment on them.

[snlsrchr]

Thanks for your comments. I have been trying to contact Yamaha to learn exactly how to manipulate the equalization via the seemingly manipulatable freq/Db charts should my Omnimic measurements suggest it is needed. I do have all Snell THX rated speakers (two 7.1 systems) (except the sub system in one room) which tout extremely flat frequency responses. Unless my room is doing bizarre things to the sound, I should not need to do much adjustment on my speakers unless I have a faulty one (I bought them all used on E-Bay). I should get to Yamaha over the next week. By the way, if any of you are thinking of buying new high end receivers with an eye on power, you might consider the following: I bought a mid level Yamaha 7.1 receiver with all the bells and features you could ask for (3D switching, video return channel, YPAO, etc.) for about $400 (less than half retail) because of a poor radio and bad earphone jacks in the model, it was being quickly upgraded with I believe an RX A806). I then bought an Emotiva 5 channel monobloc amp (300 really full, clean wpc at 4 ohms and 200 wpc at 8 ohms) (about $800). The Yamaha nicely had pre outs for it and I used the Yamaha receiver amp outputs for the back 2 channels. The combination gives you features and clean power you can't touch for multiple thousands $. I have two of these rigs and am so totally happy with the sound and the home theatre features.

[Quaddy]

you've reminded me, i did actually like the fact that you could see the data after calibration with the ypao, and tweak the PEQ's, with the inbuilt audyssey you can't

[snlsrchr]

I tried tweaking mine, but since I didn't understand their graphs (what do the 2 lines mean?), I didn't know what I was doing when I was playing with it and there was no explanation of how to use the controls. This is why I am going to set aside some time to call Yamaha, hoping to get ahold of someone who knows their system. Thanks for the input. Bob

[markymiles]

What exactly are you wanting info on with regards manual peq on the yamaha. It has the q values and gain/cut +/- for each of the freq values for each speaker. Don't know how you're exactly going to determine what's needed but it will be a compromise as chances are you will want to adjust frequencies different to the predetermined ones available.

You can use something like rew.

What do you mean by the two lines?

Have you got the receiver manager program. Makes it much easier to play around than using the gui.

[snlsrchr]

I have not heard of the "receiver manager program" . Also, there was another value , I believe it was "Q" which was set at 50% for all my speakers. I think it is adjustable, and since all my speakers are Snell. maybe 50% is appropriate, but I am not sure. Also, I did play with the graphs a little, but one colored line went up in a few places from the other flat line. Was I supposed to pull it down to the flat line. Also, it was not obvious to me how to "capture the changes, since the cd manual was vague on this. These are my questions right now, but its been a while since I messed with it and I am sure you can tell I am purely a novice at this. Thanks ! Bob

[markymiles]

The graphs just show you the flat line for reference, the other is a just a visual representation of what the peq is doing. What you don't get is what your room is like. So you'll need something else to measure your room if you want to play around with manual peq. What is the model number of your receiver?

The three things in the peq are Band, Gain and Freq. you can choose 7 bands from memory on the main speakers and 4 on the sub if you have this. Not being rude just checking where you're coming from do you understand what Q is?

[snlsrchr]

I have two Yamaha RX-A800s. The lines confused me because I thought the goal of YPAO was to achieve a "flat" curve. My graphs have a few upward deviations from the "flat. I didn't know if this was the "before" measurement or the "after" adjustment measurement. Since I was able to pull the slightly elevated segments down, I wondered why the Yamaha didn't do this. As I understand it from delving into speaker building and measurement articles and one book, the "Q" describes a couple of physical and electrical characteristics of a speaker, one being damping and the other being the tendency of a speaker to peak at its frequency of resonance. Is the Yamaha measuring the "Qs" of all my speakers and setting them all at .5; did the .5 value come out of the measurement process at all, or is this just a preset value that I can change? (and would that be wise?). I have access to some formulas to calculate driver Qs, but since my Snell speaker boxes have mostly 4 speakers with crossovers, I am not sure I have the competence to produce a "box" Q value. I recently bought a Dayton Omnimic with software and I sent it back to Dayton to be hand calibrated. I haven't used it yet as I am looking for a new or preferably used laptop appropriate for speaker testing. (At this point I don't think the mic will produce a "Q" value, but perhaps, as I learn more, maybe it will give me some info related to it.) I am also looking for more "down to earth" practical instructions on how to use the mic since I am not a technician. Sounds like you may be a technician? Regardless, I appreciate your interest and input. Thanks, Bob

[snlsrchr]

Thank you Crossfire, I am going to keep your method just in case I need it. For now, I finally got the subs in both my rooms almost delightfully perfect. I have a Snell Sub24 which I guess I luckily placed and set up perfectly (after getting the distance correct) by luck. The low bass is to die for: It is unobtrusive in that the listener can't detect where it is-the low bass seems to be coming from each of the other 7 speakers. The sound is very smooth and clean, only appropriately present at low volumes, yet will shake the floors during the loud parts of movies. Guests are most impressed while watching normal television. Most people didn't realize that HD stations carried such quality bass.
My problem was in getting my other, much larger room to have the bass quality of my smaller room. I hope you don't mind if I get a bit lengthy in the telling of this, but after I retired, this speaker thing sort of developed into a hobby. I had two large full range bass cabinets that I had built for my dad over 30 years ago with JBL e-15s, JBL horns and crossovers. When one of the speakers went out, it took the stereo amp with it, so I decided to rebuild the system as a 7.1 with the Yamaha RXA-800, an Emotiva XPA-5 as my main amp, an evolving set of Snell speakers--ending up with Snell LCR 500 Lucasfilm THX speakers for fronts and center (with in-wall versions (800s)) for the sides and rear. Fortunately, the large old cabinets I built for my dad over 30 years ago (about 6 cubic feet internal net) were so massively braced and cross braced internally (all joints with screws and heavy contact cement) that they were perfect candidates for subs. I bought two Dayton 15" 4 OHM reference sub speakers which were supposed to go down to 19HZ (RSS390HF-4). I removed the old speakers and used a computer program (WINISD) to calculate new porting. This was supposed to, by calculation, take the usable bass down to 16HZ. I bought a Peavy 2 channel AMP (2 x 500 watts at 4 ohms) to power the subs. The results were underwhelming. My old JBLs- even though they were wide range bass speakers, run with very little power- 90 watts shared with the horns, sounded better and cleaner though with less volume and output. The solution turned out to be 3 part. First, I found that fixing the miscalculated distances that the YPAO had produced on the first measurement greatly increased the "punch". Secondly, I removed a ground loop isolator device from between the Yamaha and the sub amp which was used because of a small subwoofer hum.This removed much of the "muffledness" from the bass. I finally tracked down the source of the very low, but annoying, hum to the TV cable connection, and simply disconnected it when listening to pure music. Grounding both ends of the cable further removed about another 75%, so it is almost unnoticable when watching TV. The last step was to purchase two excellent Snell subwoofer amps (SPA750) which I found brand new on E-Bay for 1/4 of new retail price. These, I am told, are really Dayton SA1000s with possibly some modification from Snell, though the controls are identical. These special sub amps are the most controllable I have seen. They have a 3DB at 25HZ boost switch, a subsonic filter switch, and variable controls to boost or attenuate at any chosen frequency with a variable range control to vary how wide you want to go around the chosen frequency. I set the volumes at 60% of max, turned off the subsonic filter (since I am not now using a turntable), turned on the 25HZ boost, and left the selectable frequency control at zero (no boost or attenuation). When I turned it on it fully matched the Snell sub 24 (though I think it has twice the potential sound power. Bass on even vintage Jazz recordings sounds noticeably distinct, clear, and smooth. Newer, well recorded material simply blows me away with the power and clarity.
I got into this whole business of YPAO because I was hoping to improve the bass using the YPAO controls. I am now using YPAO settings and I feel no need to improve on them. My problems obviously were obviously beyond any sound analysis systems' ability to correct for. Sorry for the excessive length. I hope this is useful to someone, Bob