This is exactly what I'm talking about.Audyssesy is still on the bottom of the heap in comparison to Dirac, ARC, TEQ, RP and some of the computer based room EQ's. It has nothing to do with snobbery, it's just a mediocre room correction in the D&M series of AVRs. It's not as bad as it used to be however.
And then there's no info if this version of Audyssey in the McIntosh is the same version that's used in the dARTS system, which would be a much upgraded version on the old Audyssesy pro. But as far as I know the dARTS system is the only one that has it.
As far as McIntosh not caring, they didn't upgrade the HDMI board in their £22k processor and have no plans to and every other manufacturer did.
What's my evidence? Personally owning several devices with different room EQ's. Seeing the room measurements from dozens of RC shootout threads, many many demos over years etc.This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Not here to defend Audyssey as I genuinely don't know but what exactly are you basing that statement on? Where's your evidence? What's your experience? What version of Audyssey? What testing can you point to? How much better/worse is it? What were the test criteria? How did you do a like for like when to my knowledge no two amps have more than one room correction software available?
I suspect you're regurgitating the exact rhetoric I was talking about and while I'm not in any way suggesting you're wrong in what you say I'd love to know what you are basing it on so I can go read it myself.
Except it was only a stereo test. At least some attempt at neutrality was made which is good but no tests were done in a multi channel setup which is bad (or at least inconclusive depending on how the RC works and is tuned).I know design is very much a personal thing, but blimey the looks of those processors is challenging. What a mix of colours and info.
IIRC there was a shootout between the different room EQs and Audessey didn't do that well. I think Room Perfect and ARC (pre-Genesis release) were the better performing ones
Edit: it was this one
How do you think the sound quality of musical instruments like say, the piano where differentiated and classed back in the day? or take it one step back even to how they were designed and constructed. No blind tests, no room measurement software - it was completely done by ear.I'm not disagreeing or arguing that anyone is wrong I'm just looking for more objective proof than saying "It is because I say it is".
Many would argue that stereo testing is a much harsher critic of any RC as it's a more focused test, even mono and single speaker mono testing has been used in blind tests. What kind of objective proof are you looking for exactly?Except it was only a stereo test. At least some attempt at neutrality was made which is good but no tests were done in a multi channel setup which is bad (or at least inconclusive depending on how the RC works and is tuned).
No idea tbh. Would never have thought to look at McIntosh for AV but the lower end model reads to me like Denon 8500.
What more concerning is there's a part of me that likes the lights
It doesn't surprise me if they mod a base unit. The pace of AV and the elements involved probably make it difficult for a HIFI company to compete.It was. It was a fancy Marantzy. The more expensive models were a different platform and different components especially in the analogue stage. But what they didn't do was update the HDMI board to 18.2Gps and it was over £20k. I mean sure you could throw in a lumagen but it was shortsighted to make it impossible to upgrade, I reckon they would have had to ditch most of the insides.
If you buy the full top end system complete with monoblocks, you can lease a Vette for a buck.Word has it that the test tones are taken straight from NASCAR
I thought that was a meme... surely this is?
That clock is brilliant. I might make one with a Raspberry Pi.
Broadly, musical instrument improvements have come through necessitated advancements to fix mechanical problems and issues, especially on the piano, as much as anything else. With the exception of the very latest integration of digital capabilities piano construction has changed very little since around 1900. Some experimentation has happened of course but fundamentally what are generally regarded as the very best pianos today have changed little in over 100 years.How do you think the sound quality of musical instruments like say, the piano where differentiated and classed back in the day? or take it one step back even to how they were designed and constructed. No blind tests, no room measurement software - it was completely done by ear.
It depends on what you want to test.Many would argue that stereo testing is a much harsher critic of any RC as it's a more focused test, even mono and single speaker mono testing has been used in blind tests. What kind of objective proof are you looking for exactly?
Do you mean a graph? If so, how do you intend to interpret this - you're going to have to take the word of someone saying 'because I say it is' because it can be open to interpretation as not all things that appear bad or good are actually bad or good, it's just not as simple as that - much to the dismay of many Arcam users.
I think it is a little unfair to brand McIntosh a lifestyle brand over a couple of tongue-in-cheek products like the lightbox and clock. Yes, they are clearly aimed at those with more money than sense, but that is just good business acumen on their part. They have realised that there is a customer who wants to buy into the McIntosh way of life.
Where are these RC shootouts on paper? You've claimed they exist twice now and I've looked more than once and I've never found any apart from industry magazine articles from years ago but I'd genuinely like to read them.TLDR;
You're missing the point and don't understand psychoacoustics in conjunction with RC. You're also making presumptions from a self professed position of ignorance on an event you didn't attend. There are RC shootouts on paper too - miraculously.. same conclusions.
I wasn't there either, but I wasn't surprised on reading the results - if you're around this stuff long enough it really doesn't take much to hear very obvious differences in these room corrections on the end of good systems. Audyssey is built to a budget and falls flat on higher end speakers - it's a notch up from YPAO and MCAC however.
In my room, which scientifically measures above average, it was better to disengage it altogether. It's not something I would champion, it's much too heavy handed and not very intuitive and frankly just lazy.