Trinnov vs Neptune Audio vs Audyssey MultiEQ XT vs Parc vs ARC

[wettou]

I figure that this is a smart group of audiophiles and we might even have a few electrical engineers. Would some one be willing to look and listen to all of these and tell us which is best?

Trinnov vs Neptune Audio vs Audyssey MultiEQ XT vs Parc vs ARC

Yes I know Classé with the SSP-800 doesn't believe or want to pay for automated EQ any more they used to with the SSP-600!!!!

[sikoniko]

Yes I know Classé with the SSP-800 doesn't believe or want to pay for automated EQ any more

Well... this may be up to interpretation... its not that they don't believe in EQ, as they wouldn't have included the PEQ in the SSP if they didn't.

I don't want to misquote them, so all I will say that they have more of a less is more attitude.

I don't blame them though. I don't like the all or nothing attitude of the market. I would like to see more middle ground. Perhaps autoEQ for 300Hz and below with a manual over-ride, and allow the consumer/dealer to tweak the higher frequencies manually as necessary.

they used to with the SSP-600!!!!

No it didn't. It had auto calibration for levels.

[Kal Rubinson]

I figure that this is a smart group of audiophiles and we might even have a few electrical engineers. Would some one be willing to look and listen to all of these and tell us which is best?

Trinnov vs Neptune Audio vs Audyssey MultiEQ XT vs Parc vs ARC

I've done the last 3 on your list. Would like to get to the others.

Kal

[wettou]

I've done the last 3 on your list. Would like to get to the others. Kal

And who's the winner out of the three?

[Kal Rubinson]

And who's the winner out of the three?

??? (1) They do different things. (2) They are used, mostly, in different contexts, e.g., ARC comes only with one line of products. (3) Details in my articles. :W

Now, if you are NOT using Anthem, the Audyssey and the PARC systems are competitive but I would not use them in the same systems as they have different features and advantages.

Kal

[wettou]

??? (1) They do different things. (2) They are used, mostly, in different contexts, e.g., ARC comes only with one line of products. (3) Details in my articles. :W Now, if you are NOT using Anthem, the Audyssey and the PARC systems are competitive but I would not use them in the same systems as they have different features and advantages. Kal

That is a very politically correct response. Ok let me be more specific in a system like mine which would you recommend?

Also do you have the links to your reviews

[Kal Rubinson]

That is a very politically correct response. Ok let me be more specific in a system like mine which would you recommend?

What is your setup?

Also do you have the links to your reviews

Nope. I would have to do the search as you would.

Kal

[wettou]

What is your setup? Nope. I would have to do the search as you would.

Kal

My system is as follows:

Audio:
Seven speakers:
3 B&W 802D (Left, Center Right)
2 B&W 802N (SR, SL)
2 B&W 7NT in ceiling (BR, BL)
1 JL Audio Fathom F113 subwoofer

Electronics:
Surround Sound Processor:
- Integra Research RDC7 (Classé SSP-800 in Spring 09)

Amplifiers:
- Classé CA-5200 and Classé CA-2100

Sources
SACD Player: Sony XA-777ES SACD
Blu ray Player: Panasonic DMP-BD35K

Room size 20 x 18 x 10 lightly treated

[Kal Rubinson]

Tough because there is no digital in/out EQ so far nor will pre/pros support a digital EQ loop.

BTW, do you bass manage the 802s?

So, here are your options:
1. Get the Audyssey Sound Equalizer and accept the fact that it is redigitizing your preamp outputs. This is more of a philosophical issue than a sonic one.
2. Get the new Anthem D2V2 instead of the SSP-800.
3. Do a more comprehensive room treatment effort so that the MF/HF does not require EQ and get any one of a number of analog input LF EQs, like the subPARC (comes with a useless power amp) or the SMS-1, antiMode 8033 or one of the Behringers.
4. Do a more comprehensive room treatment effort so that the MF/HF does not require EQ and get a pro to set up the EQ in your SSP-800. (This is speculation since I've not used the PEQ in the SSP-800.)

None of these are perfect but doing more/better room treatment should be a no-brainer.

Kal

[wettou]

Tough because there is no digital in/out EQ so far nor will pre/pros support a digital EQ loop.

BTW, do you bass manage the 802s?

So, here are your options:
1. Get the Audyssey Sound Equalizer and accept the fact that it is redigitizing your preamp outputs. This is more of a philosophical issue than a sonic one.
2. Get the new Anthem D2V2 instead of the SSP-800.
3. Do a more comprehensive room treatment effort so that the MF/HF does not require EQ and get any one of a number of analog input LF EQs, like the subPARC (comes with a useless power amp) or the SMS-1, antiMode 8033 or one of the Behringers.
4. Do a more comprehensive room treatment effort so that the MF/HF does not require EQ and get a pro to set up the EQ in your SSP-800. (This is speculation since I've not used the PEQ in the SSP-800.)

None of these are perfect but doing more/better room treatment should be a no-brainer. Kal

I think I will take #4 as the solution, thanks. What do you think of Rives Audio to design room treatments and HAA Level II Certifications for Audio?

[sikoniko]

Tough because there is no digital in/out EQ so far nor will pre/pros support a digital EQ loop.

BTW, do you bass manage the 802s?

So, here are your options:
1. Get the Audyssey Sound Equalizer and accept the fact that it is redigitizing your preamp outputs. This is more of a philosophical issue than a sonic one.
2. Get the new Anthem D2V2 instead of the SSP-800.
3. Do a more comprehensive room treatment effort so that the MF/HF does not require EQ and get any one of a number of analog input LF EQs, like the subPARC (comes with a useless power amp) or the SMS-1, antiMode 8033 or one of the Behringers.
4. Do a more comprehensive room treatment effort so that the MF/HF does not require EQ and get a pro to set up the EQ in your SSP-800. (This is speculation since I've not used the PEQ in the SSP-800.)

None of these are perfect but doing more/better room treatment should be a no-brainer.

Kal

OOC, are these in order of your preference or random?

I'm also curious... I've searched through the Meridian 861 manual and saw no buzzwords like "Audyssey", "Trinnov", "PARC", or any other type of auto-eq, or really any EQ. hmm.. I seem to recall if you have the Meridian DSP speaker, it will do minimal EQ on them... but you don't, do you? Perhaps you can shed some light on why this unit is still in your high-end multi-channel system?

How can it be all that good without any of those features? I'm guessing you've already replaced it with the Anthem, as the ARC EQ made it a better audible experience?

[Kal Rubinson]

I think I will take #4 as the solution, thanks. What do you think of Rives Audio to design room treatments and HAA Level II Certifications for Audio?

The only things I know about Rives are PARC, subPARC and, via conversation, that Richard and Chris are smart and committed.

Kal

[Kal Rubinson]

OOC, are these in order of your preference or random?

Stream of consciousness. BTW, what's OOC?

I'm also curious... I've searched through the Meridian 861 manual and saw no buzzwords like "Audyssey", "Trinnov", "PARC", or any other type of auto-eq, or really any EQ. hmm.. I seem to recall if you have the Meridian DSP speaker, it will do minimal EQ on them... but you don't, do you? Perhaps you can shed some light on why this unit is still in your high-end multi-channel system?

I do not have any Meridian speakers but I do use the Meridian Ref 861 pre/pro in my 'big' system. It has MRC which operates, like PARC, only on the lower frequencies where there is moda behavior. It has an auto mode but one can edit the filters post hoc. Works well with the B&Ws in my room.

How can it be all that good without any of those features? I'm guessing you've already replaced it with the Anthem, as the ARC EQ made it a better audible experience?

Audyssey and ARC are/were used in my other system.

Kal

[sikoniko]

Stream of consciousness. BTW, what's OOC?

OOC = Out of curiosity

I do not have any Meridian speakers but I do use the Meridian Ref 861 pre/pro in my 'big' system. It has MRC which operates, like PARC, only on the lower frequencies where there is moda behavior. It has an auto mode but one can edit the filters post hoc. Works well with the B&Ws in my room.

just found this article: http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround/706mitr/

I think I really like that concept. It pretty much echo's what I was saying I would be looking for. I was under the impression that you had to have the dsp speaker to take advantage of it.

In pursuit of more information, I'm not clear on how many bands are capable with it? Also, am I understanding you correctly that it supported 2 seperate configurations? multi-channel and 2 channel?

Going off what you know about the SSP-800, on paper, how would you compare the the SSP does in comparison to MRC, other than automated? Would it be inconceivable that the built in PEQ could accomplish the same tasks if Classe had a way to automate it?

[sikoniko]

http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Room_Correction_scr.pdf

That seems to be an informative link on what it is doing... for those other than Kal.

[sikoniko]

Just found this...

Meridian Room Correction is implemented in conjunction with the equipment setup procedure, which is carried out with the aid of a personal computer. An extension to the Meridian Configuration program is used to lead the user through an initial microphone setup procedure, and then proceeds to perform a series of measuring tests. From the results of these tests, a filter profile is constructed, which contains a specific series of filters for each channel – up to a total of 60 filters for an entire multichannel profile.

Guess its more filters than what is available in the system today... Haven't gotten to anything that says that MRC does anything different from what the SSP does manually. very interested though.

[sikoniko]

Can you elaborate on what this means?

In addition to the automatic procedure that builds filters for a profile – and
there can be several profiles, corresponding to different speaker layouts or room configurations, for example – you can also manually build filters for a profile. Here, the target decay time can be set automatically by the program, or manually. Typically a decay time of 350 milliseconds is appropriate for listening at home, while 200ms gives
a drier acoustic more suited to a recording studio control room.

[Kal Rubinson]

I think I really like that concept. It pretty much echo's what I was saying I would be looking for. I was under the impression that you had to have the dsp speaker to take advantage of it.

Nope. If you do, you can also modify the LF/MF crossovers.

In pursuit of more information, I'm not clear on how many bands are capable with it? Also, am I understanding you correctly that it supported 2 seperate configurations? multi-channel and 2 channel?

I do not have the software/docs on this computer but, from memory, there are up to 60 filters per configuration. Also, there are a number of configurations possible. Not very user friendly, poor documentation, steep learning curve, very flexible.

Going off what you know about the SSP-800, on paper, how would you compare the the SSP does in comparison to MRC, other than automated?

The automated MRC is not ideal. Getting the best of it requires hands-on use. Also, it is NOT a simple PEQ and it corrects room modes but not the amplitude/FR. Meridian feels that equipment selection, setup and room acoustical treatment should be doing that.

Would it be inconceivable that the built in PEQ could accomplish the same tasks if Classe had a way to automate it?

Doubtful but possible. That said, I am a fan of non-automatic RC rather than automatic.

[sikoniko]

I do not have the software/docs on this computer but, from memory, there are up to 60 filters per configuration. Also, there are a number of configurations possible. Not very user friendly, poor documentation, steep learning curve, very flexible.

yep, found in the doc's the number 60. thats not inconceivable with the SSP-800.

The automated MRC is not ideal. Getting the best of it requires hands-on use. Also, it is NOT a simple PEQ and it corrects room modes but not the amplitude/FR. Meridian feels that equipment selection, setup and room acoustical treatment should be doing that.

The question is, is it "good enough"? AutoEQ, IMO, is a "good enough" solution. Not an ideal solution.

It would be interesting to see if you can plug your Meridian bands into the SSP-800 and yield similar results.

When you do get an SSP-800, how do you plan to review it? multi-channel [SACD] only? or in both systems?

Doubtful but possible. That said, I am a fan of non-automatic RC rather than automatic.

I have to admit, Kal, getting information from you can be like pulling teeth at times... :P

Do you prefer to use something like XTZ to measure your room and apply to the MRC over the autoEQ?

[Kal Rubinson]

The question is, is it "good enough"? AutoEQ, IMO, is a "good enough" solution. Not an ideal solution.

Personal decision. Auto is better than none.

It would be interesting to see if you can plug your Meridian bands into the SSP-800 and yield similar results.

Might be worth a shot.

When you do get an SSP-800, how do you plan to review it? multi-channel [SACD] only? or in both systems?

Dunno yet.

I have to admit, Kal, getting information from you can be like pulling teeth at times... :P

Busy and impatient.

Do you prefer to use something like XTZ to measure your room and apply to the MRC over the autoEQ?

Never tried it.

[Srrndhound]

Guess its more filters than what is available in the system today... Haven't gotten to anything that says that MRC does anything different from what the SSP does manually. very interested though.

Aside from the obvious difference that MRC includes measurement/analysis while SSP-800 has none, the difference is mainly that MRC's algorithm appears to be unique compared to any other tool one might employ for room analysis, in two key respects:

1) MRC is able to determine which peaks are the best candidates for correction, and which are not. Their AES paper (section 5) goes into more detail on how this is accomplished. It's not something one can do by eyeballing a waterfall plot.

2) The selection of the filter parameters takes into account overall room reverb time and transient response of the room modes. It does not aim to remove the mode, but to reduce its effect, within limits (sections 6-7). One could approximate this prudence by limiting manual PEQ settings to a max of -6 dB, which cuts the mode's RT in half.

Whether all that analysis intelligence gives a superior result is another matter. I would say that one can infer a shared respect for a minimalist approach in Meridian and Classe, in that neither take the risk of fixing what might not be broke. If Anthem is able to fix their ARC software gain offset issue such that it operates correctly at reduced bandwidths (like 200-300 Hz instead of 15-20 kHz), then they may join this small party.

[Kal Rubinson]

Yes. That AES paper is impressively logical and convincing. Of course, it is not a proof of anything but knowing what you want to achieve is a great start.

Can you explain the ARC gain offset issue? I do not know about this but I got very unsatisfying results with <500Hz settings and ended up using full-range corrections.

Kal

[Srrndhound]

Can you explain the ARC gain offset issue? I do not know about this but I got very unsatisfying results with <500Hz settings and ended up using full-range corrections.

It has to do with the MaxEQ parameter, and if the various speakers in the system are not well matched above that frequency, it messes how the gain offset is done. Bob P explained it in these two posts:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15216607&postcount=17228

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15216607&postcount=17231

As a result, it makes it hard to confine the ARC to the bass region, as one could easily choose to do with SP-800 or Parc, or will naturally do with MRC. I think Anthem will fix it--seems to be an oversight.

[sikoniko]

Its funny, because I had contacted Dave (Nauber) a couple weeks ago asking him about AutoEQ (such as Audyssey). His response read very similar to the Meridian PDF I posted a link to.

I think this doc makes a fantastic argument on why not to manipulate the EQ above 250Hz - or do so sparingly, so what is the Audyssey arguement to mess with the whole thing?

The whole concept of Audyssey contradicts what the people at Meridian are saying and I have to tell you that at this point, the scientists and engineers at Meridian are more impressive to me than Audyssey. It really only further makes me convinced that at this point Audyssey, even the pro model, is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

[sikoniko]

Personal decision. Auto is better than none.

Doubtful but possible. That said, I am a fan of non-automatic RC rather than automatic.

If I'm not taking you out of context, you say:

Auto is better than none, but "non-automatic" (manual) is better than auto. Correct?

So, as much as you like AutoEQ, you still prefer a manual method? (this is why I say its like pulling teeth to get information out of you! :W ) At least thats what you said when I connect the dots...

[Kal Rubinson]

If I'm not taking you out of context, you say:

Auto is better than none, but "non-automatic" (manual) is better than auto. Correct?

So, as much as you like AutoEQ, you still prefer a manual method? (this is why I say its like pulling teeth to get information out of you! :W ) At least thats what you said when I connect the dots...

You got it. Well, there are things that can be automated just fine and there are things I like to control. So, the new Audyssey Pro gives me the ability to edit target curves and fit/refit them to the measurements (which I am happy to accept as long as I know they are consistent).

As for style, it is probably a habit from years of teaching professionals where I prefer to guide them to understanding and a solution rather than simply answering the question for them to accept and memorize. I am an academic.

Kal

[Kal Rubinson]

It has to do with the MaxEQ parameter, and if the various speakers in the system are not well matched above that frequency, it messes how the gain offset is done. Bob P explained it in these two posts:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15216607&postcount=17228

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15216607&postcount=17231

As a result, it makes it hard to confine the ARC to the bass region, as one could easily choose to do with SP-800 or Parc, or will naturally do with MRC. I think Anthem will fix it--seems to be an oversight.

Ah. Thanks. I remember that now. Yes, I recall some results like that.

[beden1]

As for style, it is probably a habit from years of teaching professionals where I prefer to guide them to understanding and a solution rather than simply answering the question for them to accept and memorize. I am an academic.

Kal

That kind of reminds me of Alan Greenspan with his Greenspeak!

[Kal Rubinson]

That kind of reminds me of Alan Greenspan with his Greenspeak!

Well, there goes my credibility! :E

Kal