SSP-800 and automated EQ: A Deal Breaker?

[sikoniko]

I'd like to invite everybody from the HTGuide forum to participate, as I'd like to know if the lack of an AutoEQ feature in the SSP-800 is a deal breaker for you, and causes you to look at competing products.

[wettou]

Hopefully Classe is taking this in consideration

[wxmanunr]

No

I have one already. I'm assuming by automated EQ, you mean level setting and not room correction.

"Automated EQ" (me pressing the buttons) takes about 3.7 minutes after the SSP-800 and my amps are warmed up.

Very easy.

wxmanunr

[sikoniko]

I have one already. I'm assuming by automated EQ, you mean level setting and not room correction.

"Automated EQ" (me pressing the buttons) takes about 3.7 minutes after the SSP-800 and my amps are warmed up.

Very easy.

wxmanunr

By AutoEQ, I mean an automated room correction (Equalization), like Audyssey, Trinnov, etc...

You're thinking of auto-levels.

[sikoniko]

I wish there was a way for me to edit my earlier vote. I am between opinions at this moment. I wish there was an automated EQ, but I wish all it did was manually do what a professional acoustician would do.

I've read some things about Trinnov that make me kind of gun-shy of it now. Apparently what it does is it tries to compensate for "optimal" speaker placement by re-processing the signal across multiple speakers to trick the listener into believing the signal is actually aligned properly. To achieve this, it will take a signal destined for a surround speaker and spread it across multiple speakers. I would want to hear how this comes out, but the theory is one that I'm not sure I agree with.

The more I learn about automated solutions, the more I wish there was just an EQ for dummies kit one could buy to get us started. Apparently XTZ is the closest thing to it, but REW is supposed to be better.

What I would like to see from Classe is a way to connect REW into the Classe EQ, via USB or RS232 and allow the user to manipulate the onboard EQ from REW directly. TaCT is doing this, and REW can also interface with the BFD. It seems to me the best way.

The more I read about Auto-EQ, in its current form, the more I feel that it can truely cause more harm then good. It removes the human factor. I don't like that. Hopefully they will mature to allow an automated baseline where the end-user can get to a starting point, and then tweak it to a humans preference, not a computers.

[KahunaCanuck]

I agree with what you are saying, for many what Classe has provided is sufficient, and when I get my SSP 800 I will have a professional set it up properly. I think what adding an Auto EQ to a Pre/Pro does is enable the non-tinkerer to feel safer about their purchase...these are the people who would never get it professionally calibrated or know enough to do it themselves, but can connect the mic and run the program. Once they have run it, regardless of if it is better or worse, they feel better...

[style]

For the SSP800 the only "maschine inside" that make sense will be:

-autocalibration Audyssey --> NO THANK's
-Trinnov --> experimental software -> NO THANK's
-automated EQ ---> 20% pro --> becouse every room, speaker, cable,.. make a difference and I dont think that a auto EQ can have this inside = success at 1% , well NO THANK's.
-other automated EQ --> not standard for all the consumer -> NO THANK's

The SSP is SURE a modern PRE, to have a so great sound you must search in another branch and if you have succes other price liga.
the texas inst. chip (1 at today) what is offered by Ssp800 is now difficult to find in other pre, super 2 channels and super HT (with all due respect to other manufacturers)
was not easy decide from >>As long as it has a manual EQ, I'm happy>> and
>>Deal Breaker! I don't care which solution it has, this is a must in modern pre-pros! >>
but whit a manual EQ i'm happy too:!!! who is capable of providing a setup for EQ PROfessional person without help extend?!! Not a test, or with help from software XY or so like that....

I wait a NEW firmware (not the next :B ) but a GREAT firmware after the ----coming from the new chip for the HD codec... = 6 month. ca. and in this time I enjoy my SSP so like it's: a very great pre.
--------------

the new codec will be available end this month in USA, Europa end February...
but the "problem" is to that the bluray disc with a dht-hd/DD+ with english speak is "normal" the same Bluray titel in german,French,Italian,... have "Only" dts,DD,.. = the new codec dont are so important!!! 8O
Bitrate (pictures & audio) is very different depends from language set.
In USA will be the biggest difference now..the first time while ! in Europe
it will take more time!


Not for nothing appliances such as neptune EQ came on the market and attract many consumers...

style

[Kal Rubinson]

Not for nothing appliances such as neptune EQ came on the market and attract many consumers...

So, you are happy inserting additional A/D and D/A into your system?

[sikoniko]

I wait a NEW firmware (not the next :B ) but a GREAT firmware after the ----coming from the new chip for the HD codec... = 6 month. ca. and in this time I enjoy my SSP so like it's: a very great pre.
--------------

the new codec will be available end this month in USA, Europa end February...
but the "problem" is to that the bluray disc with a dht-hd/DD+ with english speak is "normal" the same Bluray titel in german,French,Italian,... have "Only" dts,DD,.. = the new codec dont are so important!!! 8O
Bitrate (pictures & audio) is very different depends from language set.
In USA will be the biggest difference now..the first time while ! in Europe
it will take more time!

style

I wouldn't hold my breath on expecting a difference in audio when the new DSP comes out. It is possible, but not something I'm expecting. The sound you have now is probably the sound you will have in the future from the SSP-800.

[Ken49r]

I think if you can afford this product you can also afford a professional acoustician to come out and calibrate the system. That's what I would do anyway.

[Kal Rubinson]

I think if you can afford this product you can also afford a professional acoustician to come out and calibrate the system. That's what I would do anyway.

Mebbe but you would also have to call him again every time you change speakers, speaker position or, indeed, anything with a substantial acoustic effect on the room.

Kal

[beaverlake]

I've been lurking for the past few weeks, trying to decide a direction for a new pre-pro. I'll keep that subject to another thread or start one - but as for the auto EQ approaches vs manual the only consistent theme I've seen, and one that seems to make the most sense, is an auto EQ that provides the option (and tools) to tweak the settings after the auto EQ process is done. This approach is independent of the technology vendor (Aud, Trin, Nept, etc.). At this point the only system with an integrated Audessey Pro option like that is apparently now available or soon to be available on the Denon AVP (PLEASE - no reaction, I'm NOT promoting any brand). For better or worse that option also comes along with the cost of the "pro".

I've formed this opinion after reading thread after thread and review after review plus doing a mid-level dive into the tech vendor web sites. What seems to be universal is an appreciation of "fixing" bass-related issued and a desire to "tweak" the mid- and high-frequencies to correct some percieved audio anomoly (which is perhaps no anomoly at all, but the first time the listener actually hear things "correctly" - but again, I digress). The bottom line is this: why can't the high-end consumer have a "both/and" situation rather than an "either/or" decision when it comes to auto/manual EQ?

So for Classe and the other higher-end comanies - we pay you more for what we percieve is better sound, now be consistent and bring us a better tool.

gordon

[style]

@Kal Rubinson
a extern Dac for the the SSP? No,... I worte only that in the market are coming much new product like the Neptune...only for consumer "in doubt"...
I dont think that a exter Dac from the "small" DagMagic -camdbrige- oe the expensive NeptuneEQ make sense with the SSP...

@sikoniko
Yes in principe I think a "new" SSP with the second DSP for the DD+,dtsHD,...
dont make a big difference in sound from now!. in stereo sure no in HT onla with new bluray disc with DD1/dstHd in German/French/Italian...but in English too I dont think a abisale difference from now to the "new" SSP with 2 DSP inside...well not with all title!and no whitout a new firmware (1.0.10????)

@Ken49r
A professional acoustician that come at my home to make a great calibration (with spare part a necessary, but only not a NEw Dac or complety revolution from my SSP) is sure te better and the only way.
Classe don't have make a auto-calibration (~like in the SSP600) becouse make no sense....a great setting or nothing.../ all or nothing like you will!
the way from every brand is to go versus a "computer inside on the pre-pro" like the street made from Meridian...but a MAN is better vs. one computer OR???

@gordon
uhmmm... at big linie I agree with what you have write in the 4 opiion-linie opinion.

Style

[Kal Rubinson]

.but a MAN is better vs. one computer OR???

Style

Depends on the man.

Kal

[style]

Depends on the man.
Kal

A PROfessional acoustician (MAN) :W :W

not a Ikea emplyed ops:

[alebonau]

A PROfessional acoustician (MAN) :W :W

not a Ikea emplyed ops:

So have you employed a "PROfessional acoustician (MAN)" to properly calibrate your ssp-800 for your system and room environment ?

will you be getting him back each time you upgrade speakers or change something in your room or setup ? and will you be calling the "MAN" back when the ssp-800 gets its brain transplant update in may ?

yes the lack of auto eq is a deal breaker. it is a deal breaker for my cousin who was considering it. but that he cant sell his ssp600 for much more than peanuts is more what he is trying to work through at the present before he can even consider any other options !

the denon avp does in fact has manual eq capability. not that I've ever needed to explore that as the auto eq using audyssey has been just fine for me. recently I upgraded my side surround was just the matter of me running the auto setup/eq on the denon again and woohoo it sounds absolutely superb. no matter if its music or TV or DVDs or blu-ray disc.

Many people are keen on some auto eq option. even this poll shows that clearly. They dont necessarily want to get a "MAN" in to do the job. They want something that takes care of things and provides a great result. Sure can manage this in a few different ways. hell if all you want is auto eq for bass get something like a velo DD or velo's sms unit which comes with 8 ch parametric eq and a system that makes it subs for dummies ! but can tell you now audyssey takes things to a whole another level.

I cant comment on trinov or any other options as no experience with those !

[sikoniko]

So have you employed a "PROfessional acoustician (MAN)" to properly calibrate your ssp-800 for your system and room environment ?

will you be getting him back each time you upgrade speakers or change something in your room or setup ? and will you be calling the "MAN" back when the ssp-800 gets its brain transplant update in may ?

the same can be said about Audyssey Pro.

yes the lack of auto eq is a deal breaker. it is a deal breaker for my cousin who was considering it. but that he cant sell his ssp600 for much more than peanuts is more what he is trying to work through at the present before he can even consider any other options !

He should have gotten rid of it sooner than later. Anytime a new model comes out, the bottom drops out of the outgoing model.

the denon avp does in fact has manual eq capability. not that I've ever needed to explore that as the auto eq using audyssey has been just fine for me. recently I upgraded my side surround was just the matter of me running the auto setup/eq on the denon again and woohoo it sounds absolutely superb. no matter if its music or TV or DVDs or blu-ray disc.

Many people are keen on some auto eq option. even this poll shows that clearly. They dont necessarily want to get a "MAN" in to do the job. They want something that takes care of things and provides a great result. Sure can manage this in a few different ways. hell if all you want is auto eq for bass get something like a velo DD or velo's sms unit which comes with 8 ch parametric eq and a system that makes it subs for dummies ! but can tell you now audyssey takes things to a whole another level.

I cant comment on trinov or any other options as no experience with those !

I agree with you that an AutoEQ option would be nice for the SSP-800, but for different reasons. I feel that an automated option would be a "good enough" approach for someone who doesn't want to hire an acoustician, but would provide better than no EQ. The problem is, I don't like the liberties that the automated solutions are currently taking. I hope companies like Audyssey will continue to re-evaluate their position and open the system up for manual override.

[Kal Rubinson]

I hope companies like Audyssey will continue to re-evaluate their position and open the system up for manual override.

Manual override of what? It's not a simple GEQ or PEQ.

[wettou]

Mebbe but you would also have to call him again every time you change speakers, speaker position or, indeed, anything with a substantial acoustic effect on the room. Kal

And here lies the major problem!!!!

Hopefully enought people will vote with their wallets and wait for Classé to do like Meridian, Lexicon, Sim Audio.. and the lesser Marantz, Denon, Onkyo, Integra and offer automated EQ!!!!! Either "Audyssey Mult EQ XT" or PARC, or Trinnov......

[AV-OCD]

So have you employed a "PROfessional acoustician (MAN)" to properly calibrate your ssp-800 for your system and room environment ?

will you be getting him back each time you upgrade speakers or change something in your room or setup ? and will you be calling the "MAN" back when the ssp-800 gets its brain transplant update in may ?

yes the lack of auto eq is a deal breaker. it is a deal breaker for my cousin who was considering it. but that he cant sell his ssp600 for much more than peanuts is more what he is trying to work through at the present before he can even consider any other options !

the denon avp does in fact has manual eq capability. not that I've ever needed to explore that as the auto eq using audyssey has been just fine for me. recently I upgraded my side surround was just the matter of me running the auto setup/eq on the denon again and woohoo it sounds absolutely superb. no matter if its music or TV or DVDs or blu-ray disc.

Many people are keen on some auto eq option. even this poll shows that clearly. They dont necessarily want to get a "MAN" in to do the job. They want something that takes care of things and provides a great result. Sure can manage this in a few different ways. hell if all you want is auto eq for bass get something like a velo DD or velo's sms unit which comes with 8 ch parametric eq and a system that makes it subs for dummies ! but can tell you now audyssey takes things to a whole another level.

I cant comment on trinov or any other options as no experience with those !

With all due respect, I have several counterpoints to your arguments.

1. If you are spending $8K on a processor, you should certainly see the value in having an acoustician evaluate your listening space and perform calibration where needed.

2. How often do most people change speaker positions and furniture? Seems like a forced reason to trash manual EQ and it is easy enough to plan around these things. Just wait to have your system calibrated until after the room design has been finalized.

3. The DSP upgrade will have no effect on one's ability to back-up the system memory, and at the very least you can write down the EQ settings and re-enter them after the upgrade. Takes all of 5 minutes.

4. All processors without HDMI audio processing (like the SSP-600) have tanked in resale value. This is not unique to Classe.

5. The manual EQ in the Denon is fixed band, fixed filter width and useless for room EQ. Not the same animal as the manual EQ in the Classe.

6. Consider yourself lucky that Audyessy worked for you. It doesn't for everyone and it certainly didn't for me. And I owned their top-of-the-line "pro" model. The first few attempts at calibration, the upper bass sounded too hot and the low bass was missing. It wasn't until I monkeyed with the measuring positions and crossovers that I got something that sounded acceptable. Others have complained that their bass sounded anemic after Audyssey. To its credit, Audyssey did a good job of fleshing out the lower midrange in my system, but it also made the sound too forward and bright. Others have complained about the same thing or just the opposite. Nothing I did in subsequent calibration attempts lessened the forward and bright sound of Audyssey EQ. And what if you are unhappy with the results Audyssey gives you? Most will turn it off, rendering it useless. With a professional acoustician and the manual EQ in the SSP-800, you can have a conversation with him after you evaluate the sound and you can have him fine-tune the filters to get something pleasing. Last I checked, you can't have a conversation with Audyssey.

7. While "many people are keen on auto-eq", IMO auto EQ is not a foolproof solution, not right now anyway. The results are inconsistent. Most of these "keen people" are drawn in by the promise of a quick fix for better sound. The truth is that there is equal chance that it will alter the sound in an unpleasing way as there is that it will make the sound better. For instance, if you purchased your speakers because you like their tonal balance and character, Audyssey will attempt to flatten their in-room response and in turn change their character to something that sounds very different than the speakers you purchased. I've achieved much better sound out of my system with pro audio analysis tools and the manual EQ in the SSP-800 than I ever did with Audyssey.

With that said, I would love an auto-eq that delivers on the promise of automatically better sound for all users, or one that gets most of it right and lets the user tweak out the kinks, but until that day comes, I will take the results I've gotten from the manual EQ in the SSP-800.

- Tim

[AV-OCD]

Manual override of what? It's not a simple GEQ or PEQ.

The FR range it corrects for one. The target curve, second. And the amount of correction, third.

[alebonau]

With all due respect, I have several counterpoints to your arguments.

~

all due respect appreciated Tim. and certainly variety is the spice of life. what I think many appreciate though is the choice. Something classe is at present not providing, which is subject of this thread and appearing from the results of the poll is what people are saying

1. If you are spending $8K on a processor, you should certainly see the value in having an acoustician evaluate your listening space and perform calibration where needed.

~

I dont know Tim, did you ? :B

has anyone else in the classe set reported using an acoutician to setup PEQ on their ssp-800 for them ? not that I know off :W

~

2. How often do most people change speaker positions and furniture? Seems like a forced reason to trash manual EQ and it is easy enough to plan around these things. Just wait to have your system calibrated until after the room design has been finalized.

~

I dont know tim

How often do you change speakers :P

I think you'll find people upgrade all the time. this last year or so has seen me upgrading centre, mains and surrounds. and then we changed couches too because the wife got sick of the two leather couches we had and we replaced with one fabric one instead to match the main fabric one we already had. all these things have quite an impact on the acoustics and I would hate to have to drag out an acoustician every time to recalibrate. Its not small bickies you know

3. The DSP upgrade will have no effect on one's ability to back-up the system memory, and at the very least you can write down the EQ settings and re-enter them after the upgrade. Takes all of 5 minutes.
~

I believe its fairly major from what I've read, pretty much a board replacement I understand. Personally I would be recalibrating. but thats your choice

4. All processors without HDMI audio processing (like the SSP-600) have tanked in resale value. This is not unique to Classe.
~

unfortunately for him the classe from only two years ago it doesnt even have hdmi capability. Which is unlike jsut about anything at present even budget gear. So yeah he's having a real struggle getting anything for it. Most people are looking for HDMI capability at the very least it seems ops: the current economic climate doesnt particularly help either I dont think. Dealers are offering him a pittance as dont want to be stuck holding the item. I think he's just a touch cheesed off by the whole deal especially since he only paid ~$15k for the thing not that long ago :E yep thats what it cost in oz !

5. The manual EQ in the Denon is fixed band, fixed filter width and useless for room EQ. Not the same animal as the manual EQ in the Classe.
~

as mentioned not something that I have ever bothered with. audyssey has worked a treat for me and for each time I've run it as well, I have no need for manual eq

not in the same league as the manual EQ in the Classe ? come now Tim now your really having in on. I know what peq is have used it for quite a few years with the velo DD15 which has more bands than the classe even has. There is no way in hell I'd say a few bands of peq is even a patch on what audyssey is capable off. Ask any Acoustician and if his word is worth a grain of salt he wouldnt say any different :T

6. Consider yourself lucky that Audyessy worked for you. It doesn't for everyone and it certainly didn't for me. And I owned their top-of-the-line "pro" model. The first few attempts at calibration, the upper bass sounded too hot and the low bass was missing. It wasn't until I monkeyed with the measuring positions and crossovers that I got something that sounded acceptable. Others have complained that their bass sounded anemic after Audyssey. To its credit, Audyssey did a good job of fleshing out the lower midrange in my system, but it also made the sound too forward and bright. Others have complained about the same thing or just the opposite. Nothing I did in subsequent calibration attempts lessened the forward and bright sound of Audyssey EQ. And what if you are unhappy with the results Audyssey gives you? Most will turn it off, rendering it useless. With a professional acoustician and the manual EQ in the SSP-800, you can have a conversation with him after you evaluate the sound and you can have him fine-tune the filters to get something pleasing. Last I checked, you can't have a conversation with Audyssey.
~

Did you ever have a 'pro' qualified acoustician setup the audyssey pro for you? as far as I understand that is audysseys pre-requisite for configuring that system if you had difficulty with it perhaps something you should have considered ?

I do not consider myself lucky at all that audyssey has worked for me. You jsut have to read the official audyssey thread to see responses from people very happy with audyssey and its result. Chris from audyssey will tell you this and so will Kal here that basically if you havent got the right result from audyssey you havent done it right. The method to run audyssey and the mic postions and measuring procedure etc is well documented on avs. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post14456895
Its actually pretty simple to follow and yep time and time in the audyssey thread you'll see someone not quite happy and then be walked through the specific procedure by chris and others and come through with the right result

the other case of people complaining is usually those who have been used to for years listening to a certain sound and when audyssey recalibrates it to how it should sound its something they have a hard time getting to grips with. what you do with those types god only knows !

I also dont agree with the point of most turning it off because they are not happy. most I know of in the denon avp thread for instance are indeed using audyssey and quite happy.

7. While "many people are keen on auto-eq", IMO auto EQ is not a foolproof solution, not right now anyway. The results are inconsistent. Most of these "keen people" are drawn in by the promise of a quick fix for better sound. The truth is that there is equal chance that it will alter the sound in an unpleasing way as there is that it will make the sound better. For instance, if you purchased your speakers because you like their tonal balance and character, Audyssey will attempt to flatten their in-room response and in turn change their character to something that sounds very different than the speakers you purchased. I've achieved much better sound out of my system with pro audio analysis tools and the manual EQ in the SSP-800 than I ever did with Audyssey.

ofcourse eq is not full proof and certainly it is not fool proof either. Ofcourse results will be inconsistent if the correct procedure is not followed ! Ofcourse Eq will never get rid of major room issues. You need to either change your room for that or introduce treatments. Even treatments cant solve all problems.

what you say inregards audyssey is not quite correct I believe. the sound character of my speakers havent changed as far as I can tell. Audyssey also does not attempt to flatten the response. It eq's to the audyssey curve. there are choices on curves and a audyssey flat curve is there if you so wish. but it is not the default curve.

I still love my speakers and their tonal balance. I think its a bit of a fallacy that audyssey makes all systems sound the same. If I swap out my focals from budget ones in the range I dont think they are going to sound the same ! and neither are a set of M&Ks in my setup !

If you have speakers with serious issues eg a very over the top high end or crap bottom end theres not that much audyssey will be able to do about it. Audyssey can make up for some tonal differences between your speakers though I believe. Tonal differneces which can naturally occur in a room due to positioning and furnishings etc.

Tim I the statement below with some curiousity..

"I've achieved much better sound out of my system with pro audio analysis tools and the manual EQ in the SSP-800 than I ever did with Audyssey."

How can you possibly compare your system to anything you had before. Does your system remotely resemble anything youve had before ?. Not just in speakers but in electronics and even the whole room which has gone through a transformation with the acoustic cloud etc.

With that said, I would love an auto-eq that delivers on the promise of automatically better sound for all users, or one that gets most of it right and lets the user tweak out the kinks, but until that day comes, I will take the results I've gotten from the manual EQ in the SSP-800.

- Tim

auto eq done right I do believe delivers on the promise. I certainly wouldnt even bother with a non audyssey AVP anymore. And this is from me who in the past used peq and also thought eq was only for subs and no way in hell would I want some auto system mucking with things.

all that said yep autoeq is probably not for the control freaks who believe perhaps they have to have control on every aspect of everything. the reality is it does actually work and can do a brilliant job. As long as you follow the procedure to the letter and dont expect it to work miracles. nothing will make a silk purse from sows ear.

also you need to understand the result I think. I dont beleive all users have the necessary to tweak. Very few even have the right measuring equipment. Very few even know what theyre doing. Quite a few I'm sure listen to a properly eq'd result and think its wrong because of being acustomed to listening to a flawed sound. Could it be that they think the bass is lean for instance because theyve been used to listening to it overblown ?

Only thing I can suggest to those is to give the eq'd sound a chance and allow yourself to to get accustomed to it over while. Perhaps then if you swapped back to what you were used to be listening too then it might come apparent how flawed it was !

again, all I think this thread is showing Tim is people wouldnt mind the choice of autoeq. And personally given my experience I cant for one minute say theres any thing wrong with that

[Kal Rubinson]

The FR range it corrects for one. The target curve, second. And the amount of correction, third.

Target curves are now editable on AudysseyPro.

[Kal Rubinson]

2. How often do most people change speaker positions and furniture? Seems like a forced reason to trash manual EQ and it is easy enough to plan around these things. Just wait to have your system calibrated until after the room design has been finalized.

This brings up the confusion (not yours) between automatic, manual and installer-only processes. I have no objection to manual processes but I do have operational and cost issues with processes that the user cannot perform for himself, if he so chooses. Ideally, there should be an automatic process for those who have no skills/interest and a more flexible/powerful process for those with the time/interest/concern for better. And, in an ideal world, the latter would be owner-accessible.

Kal

[sikoniko]

the other case of people complaining is usually those who have been used to for years listening to a certain sound and when audyssey recalibrates it to how it should sound its something they have a hard time getting to grips with. what you do with those types god only knows !

This argument is a fallacy. If someone is not happy with the outcome, why are they wrong? Who has the authority to ultimately call them wrong? He/ she is the consumer and he/ she is the only one who has to live with it.

again, all I think this thread is showing Tim is people wouldnt mind the choice of autoeq. And personally given my experience I cant for one minute say theres any thing wrong with that

I agree. I think some people are upset with Classe because they perceive that Classe has chosen for them, instead of letting them play with it and determine if it is right for them.

I'm appreciative of the participation, and only wish more people would join in. On the other hand, this isn't really useful information to Classe. The next question would need to be:

"Would you find yourself to be a customer of Classe?"

or some wording there-of. Just because someone participated, doesn't mean they have the budget or interest in a Classe product.

I find this whole discussion of EQ interesting, to be honest. 5 years ago noone was talking about it - or very few. Its not like EQ is new. Were you wrong 5 years ago when it wasn't available? or did you buy pro gear that allowed you to EQ? Many people feel very lost without it now... Where will we be in 5 years? Is Audyssey and Trinnov going to be the next Ford / Chevy debate? Will people be picking products based on which EQ the manufacturer included? Will it matter what kind of quality a product has, as long as it has EQ? OK, that is an extreme... or is it? People already perceive products as inferior if it does not have AutoEQ...

[sikoniko]

This brings up the confusion (not yours) between automatic, manual and installer-only processes. I have no objection to manual processes but I do have operational and cost issues with processes that the user cannot perform for himself, if he so chooses. Ideally, there should be an automatic process for those who have no skills/interest and a more flexible/powerful process for those with the time/interest/concern for better. And, in an ideal world, the latter would be owner-accessible.

Kal

I fully agree.

[AV-OCD]

all due respect appreciated Tim. and certainly variety is the spice of life. what I think many appreciate though is the choice. Something classe is at present not providing, which is subject of this thread and appearing from the results of the poll is what people are saying

I agree. The choice would be nice.

I dont know Tim, did you ? :B

has anyone else in the classe set reported using an acoutician to setup PEQ on their ssp-800 for them ? not that I know off :W

Yes, technically I did not hire an acoustician, but that's because, as you know, I have enough interest and enough experience with EQ that I wanted to do it myself. But, honestly, I may just hire one yet. If only to see what choices he would make and to compare his results with mine.

unfortunately for him the classe from only two years ago it doesnt even have hdmi capability. Which is unlike jsut about anything at present even budget gear. So yeah he's having a real struggle getting anything for it. Most people are looking for HDMI capability at the very least it seems ops: the current economic climate doesnt particularly help either I dont think. Dealers are offering him a pittance as dont want to be stuck holding the item. I think he's just a touch cheesed off by the whole deal especially since he only paid ~$15k for the thing not that long ago :E yep thats what it cost in oz !

Sorry about your cousin's situation. I know how frustrating losses in this hobby can be.

not in the same league as the manual EQ in the Classe ? come now Tim now your really having in on. I know what peq is have used it for quite a few years with the velo DD15 which has more bands than the classe even has. There is no way in hell I'd say a few bands of peq is even a patch on what audyssey is capable off. Ask any Acoustician and if his word is worth a grain of salt he wouldnt say any different :T

I did not say that the Audyssey EQ in the Denon is not in the same league as the manual EQ in the 800. I was comparing the manual EQ in the Denon (which overrides Audyssey when in use) to the manual EQ in the 800. The manual EQ in the Denon cannot do what the PEQ does in the 800. I agree that the Audyssey EQ FIR filters are more advanced technology than PEQ, but I believe that PEQ in the right hands has the ability to match and in my case better the results of auto EQ. My very salty acoustician agrees.

Did you ever have a 'pro' qualified acoustician setup the audyssey pro for you? as far as I understand that is audysseys pre-requisite for configuring that system if you had difficulty with it perhaps something you should have considered ?

No I did not, but then I'm not your average consumer. :W

In my defense, I worked extensively with Chris of Audyssey and my acoustician to attempt to resolve the issues I was hearing with Audyssey engaged. And if you had any experience with the pro version of Audyssey, you would probably agree that a "pro" really isn't needed to set it up. It is still an automated process that gives the installer very little control over the outcome. The theoretical benefits of pro version of Audyssey are a) higher resolution filters, B) a more accurate microphone, c) the ability to take more than 8 measurements. None of those affect the control the installer has over the outcome.

I do not consider myself lucky at all that audyssey has worked for me. You jsut have to read the official audyssey thread to see responses from people very happy with audyssey and its result. Chris from audyssey will tell you this and so will Kal here that basically if you havent got the right result from audyssey you havent done it right. The method to run audyssey and the mic postions and measuring procedure etc is well documented on avs.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14456895#post14456895

Its actually pretty simple to follow and yep time and time in the audyssey thread you'll see someone not quite happy and then be walked through the specific procedure by chris and others and come through with the right result

No need to point me to that thread, I contributed to it regularly when I owned the Audyssey pro unit. At the risk of bragging, I also helped establish the "proper" way to measure because of the problems I was having with bass quality after Audyssey did its thing. Specifically, I found that if I measured in front of the listening position, I got consistently better results in the bass. Thanks to my trials and errors, microphone positions 4, 5, and 6 were established (as shown in the diagram referenced in the AVS post in your link). :T

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13402329#post13402329

Even with the success I had in tackling the bass issue described in the post linked to above, I still found that Audyssey would give me mixed results in the mid and treble balance, often making the various speakers I owned too forward and bright.

the other case of people complaining is usually those who have been used to for years listening to a certain sound and when audyssey recalibrates it to how it should sound its something they have a hard time getting to grips with. what you do with those types god only knows !

I agree for the most part. For instance, if you are used to watching a TV in "dynamic mode" and then you have it ISF calibrated, there is a good chance that you will find the calibrated image to be dark and subdued in comparison. Some will grow to appreciate the accuracy of the calibrated image and some will not. I don't, however, think that either is wrong in their preference. And there is still part of me that thinks that Audyssey may not be making the sound "how it *should* be". I don't know what sort of time window Audyssey uses for establishing the FR that they correct, but there is the belief the human brain / hearing process places more weight on the direct sound vs the reflected in-room sound that Audyssey aims to correct. So it may be possible that goal of Audyssey is off to begin with. Just a loose theory based on my experience.

In a related matter, I have discussions with my acoustician on a regular basis, and he is now playing with software that takes into account how sound is measured vs how it is perceived by human ears. If this approach has merit, then Audyssey's goal of flat response from 20Hz to 10KHz may not be the right target.

I also dont agree with the point of most turning it off because they are not happy. most I know of in the denon avp thread for instance are indeed using audyssey and quite happy.

I didn't say that most people using Audyssey were turning it off, rather that if you don't like the results, that turning it off is your only choice. At least with manual EQ you can tailor the response. With the new Audyssey pro, the installer can tailor the response, but now we face the same dilemma as using the EQ in the 800 since you need to hire a pro to set a target curve in Audyssey pro. 8O

And just because people are generally happy with the results of Audyssey in the AVS Denon thread doesn't make it so for everyone. Also consider that some people are the suggestible type and will equate "different" with "better" if they are told it is "better". Others are just easy to please. :roll:

what you say in regards audyssey is not quite correct I believe. the sound character of my speakers havent changed as far as I can tell. Audyssey also does not attempt to flatten the response. It eq's to the audyssey curve. there are choices on curves and a audyssey flat curve is there if you so wish. but it is not the default curve.

I respect your perspective, but I think your view is too limited. You appear to assume that if it didn't happen to you with your system, it doesn't happen at all. I ran Audyssey with Monitor Audio (made the sound too bright), Focal (sounded too bright before Audyssey and did not change with Audyssey), and Revel (sounded better overall with Audyssey). Three different sets of speakers, three different sets of results, and not all of them were positive.

Audyssey absolutely DOES attempt to flatten the response from 20Hz to 10KHz, while allowing the response to roll off above that point.

I still love my speakers and their tonal balance. I think its a bit of a fallacy that audyssey makes all systems sound the same. If I swap out my focals from budget ones in the range I dont think they are going to sound the same ! and neither are a set of M&Ks in my setup !

I'm happy it worked out for you, I really am. And no Audyssey will not make all speaker sound the same, but this IS what it is attempting to do. That's the whole point of creating a standard.

Tim I the statement below with some curiousity..

"I've achieved much better sound out of my system with pro audio analysis tools and the manual EQ in the SSP-800 than I ever did with Audyssey."

How can you possibly compare your system to anything you had before. Does your system remotely resemble anything youve had before ?. Not just in speakers but in electronics and even the whole room which has gone through a transformation with the acoustic cloud etc.

OK, that statement was a bit too broad. I did achieve very good results with Audyssey and the Revels, but I also got less than satisfying results with other speakers. In another thread I explained that when I did what Audyssey would do (flatten the response from 20Hz to 10KHz), I found the sound a little thin and bright. By backing off of some of the corrections I made to the midrange, I got more pleasing results.

auto eq done right I do believe delivers on the promise. I certainly wouldnt even bother with a non audyssey AVP anymore. And this is from me who in the past used peq and also thought eq was only for subs and no way in hell would I want some auto system mucking with things.

"Auto eq done right" assumes that the auto EQ available today is "done right". Again, it worked for you, but that doesn't make it so for everyone. To state the obvious, I represent the side for which it doesn't *always* work. Ruling out a processor because it doesn't have Audyssey is to me the equivalent of ruling out a TV because it is not 1080P. This is, in my opinion another marketing driven need that doesn't apply to all people for all situations, and there are other things that are equally or more important to picture quality than resolution. I'll take a 720P TV with excellent black levels and color reproduction, over a 1080P set without.

all that said yep autoeq is probably not for the control freaks who believe perhaps they have to have control on every aspect of everything. the reality is it does actually work and can do a brilliant job. As long as you follow the procedure to the letter and dont expect it to work miracles. nothing will make a silk purse from sows ear.

I don't know if this comment is aimed at me, but for the record I wanted the ease of automatic calibration, but when it didn't work, I was felt the need to take control. Auto EQ "does do brilliant job" -- sometimes, even with proper procedure. I've used only the best speakers with Audyssey, and as I described above, Audyssey was not a guaranteed improvement with all of them.

again, all I think this thread is showing Tim is people wouldnt mind the choice of autoeq. And personally given my experience I cant for one minute say theres any thing wrong with that

When dealing with mass market product appeal, so you need to cater to the perceptions of that demographic if you want to sell more units. In that case you need to have auto EQ just to appear competitive, or have a convincing reason not to.

I only hope that auto eq continues to evolve into something that will give *every* end user the ability to achieve results that they find pleasing, whether that is "accurate" or not. Some sort of "EQ Wizard" that asks the user about the results and adjusts them based on the user's input.

[alebonau]

Tim please dont take any of my post as personally aimed at you in any way, I think your right in that your not the average consumer. I certainly have an enormous respect for you and and your efforts like the acoustic cloud and the like striving for perfection.

Unfortunately though the mass populous even if seriously in the ht av game dont have that sort of thing at their disposal. be it due to budget time or available resources equipment, knowledge and understanding etc. And thats where auto eq like audyssey and the like I believe do come in handy. its relatively quick and easy that you can do yourself and can produce a pretty good result. as mentioned in my experience in any regard.

It seemed to have helped you too, if your post on avs at the conclusion of the 'acoustic cloud' is anything to go by..

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14387327#post14387327

Beautiful work my friend. Wish I had a dedicated room, though with the work I've had done, the sound in this room is better than I have ever heard it.

Though I have to mention that it all really snapped together together today once I got everything properly calibrated including my Audyssey Room EQ. The treatment helped a bunch, but the EQ took it to the next level. The the midrange sounds better balanced (fuller than without Audyssey) and the bass sounds tighter and more powerful. The highs didn't change much, but they were excellent to begin with.

And your right these were with the revels, and perhaps with the newer acquisitions things haven't gelled quite as well - as yet . but in anyways perhaps if nothing else your post shows good results are possible !

for yourself yeah if can get a relevant trained acoustician to go over what you have done why not. cant see any harm in that. If anything might find opportunity to improve in some area or the the other. Nothing to loose I'd say

[alebonau]

This argument is a fallacy. If someone is not happy with the outcome, why are they wrong? Who has the authority to ultimately call them wrong? He/ she is the consumer and he/ she is the only one who has to live with it.

~

siko, its a bit like someone purchasing the monalisa and not being happy with its smile. I dont think thered be a the art curator in the world that wouldnt say thats how the smile is supposed to be. Let alone any art lover in the world ready to alter it from how it is

Its no different to eq. be it auto or manual or any other. get an acoustician to come eq your system for accuracy and I pity his position if asked to deviate from that to a flawed perception. because like rose tinted glasses sure they might give a pleasing perception of somethings they will never be right for others ..youd never be happy in that scenario in my opinion. Youd only be calling the acoustician back and back again every time if he left you with a flawed perception of reality.

~

I agree. I think some people are upset with Classe because they perceive that Classe has chosen for them, instead of letting them play with it and determine if it is right for them.

I'm appreciative of the participation, and only wish more people would join in. On the other hand, this isn't really useful information to Classe. The next question would need to be:

"Would you find yourself to be a customer of Classe?"

or some wording there-of. Just because someone participated, doesn't mean they have the budget or interest in a Classe product.

~

classe for me ? no. happy with what I have and my system gels well with amps and speakers I have in the system I have. But I think for my cousin Yes. He already is a classe fan the autoeq capability for him he sees as a nice bonus with any avp he upgrades to. He's heard what audyssey can do for my system and he likes what he hears that the ssp800 does not have it is a disincentive for him.

Especially in this age where even the most basic onkyo, denon marantz avr is coming out with audyssey these days. yamaha have their ypao and pio have their mcac? system. These autoeq systems is what people will grow up with. If moving high end I would not be surprised if it is then not seen as an expectation....

~

~

I find this whole discussion of EQ interesting, to be honest. 5 years ago noone was talking about it - or very few. Its not like EQ is new. Were you wrong 5 years ago when it wasn't available? or did you buy pro gear that allowed you to EQ? Many people feel very lost without it now... Where will we be in 5 years? Is Audyssey and Trinnov going to be the next Ford / Chevy debate? Will people be picking products based on which EQ the manufacturer included? Will it matter what kind of quality a product has, as long as it has EQ? OK, that is an extreme... or is it? People already perceive products as inferior if it does not have AutoEQ...

5 years ago ?. I was pretty anti eq. technology has come a long way since then though. Audyssey was crap until this last generation I think. Very hit and miss, perhaps its this perception that colours peoples thinking. The processing capability of avrs and avps has come leaps and bounds since. Allowing a more powerfull autoeq ability. my hands on exposure with eq was with the peq in the veloDD and the built in sms. It showed me how well eq could be used and the power of it also showed me the great result it could give for even 2ch music which I'm extremely particular about. The audyssey on the denon has blown me away really taken things to another level. Even with my denon though I didnt run the audyssey on it till an eternity after getting it. but man after running it did I regret not running it from day one ! :B

[alebonau]

This brings up the confusion (not yours) between automatic, manual and installer-only processes. I have no objection to manual processes but I do have operational and cost issues with processes that the user cannot perform for himself, if he so chooses. Ideally, there should be an automatic process for those who have no skills/interest and a more flexible/powerful process for those with the time/interest/concern for better. And, in an ideal world, the latter would be owner-accessible.

Kal

Agree there Kal.

[sikoniko]

5 years ago ?. I was pretty anti eq. technology has come a long way since then though. Audyssey was crap until this last generation I think. Very hit and miss, perhaps its this perception that colours peoples thinking. The processing capability of avrs and avps has come leaps and bounds since. Allowing a more powerfull autoeq ability. my hands on exposure with eq was with the peq in the veloDD and the built in sms. It showed me how well eq could be used and the power of it also showed me the great result it could give for even 2ch music which I'm extremely particular about. The audyssey on the denon has blown me away really taken things to another level. Even with my denon though I didnt run the audyssey on it till an eternity after getting it. but man after running it did I regret not running it from day one ! :B

I think the economical solutions will always provide an auto-eq of sorts, be it audyssey, trinnov, etc... fine. they are replaced annually anyways.

I think for high-end, esoteric type products (that are designed with a 3-5 year lifespan), the digital pre-amp bypass would be the most desirable. Buy a product and allow the customer to choose the EQ solution that best fits their needs. this would allow for consumer choice, and allow the manufacturer to not alienate their customer base by providing one solution. it would also benefit the market for EQ manufacturers and allow for healthy competition.

[AV-OCD]

Tim please dont take any of my post as personally aimed at you in any way, I think your right in that your not the average consumer. I certainly have an enormous respect for you and and your efforts like the acoustic cloud and the like striving for perfection.

Unfortunately though the mass populous even if seriously in the ht av game dont have that sort of thing at their disposal. be it due to budget time or available resources equipment, knowledge and understanding etc. And thats where auto eq like audyssey and the like I believe do come in handy. its relatively quick and easy that you can do yourself and can produce a pretty good result. as mentioned in my experience in any regard.

It seemed to have helped you too, if your post on avs at the conclusion of the 'acoustic cloud' is anything to go by..

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14387327#post14387327

And your right these were with the revels, and perhaps with the newer acquisitions things haven't gelled quite as well - as yet . but in anyways perhaps if nothing else your post shows good results are possible !

for yourself yeah if can get a relevant trained acoustician to go over what you have done why not. cant see any harm in that. If anything might find opportunity to improve in some area or the the other. Nothing to loose I'd say

Nothing taken personally, its a good natured debate I think.

Yes, Audyssey did work quite well with the Revels. My underlying point is simply that Audyssey doesn't always work, and sometimes it can make things sound subjectively worse, IME. If it were a matter of auto EQ always resulting in better, and pro level better than that, I wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Well, as like most things. Try it out and if you like it, great, if not try something else.

[beden1]

I find myself agreeing with Sikoniko.

The point: do past esoteric systems that sounded great as reported by actual owners and by "professional reviewers", now sound like crap because they do not include an auto EQ system?

To me, this would be a great case study for a college marketing 101 course, as this is how I view this topic...sales and marketing.

Sound is a perception based on experience...it's the experience that formulates our perception of sound. And, nobody is wrong on how they individually perceive sound.

Unless digitally generated, all music is performed live. This production of sound is influenced by the musicians themselves, the instruments, amps, speakers, microphones, size of recording studio or theater, recording equipment, etc. But, in the end, sound is primarily influenced by how your own brain perceives this "sound" performed in a live venue.

I grew up playing in bands and orchestras, and attending a multitude of live concerts throughout the years, and in so doing, I have my own mindset on how music should sound. To me, I can pick up things that just don't sound right, or, those things that sound great - like a live performance.

When a component manufacturer produces a piece of stereo equipment, they too have their own impression about how music should sound. And, in the end, they produce what best represents their interpretation of how recorded music from a live performance should sound.

But, let's go back a few years before the advent of these computer driven EQ systems. To me, each manufacturer had their own "house" sound. Some could even be considered as a regional sound, like the Japanese manufacturers all seemed to have some common ground. The British had their own identifiable sound, and the Americans and Canadians, etc. Few audiophiles ever really had difficulty in determining the origin of the equipment maker. Their sounds were their signatures. Their sounds were also the difference in what you paid for in the end.

Over the years, the US, Bristish and Canadian manufacturers tended to be more purist in their approach, by not offering even bass/treble controls, or anything else that would color their house sound. Conversely, the Japanese maufacturers always offered the bells and whistles, and the end users' ability to manipulate the sounds with many features. It was always my own perception, that the Japanese manufacturers seemed to offer many of these features, as their own "house" sound left much to be desired.

But, now with the advent of these computer driven EQ systems, are any of these systems supposed to sound different? Are they all supposed to sound great just because they have an automated EQ system...because if they do, what differentiates themselves from one another? Why should I pay more for a Denon over a Yamaha for example...or, why should I pay up for a Classe or McIntosh product, etc.?

IMO, there is still a reason for selecting one brand over another, and it's because of the "house sound". I go for the house sound first, and the features second. If the sound is not pleasing or realistic to begin with, then how is a computer generated program going to change the base architecture? IMO, it's not. What were they saying during the presidential election?...you can put liptstick on a pig!

Marketing 101 will teach a case for marketing the perceived value, and to then "sell the sizzle"!

[Kal Rubinson]

I think for high-end, esoteric type products (that are designed with a 3-5 year lifespan), the digital pre-amp bypass would be the most desirable. Buy a product and allow the customer to choose the EQ solution that best fits their needs. this would allow for consumer choice, and allow the manufacturer to not alienate their customer base by providing one solution. it would also benefit the market for EQ manufacturers and allow for healthy competition.

Would that it was practical! Unless there is some agreement on and actual production of a suitable digital format for this, how can it be done without redundant A/D/A conversions?

BTW, my suggestion is HDMI/MPCM. :W

Kal

[AV-OCD]

Benden -

Excellent points. I had the same thought. I doubt very much that all of the high-end systems before auto-eq would sound like garbage now.

- Tim

[style]

@alebonau
The main point is that this (Denon)EQ is used for a 5.1 ...!!!
if for 2 channel you do "work" on your EQ device does not work very well ... Denon, Classe, or any brand.
-------------
Once the technical adjustment did not have to change for every song setup!
We are ignorant but not totally....is the same as the ISF calibation for the TV: you have day and night version as reference and you can play whit this setting like you want...(contrast,tint,color,...)
I had a Denon reciever in the past whit old version from Audyssey = whit a SPL , and at each calibration must make corrections. well now I dont know of the new version is so better....
Like Beden wrote is a brand choice: Classe go whit the decision "without" any
inclusive EQ or similar, Denon to the other side all With. but from the first presentation of the Denon is a update available / necessary!!! to make "work" the system very fine...
In USA I dont know but in switzerland come to me if I have a special request or the system the setting where I dont can...: After the sale of Classe you can not compare with Denon and I think that in this point you agree!

The Anthem D2 work like Denon: a system "EQ" inside...and I a marketing decision....
I like Denon, are not one-way - only Classe.
Certainly Denon (HT Denon is a land known for many years) has its good reasons to go with its edge product in this direction.
Is not so easy decide: I can buy a Classe only for the sound -timbre, I go with a separete video-processor like DVDO than I buy a Neptune EQ for the room correction and I buy accoustic panel.... a piece for every function..will be the better solution?!? yes or no! at first I say yes, if I can make test from all this pieces combined, associates and I can say yes great but i can say that all this diffenret brands are not compatible to work together...
BUT with your system you are happy: the system from Denon like you. this auto-EQ/Audyssey work fine in your chain...MULTI CAHNNEL but in the 2 channel if you go direct is sure better
I have Classe: i'm very happy too: the "Ikea man" dont is neccesary every day...in 2 channel GREAT, in MC I dont need a auto-EQ...
At first in not if the system have a auto_maula EQ. system ... the sound is good or no. here we dont can say yes but with a EQ will be better or so like that!
the cards are another major: we are talking about an extra
I think mainly that Denon is still mid-end and Classe is hig-end.
this with or without EQ auto_manual.
style

[style]

Excellent points. I had the same thought. I doubt very much that all of the high-end systems before auto-eq would sound like garbage now.

I agree.....

If a outside person listen think that the system without this EQ alleges: wow without the auto EQ the sound will be terrible! h:

style

[sikoniko]

I find myself agreeing with Sikoniko.

The point: do past esoteric systems that sounded great as reported by actual owners and by "professional reviewers", now sound like crap because they do not include an auto EQ system?

To me, this would be a great case study for a college marketing 101 course, as this is how I view this topic...sales and marketing.

Sound is a perception based on experience...it's the experience that formulates our perception of sound. And, nobody is wrong on how they individually perceive sound.

Unless digitally generated, all music is performed live. This production of sound is influenced by the musicians themselves, the instruments, amps, speakers, microphones, size of recording studio or theater, recording equipment, etc. But, in the end, sound is primarily influenced by how your own brain perceives this "sound" performed in a live venue.

I grew up playing in bands and orchestras, and attending a multitude of live concerts throughout the years, and in so doing, I have my own mindset on how music should sound. To me, I can pick up things that just don't sound right, or, those things that sound great - like a live performance.

When a component manufacturer produces a piece of stereo equipment, they too have their own impression about how music should sound. And, in the end, they produce what best represents their interpretation of how recorded music from a live performance should sound.

But, let's go back a few years before the advent of these computer driven EQ systems. To me, each manufacturer had their own "house" sound. Some could even be considered as a regional sound, like the Japanese manufacturers all seemed to have some common ground. The British had their own identifiable sound, and the Americans and Canadians, etc. Few audiophiles ever really had difficulty in determining the origin of the equipment maker. Their sounds were their signatures. Their sounds were also the difference in what you paid for in the end.

Over the years, the US, Bristish and Canadian manufacturers tended to be more purist in their approach, by not offering even bass/treble controls, or anything else that would color their house sound. Conversely, the Japanese maufacturers always offered the bells and whistles, and the end users' ability to manipulate the sounds with many features. It was always my own perception, that the Japanese manufacturers seemed to offer many of these features, as their own "house" sound left much to be desired.

But, now with the advent of these computer driven EQ systems, are any of these systems supposed to sound different? Are they all supposed to sound great just because they have an automated EQ system...because if they do, what differentiates themselves from one another? Why should I pay more for a Denon over a Yamaha for example...or, why should I pay up for a Classe or McIntosh product, etc.?

IMO, there is still a reason for selecting one brand over another, and it's because of the "house sound". I go for the house sound first, and the features second. If the sound is not pleasing or realistic to begin with, then how is a computer generated program going to change the base architecture? IMO, it's not. What were they saying during the presidential election?...you can put liptstick on a pig!

Marketing 101 will teach a case for marketing the perceived value, and to then "sell the sizzle"!

You put the very eloquently! :T

Have you received your SSP? What do you think, if you have?

[Kal Rubinson]

Benden -

Excellent points. I had the same thought. I doubt very much that all of the high-end systems before auto-eq would sound like garbage now.

- Tim

Only if they always did (and many do). OTOH, the better the system and the room, the better refinement one can get from a good EQ system, properly implemented. Perhaps the incremental improvement is smaller in that case but the appreciation of a sophisticated listener would be greater.

Also, the number of channels being listened to is irrelevant. Better performance and room correction are valid from mono to multichannel if one can disabuse ones perceptions of old habits and expectations.

Kal

[beden1]

You put the very eloquently! :T

Have you received your SSP? What do you think, if you have?

Thanks.

I have not connected the SSP-800 as yet. I was exhausted after my ride down, and have been busy opening up the house, etc. I'm hoping to get it done this week, but my son and I are going to the BCS National Championship game on Thursday...to watch the Florida Gators attack Oklahoma in Miami!

[beden1]

Only if they always did (and many do). OTOH, the better the system and the room, the better refinement one can get from a good EQ system, properly implemented. Perhaps the incremental improvement is smaller in that case but the appreciation of a sophisticated listener would be greater.
Kal

Only if the primary system (sans auto EQ engaged) sounds great to begin with!

Since most of these discussions from others seem to reference the Denon AVP, have you done a review for this unit? The reason I'm asking, is that I have not read any professional reviews comparing the Denons of the world for example, to that of the traditional higher end Classe type products.

My personal sense (I did listen to both), is that their individual sounds are different, and consistent with how they compared over the years. The Classe sound (character) for me, is more refined and closer to my mind's vision of a real performance.

[wettou]

No one is saying that a good system sound like garbage before EQ all we are saying is that it is nice to have Automated EQ to have the option and see if it make it sound better. I don't want to have to pay an acoustician every time I am changing furniture or curtains or gear for that matter..

Why is it that there are so many musical style? Because we all like different things so it is the same in sound just give us the options and we will decide to use it or not.

Just don't tell us "you can have all the colors you want as long as it's black? Henry Ford, just look where they are today :B

[Kal Rubinson]

Only if the primary system (sans auto EQ engaged) sounds great to begin with!

Of course. I was specifically referring to "that case" described in the previous sentence as "the better the system and the room."

Since most of these discussions from others seem to reference the Denon AVP, have you done a review for this unit? [/QUOTE]No. Not planned.

Kal

[beden1]

No one is saying that a good system sound like garbage before EQ all we are saying is that it is nice to have Automated EQ to have the option and see if it make it sound better. I don't want to have to pay an acoustician every time I am changing furniture or curtains or gear for that matter..

Why is it that there are so many musical style? Because we all like different things so it is the same in sound just give us the options and we will decide to use it or not.

Just don't tell us "you can have all the colors you want as long as it's black? Henry Ford, just look where they are today :B

The thing is however, Classe decided they didn't feel auto EQ manipulation would improve their sound. This was their choice, and it's up to you to decide if their sound is what you like. If not, then buy something from another manufacturer.

I previously referred to marketing, and in this instance, I'll call it marketing hype. Most of us want the latest and perceived greatest when deciding to upgrade. But, many times, we find out that the hype was total BS after getting it home and playing with our new purchase for a while.

I was reading a review from a reviewer who I do agree with on many occasions, about the Integra 9.8 pre-pro. While reading this review, I was excited to learn about a product that was both affordable, and according to the reviewer's take, also sounded spectacular. After finishing reading the piece, I immediately called my local dealer to discuss the unit for potential purchase. I mean, why not! Finally, I could get a piece that was both affordable and sounded great, and had all of the neat features everyone was raving about.

I decided to wait on it, as I have been trying to curb my impulse purchases...and because I know that it usually turns out to be to good to be true in the end. I kept following the reports on the Integra, and low and behold, the original reviewer responded to a person's forum posting, something to the affect that the Integra is indeed good, but it may not be in the same league as say...

This is what I'm saying, is that the Integra has Audessey, but even this magical program can't make it into something it's not.

Next comments may be to discuss how can a sound engineer design a theater to consistently sound great during live performances, when their tests are done with no audience sitting in the chairs and filling up any of the room's volume...let alone the dearth of moving a chair in your listening room? Oh my!

Unless you're way beyong me with anal retentive issues, which would be hard to believe, then I'm seriously doubting that many people would even hear any difference.

[wettou]

The thing is however, Classe decided they didn't feel auto EQ manipulation would improve their sound. This was their choice, and it's up to you to decide if their sound is what you like. If not, then buy something from another manufacturer.

Next comments may be to discuss how can a sound engineer design a theater to consistently sound great during live performances, when their tests are done with no audience sitting in the chairs and filling up any of the room's volume...let alone the dearth of moving a chair in your listening room? Oh my!

Unless you're way beyong me with anal retentive issues, which would be hard to believe, then I'm seriously doubting that many people would even hear any difference.

Still would be a nice option Meridian any one?