Auto-Eq – Boon or bane to home theater?

[Aussie Geoff]

I'm with Kal - in most circumatances I feel the option of a good Auto Eq is worth having for the low marginal cost when integrated into the processor. Remembering it can be turned off at will. There are so many room problems in most listening rooms that speak placement or treatment would not solve and leave a livable room.

I sold my beloved RSP-1098 for a Denon AVP-A1HD to get the Auto Eq and would not go back. In my room Auto Eq makes a transormational difference to the sound field aht is nigh and day to the RSP-1098. Yes for pure stereo sometimes it can sound better with Auto Eq off (one button) but 99% of the time Auto Eq in my room just blows away the sound of the very good RSP-1098 taking it a a new level... But then so it should the Denon is something like 3 times the price...

Cheers

Geoff

[sikoniko]

I'm with Kal - in most circumatances I feel the option of a good Auto Eq is worth having for the low marginal cost when integrated into the processor. Remembering it can be turned off at will. There are so many room problems in most listening rooms that speak placement or treatment would not solve and leave a livable room.

I sold my beloved RSP-1098 for a Denon AVP-A1HD to get the Auto Eq and would not go back. In my room Auto Eq makes a transormational difference to the sound field aht is nigh and day to the RSP-1098. Yes for pure stereo sometimes it can sound better with Auto Eq off (one button) but 99% of the time Auto Eq in my room just blows away the sound of the very good RSP-1098 taking it a a new level... But then so it should the Denon is something like 3 times the price...

Cheers

Geoff

last year at THE Show I experimented with a trinnov device. I know the differences can be dramatic. some rooms will need it more than others. the convenience of an automated solution is very attractive. having a manual solution is nice, but there are many that will just want to have it done for them and enjoy the hobby as just that, a hobby... not another research project or worst... work.

noone wants to turn their hobby into a job. it should be something people do because they enjoy doing it and chose the amount of investment to make on it. then again, I go back to my statement about compromises. everyone makes them somewhere.

[Charlieu]

lets refer to any brand product that includes auto-Eq as brandA to simplify things.

I'm curious. Why did you believe you needed Auto-EQ? to start simply, did you compare the 1570 against brandA without AutoEQ? If so, what did you determine? all things being equal at this point, would you have still preferred the sound of brandA to the 1570, or would the 1570 be the preference? lets say you liked the sound of the 1570 better without AutoEQ engaged on either product. If you engaged AutoEQ on brandA, would that have nudged it ahead? what if after listening to both products, you still preferred the 1570 even without AutoEQ?

I would say having owned three receivers with MCACC and Audyssey along with knowing my listening environment led me to believe I needed Auto EQ. The 1570 was scratched prior to the listening phase due to the lack of Auto EQ. I'm not certain where you are going with the rest of the questions because the room is the major factor in what I hear. The 1570 wouldn't even get a fair test in my room with the peaks and dips induced by the room.

I can understand some peoples hesitance towards Auto EQ. After years of not having it a person can develop a preference for the sound produced by their room. When I purchased my first receiver with Auto EQ, it spent most of its time with it turned off. It was only after buying one of Chesky's demonstration disks and knowing what I should be listening for that I discovered I was missing a lot of the sound. Now that I have gotten use to hearing the full frequency range, I can't go back.

[Blindamood]

I am just curious. If as you say you "love Rotel sound" but refuse to purchase one without Auto-EQ, what processor did you replace the 1068 with?

To answer TommyV's question, I am currently using the Denon AVR-3808CI as a pre-processor only, together with the RMB-1085 5-channel amp. For the price I paid for the Denon, it provides an outstanding feature set. Just FYI, I consider the Denon somewhat of an 'interim' solution in my system, until I decide upon a processor that offers everything I'm looking for at a decent price. One I've currently got my eye on, for example, is the Integra DHC-80.1.

[sikoniko]

I would say having owned three receivers with MCACC and Audyssey along with knowing my listening environment led me to believe I needed Auto EQ. The 1570 was scratched prior to the listening phase due to the lack of Auto EQ. I'm not certain where you are going with the rest of the questions because the room is the major factor in what I hear. The 1570 wouldn't even get a fair test in my room with the peaks and dips induced by the room.

I can understand some peoples hesitance towards Auto EQ. After years of not having it a person can develop a preference for the sound produced by their room. When I purchased my first receiver with Auto EQ, it spent most of its time with it turned off. It was only after buying one of Chesky's demonstration disks and knowing what I should be listening for that I discovered I was missing a lot of the sound. Now that I have gotten use to hearing the full frequency range, I can't go back.

Well, i don't argue the value of EQ as an effective tool - I argue if an automated solution is a deal breaker on a product. The problem with an automated solution is that you generally can't override settings. too much tweeking, and manipulating of EQ can be equally detrimental to sound as not any EQ at all. An Ideal situation is an automated EQ that allows for manual tweeking to fine tune.

[Charlieu]

Well, i don't argue the value of EQ as an effective tool - I argue if an automated solution is a deal breaker on a product. The problem with an automated solution is that you generally can't override settings. too much tweeking, and manipulating of EQ can be equally detrimental to sound as not any EQ at all. An Ideal situation is an automated EQ that allows for manual tweeking to fine tune.

A hazard of emails and forums is that sometimes it takes a bit to realize both people are on the same page.

I ended up with an Anthem prepro as it's Auto-EQ system was the most tweakable that I knew of that didn't require putting another A to D conversion in the chain. (or added another box) Ideally, this is something the B&W Group of companies would develop for their products. Though, I would still buy Rotel if it came with an off-the-shelf Auto-EQ.

[wettou]

Well, i don't argue the value of EQ as an effective tool - I argue if an automated solution is a deal breaker on a product. The problem with an automated solution is that you generally can't override settings. too much tweeking, and manipulating of EQ can be equally detrimental to sound as not any EQ at all. An Ideal situation is an automated EQ that allows for manual tweeking to fine tune.

Look I agree professional calibration will always beat automated EQ, but Classé & Rotel could win even more customers if they gave the option to have Automated EQ such as Audyssey Multy EQ Pro. Even IMAX is using them.

http://www.audyssey.com/lnd/imax.html

[Aussie Geoff]

Look I agree professional calibration will always beat automated EQ, but Classé & Rotel could win even more customers if they gave the option to have Automated EQ such as Audyssey Multy EQ Pro. Even IMAX is using them.

http://www.audyssey.com/lnd/imax.html

I agree too :-) And I think they will loose market share (especially Rotel) while they hold out.

[carlsen]

I have several friends who like the idea of good quality equipment and appreciate good sound and visual, but will never get themselves to the point of learning how to tweak and fiddle with their equipment to get the best from it, ( they're the sort of guys who ask me to come around to replug in all their connections everytime they have to shift ).

For them, the auto EQ is a deal breaker although they can certainly afford some very good equipment. So, I know of at least two instances where Rotel has lost business siimply because they didnt have a label that stated their equipment had auto EQ. Would they really appreciate what it actually does and how?....No. But they still like the idea that the EQ did something for them

[Audiophiliac]

Every Classe and every Rotel (and every other brand) processor is fully compatible with Audyssey. Just buy the Audyssey box and place it between your processor and amplifier. Voila. There are probably other EQ solutions you can use as well. So you have your choice of solutions. Pick the one that works best for you. Done.

[Ken49r]

Every Classe and every Rotel (and every other brand) processor is fully compatible with Audyssey. Just buy the Audyssey box and place it between your processor and amplifier. Voila. There are probably other EQ solutions you can use as well. So you have your choice of solutions. Pick the one that works best for you. Done.

Agreed. Even Audyssey recomends the standalone Sound Equalizer for pre-pros.

Quote from Audyssey

The Audyssey Sound Equalizer is a stand-alone room correction component for home theater systems with a separate preprocessor and amplifier. $2500.00

The Sub Equalizer also uses a unique Audyssey algorithm for properly aligning and blending two subwoofers. $799.00

Comparrisons show the Audyssey Sound Equalizer does much better than what is inside the AVR's.

[Kal Rubinson]

Every Classe and every Rotel (and every other brand) processor is fully compatible with Audyssey. Just buy the Audyssey box and place it between your processor and amplifier. Voila. There are probably other EQ solutions you can use as well. So you have your choice of solutions. Pick the one that works best for you. Done.

I agree and have been happy with both the Audyssey SEQ and the NeptuneEQ. Unfortunately, many potential purchasers may be put off by the necessity for these devices to re-digitize the signals for processing.

[Oddiophile]

I agree and have been happy with both the Audyssey SEQ and the NeptuneEQ. Unfortunately, many potential purchasers may be put off by the necessity for these devices to re-digitize the signals for processing.

Kal,

Does the re-digitization of the signals have a noticeable effect on the sound, at least in your experience?

Jim

[Kal Rubinson]

Kal,

Does the re-digitization of the signals have a noticeable effect on the sound, at least in your experience?

Jim

I have not done the definitive test, so I cannot say. Each has a bypass mode which bypasses the DSP but not the A/D/A making that not a good test.

What I would need to do is to connect up set of Y-connectors to the output of the processor with one leg going to the EQ and the other physically bypassing it. Then I would take the output of the EQ and the other leg of the Y-connectors into the two MCH inputs of, say, the Parasound P7. That would let me A/B the unprocessed output directly against the bypass mode in the EQ. Don't hold your breath waiting for this report. :roll:

OTOH, I cannot say that either EQ inserts a noticeable change in the sound, given the nature of the comparison.

[TommyV]

To answer TommyV's question, I am currently using the Denon AVR-3808CI as a pre-processor only, together with the RMB-1085 5-channel amp. For the price I paid for the Denon, it provides an outstanding feature set. Just FYI, I consider the Denon somewhat of an 'interim' solution in my system, until I decide upon a processor that offers everything I'm looking for at a decent price. One I've currently got my eye on, for example, is the Integra DHC-80.1.

I am surprised you went that direction but glad you are happy!