Mike Up
Supporting Actor
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2002
- Messages
- 657
I have audyssey XT on my Denon AVR-2312. I've had the receiver 11 years and I've tried using Audyssey several times and every time it comes back sounding like crap, very harsh sounding and bright and fatiguing. I've gone back to manual setup as I found channels levels wrong, crossovers way up near max, distances wrong, and EQs all over the place. This is likely why it has always sounded like crap. I could do the test several times and each time brings back different settings on everything. I even did resets thinking this could help and nothing helped. Even made sure curtains were closed to limit reflections.
I found out I wasn't the only one. A relative with a Marantz SR5005 also had the same issues as me and turned it off and manually set it up. I've also read on the forums of numerous others having the same issues. Makes me wonder why people still continue to use these Room correction schemes when they only harm the sound. Then I get a laugh when someone does a review on equipment as speakers or the receiver itself, and use room correction to judge the sound. They aren't judging the sound of the equipment they're reviewing, they're judging the sound of the Room Correction ON the equipment they're reviewing.
I know some like these room corrections. However I wonder if they just like the sound even if it's inaccurate.
I know with my Audyssey XT off, I get excellent sound from system in stereo with the subwoofer. I have used some headphones reviewed by rtings.com with a frequency response and my speaker system sounds very close or slightly better than my headphones. Now headphone's sound is pure and uncolored by room acoustics so if there is a similar sound on a relatively flat sounding headphones, I would say having the Audyssey off is the most accurate. Having it on wasn't a small difference in sound but a huge difference as scratching on a chalk board! Like I said, harsh, bright, and fatiguing.
I guess I'm confused why people still even use room correction and why receiver makers even implement it. It seems like wasted money on poor sound to me.
Now if you use a dedicated system with quality mics, computer software, and treatments to get your room sounding it's best, I can believe that. I just have a hard time believing that a cheap, plastic microphone and an inexpensive sound feature (comparative to expensive hardware features and Dolby/DTS licensing) on a relatively inexpensive receiver can actually be any good. I found it's not, but others believe it is.
What gives??
I found out I wasn't the only one. A relative with a Marantz SR5005 also had the same issues as me and turned it off and manually set it up. I've also read on the forums of numerous others having the same issues. Makes me wonder why people still continue to use these Room correction schemes when they only harm the sound. Then I get a laugh when someone does a review on equipment as speakers or the receiver itself, and use room correction to judge the sound. They aren't judging the sound of the equipment they're reviewing, they're judging the sound of the Room Correction ON the equipment they're reviewing.
I know some like these room corrections. However I wonder if they just like the sound even if it's inaccurate.
I know with my Audyssey XT off, I get excellent sound from system in stereo with the subwoofer. I have used some headphones reviewed by rtings.com with a frequency response and my speaker system sounds very close or slightly better than my headphones. Now headphone's sound is pure and uncolored by room acoustics so if there is a similar sound on a relatively flat sounding headphones, I would say having the Audyssey off is the most accurate. Having it on wasn't a small difference in sound but a huge difference as scratching on a chalk board! Like I said, harsh, bright, and fatiguing.
I guess I'm confused why people still even use room correction and why receiver makers even implement it. It seems like wasted money on poor sound to me.
Now if you use a dedicated system with quality mics, computer software, and treatments to get your room sounding it's best, I can believe that. I just have a hard time believing that a cheap, plastic microphone and an inexpensive sound feature (comparative to expensive hardware features and Dolby/DTS licensing) on a relatively inexpensive receiver can actually be any good. I found it's not, but others believe it is.
What gives??