Standalone Room Correction Component

03-28-13: Theo wrote:
I have heard the McIntosh at RMAF and a local dealer and it
seems to do a lot of things right. But my concern is that if
it is digitally altering the music delivery based upon room
correction, is it really altering the music from it's
original analog format? So what are you losing in that
process, can't it be considered an extension of the tone
control argument?

Traditional tone
controls are relatively crude and are subjective tools.
The better digital EQs are more sophisticated and can be
objectively demonstrated to correct room problems.

Now, their degree of transparency varies with the product
and how it is used but, ultimately, the listener needs to
decide on the net value of the results. Does the
improvement of the in-room audible response
outweigh the loss (if any) of transparency? IMHO, it does
in the majority of non-dedicated rooms and that is without
regard to the number of channels/speakers.

Kr 4 wrote:

"IMHO, it does in the majority of non-dedicated rooms and that is without
regard to the number of channels/speakers."

I'd agree and - IME - extend that statement to dedicated rooms.

I've had professionally designed, heavily treated, dedicated theater AND two channel rooms in each of my last two homes. (Due in large part to Kal's observations), I tried Audyssey in each room. Others may disagree, but I found it a 4 for 4, 100% no-brainer. Everyone's got different priorities, but I regard any trade-off in transparency (in both theater and two-channel rooms) as trivial relative to the overall sonic improvement - particularly in the bottom two + octaves.

Marty

Standalone room correction with adjustable delays, plus manual adjust? You didn't mention the overall integrity of your system needs. So, in that case, I'd likely steer you in the direction of the Audyssey piece. Especially on lower priced end -I think it's like $2500 new, and likely $1000 used, or cheaper - this makes sense. It tixes your time domain, has adjustability, a good sonic rep and, at every least, addresses most midfi/hi-fi entry systems, offering to fix your major concerns for better sound performance.
For cost no object perfromance, my experience suggest that if you're putting together a high end 2 channel system, and typical domestic small living space is what you're dealing with, than you insert the Rives PARC, calibrate out your ALWAYS troublesome bass mode issues, and forget about it! You are simply NOT going to get more full frequency sonic purity through your system than that, fundamentally. The rest is - as always - mid/high room treatments, corner traps, and whatever else you can do to fix the "un-EQ'able" excess Bass energy, which exists in most small home spaces (exceptions: very large typical rooms, or rooms open to much larger areas/spaces).
We are of course talking "stand-alone" processors here. I like what I’ve experienced from hearing the stand-alone Audyssey processor, for dedicated home theater SEPARATES based systems ok. But, if money is no object, I still think that going Rives PARC -multi channel version setup - there too, as you simply will not beat the sonic transparency! And, basically, you're really only trying to EQ the bass issues - unless you simply cannot move your speakers to locations where they'll sound their best. So, in the case of speakers up in corners, or inside cabinet enclosures, etc, yes, I think the Audyssey works the absolute best as stand-alone here. You’ll trade total transparancy and refinement for fixing other major fundamental issues in that case. So, I'm really only using it for HT duties, where ultimate sonic transparency isn't number one concern. The Adyssey works in analog domain, I believe.
If one can place speakers for maximum overall mid/high frequency performance (as well as best allowable bass response characteristics, fundamentally), I'm reaching for the PARC, myself! And that' 2 channel or multi, btw. If it's a dedicated typical mid-fi HT system, then I’d chose the Audyssey.
I try to avoid the Audyssey scenario, however, by simply using a better AV pre/pro that already has built in Digital domain processing anyway! Then, the outboard becomes an irrelevant issue, of course.
Anyone else here disagree with the PARC as being beatable for performance, for your EQ issues? I mean, if you need miracles done to your sonics, got speakers placed in some cubby-hole, and you know nothing about placing a loudspeaker for best sound anyway, then why would you care to look into fancy outboard EQ's anyway? That's what I'd ask myself.
Yes, PARC for high end, and Audyssey for typical hi-performance mid/entry hi-fi multi channel (Mostly HT ) systems.
Not sure what else would trump here...really.

I will do demonstrations for Onkyo this year. I hope to get contact with the people who make the products. I want them to develope a new standalone unit with Xt32 and possibility for Audessey Pro with a 32-192 dac. Lyngdorf is an older system what really ruins the music. It filters the acoustic sound of the room. sound becomes clean and flat. The people who have it, don't use it. This says enough. I talked for some time with the Trinnov people. I think this is the best system available. it is not cheap!

If you need 7.1 channels you could get a modded Oppo with Vanity93 digi out board. You could run this straight digitally into a Trinnov MC8. The Trinnov will expand 5.1 to 7.1 using 3D remapping. You will have less flexibility than with an HDMI based SSP, but sonically the only thing equivalent to this would be usual suspect of >$25K processors (Meridian, Krell, ADA reference).