4. Trinnov, Harman/JBL Synthesis ARCOS
The cost to get access to either of these seems pretty prohibitive, what's the lowest cost option? Altitude16 @ $17000 just for a processor? Pretty insane.
4. Trinnov, Harman/JBL Synthesis ARCOS
Yes, that is the ranking. I have not used Audiolense.
To be clear, the test was at 44.1 kHz. One imagines nothing is there above 22.05 kHz but there is of course plenty in the measurements.
Hard to explain what is going on audibly. I think in vast majority of cases there is nothing there or else a lot of people would be complaining.
Until such time that Audiolense is tested on the same system and subjectively, that is neither here, nor there. Don't be slave to measurements in acoustics. You would need evidence like this for efficacy: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/target-room-response-and-cinema-x-curve.10/Comparing those sweeps @mitchco posted made with Audiolense with the ones you posted made with RoomPerfect EQ seems like comparing current rocket engines with warp drive.
Just FYI. The AV8802A uses the same chip, and probably performs the same. (I bought a used 8802A last year; fortunately, I got a good deal on it.)The Marantz AV8805 features premium grade AK4490 32-bit DACs on all channels and XLR input and outputs. There's a balanced XLR stereo input that's assignable as well as 15.2 balanced XLR outputs, which includes the two subwoofer outputs, front height/width outputs and overhead channels. This extensive balanced XLR compatibility ensures high-end performance in the home and the studio, while 15.2 pre-outs (RCA jacks) provide additional compatibility with multiple power amplifier types.
Don't be slave to measurements in acoustics.
What difference?I can agree with you to some point, but the difference is simply huuuuge..
What difference?
At the risk of stating the obvious, I am not aware of anyone running any other tests on my system. You can't compare two completely different efforts on different systems. I ran one set of quick tests with RoomPerfect, it sounded good and I stopped there.In linearity of amplitude response you measured after RoomPerfect EQ and what @mitchco posted.
I use the room correction on my Yamaha mainly to bracket a starting point, then tune by ear. It is very useful for bass management (four subwoofs) and getting the phasing of the various speakers right, but the volumes of each speaker are usually off a bit when judging by ear and need to be adjusted. I have a few layers of volume knobs, including on the subwoofers, so touch ups are quick and easy and don't always require challenging the AV room correction interface beyond the initial setup to get phasing, equalization and volume set. I only use the front channel equalization with digital. The Yamaha has a handy android interface to turn a tablet or phone into a remote control, which is also nice, and allows on-the-fly adjustments of bass, treble, digital enhancer, dialog adjustment etc.
I really like the room equalization features, but they are not a perfect robot, and I am not sure they were intended to be.
That said, I have used REW's automatic parametric EQ system. It generated a much more ideal curve than I could do manually. Yet, it sounded worse than my manual system. So again, you can't go by how good of a curve you get. You must use your ears.
Where do I find 13.2 content?
I just provided proof of that already:I can hardly believe that a more linear response can sound worse unless something else was wrong.
I just provided proof of that already:
System #6 attempts to linearize the frequency response yet it is rate to be worse than doing nothing. System #5 is also barely worse. These are published, controlled tests.
The cost to get access to either of these seems pretty prohibitive, what's the lowest cost option? Altitude16 @ $17000 just for a processor? Pretty insane.
All you have to do is read the link I provided: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-marantz-av8805-av-processor.6926/post-154565Without seeing amplitude responses of those systems it is impossible to comment anything.
Same here. I have reviewed several other processors in the price range (<$10K) which sound better playing unprocessed analog or digital sources than the AV8805. However, none of them have a comparable array of features and, notably, none of them have been quite so competent or convenient in their use.I agree it's all about the feature set.
If you use the Audyssey app, you can save and re-use multiple Audyssey results.inconsistent results of Audissey: each time I ran Audissey it seems to come to different results, and it was necessary to listen and decide whether I like it or not. Since I was not able to save the current settings for later retrieval it was hard to decide to do another repetition because the new result might be worse than the previous.