Are any brand of AVRs offer miniDSP level of utility?

[peng]

He is referring to the range above the transition frequency. There is more context in the book as this quote is taken from a full two or so chapters on the topic. It is just a snippet.

If you have not yet read it, read that book. It is not the only good source of information out there nor is it the only smart approach but it sure is a worthwhile book to read if you really want to understand the science that is available and not the marketing.

Toole and Olive and friends conducted many types of blind & double blind tests which almost nobody else has done(at least publicly, manufactures should promote and publish their research as way of confirming their marketing claims)
They also did a lot of study of other previous testing done by other groups.
It is pretty hard to argue with his claims in my opinion.

Really much of this is discussed through out ASR but it is hard to assemble and there is a lot of noise. I think starting with the book is best and then diving in deeper after that, not before. Totally fine to disagree with him but hard to disagree authentically without fully knowing what he has to say.

I knew, and had read those parts in his books. My comments stand, not that I disagree with anything they said, or you said, but I just don't know enough about how factual that is, as supported by quantifiable measurements or counter measurements (if there is such a thing lol..) If I remember right, for me there were two (at least) takeaway:

1) He, or they in Dr. Olive's included.., never actually said RC/REQ should not be done in the above Schroeder frequency range, but did say at those higher frequencies, the way those software collect the room information with the kind of mics used and their placements would not be reliable and could therefore result in corrections that may not work well. Not in such words, just my own takeaway from reading it, and listening to him if it was on a video too. Cautionary note: Again, just going by memory now, so if I may be misinterpreting something he said unintentionally.

2) He said those things a few years ago and it did not appear they had followed up on even more years ago when those studies were done, at the time most likely before Audyssey XT32, the very early versions of Dirac, Anthem ARC, let alone RoomPerfect and Trinnov's gaining more popularity, and the much improve UI, such as Audyssey's apps, ARC Genesis, and Dirac's much improved UI, and DLBC etc.

So I believe it is time Harman follow up on this topic of "automatic" RC/REQ based on the theoretically much improved versions of those products, and not fixated on the concept that manual ways such as using PEQ to focus on improving in room respond based on the speaker's anechoic measurements. That's all I am saying, basically, being open minded about possible technological changes (hopefully for the better) over the year.

 

[hex168]

It’s also a question how the processing is actually done? With some clever windowing, you can get close to anechoic response with normal measurements as well in many cases. It won’t be perfect, but then there would be less to worry about.

I don't understand why they do not do this. Gated should be very close to anechoic for the frequencies where we do not want to apply room correction.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I don't understand why they do not do this. Gated should be very close to anechoic for the frequencies where we do not want to apply room correction.

I take gated measurements all the time when measuring/testing or for my DIY stuff.
They need to be taken fairly close to the loudspeaker.
Above a certain range they are reasonably close to what I see published from Klippel data bear in mind they are not even close to the same resolution in the midrange.
I do find them useful for what I do.
That said, the microphone has to be closer to the speaker than the nearest boundary.
You therefore can not take them from the listening position so this would cumbersome for a lot of users.

Plus you also need off axis and on axis responses to form a really good picture of what to EQ. I think this would just be a mess trying to a get many consumers to spend a few hours measuring.

The best option in my opinion would to buy a speaker that doesn't really need any anechoic correction. One that has been tested here or elsewhere and proven to be a completed design.
Then you can use your Dirac or Audyssey up through 400hrz or whatever you feel is the transition zone and then leave the speaker alone above that, or if the system is to dark or to bright apply your wide band tonal adjustment/house curve if you want.

The software really could have truly advanced options that let you do whatever you want without limitation, making manual adjustments mixed with automated ones as you see fit.

2) He said those things a few years ago and it did not appear they had followed up on even more years ago when those studies were done, at the time most likely before Audyssey XT32, the very early versions of Dirac, Anthem ARC, let alone RoomPerfect and Trinnov's gaining more popularity, and the much improve UI, such as Audyssey's apps, ARC Genesis, and Dirac's much improved UI, and DLBC etc.

So I believe it is time Harman follow up on this topic of "automatic" RC/REQ based on the theoretically much improved versions of those products, and not fixated on the concept that manual ways such as using PEQ to focus on improving in room respond based on the speaker's anechoic measurements. That's all I am saying, basically, being open minded about possible technological changes (hopefully for the better) over the year.

Yes, I really want a contemporary study done by someone. Some things move fast. The originally published Harman testing of room correction did not bode well for the older software but that was then and now it is sure worth looking at again deeply.
If Harman wants to do another one or if they already have done one, I hope they make it public... Or if Dirac has done it themselves. I fear the days of public dissemination of high quality research done by large well funded private manufacturers is in jeopardy of being over. There is just to much money at stake for a lot of players. As is often lamented, even a lot of normally reputable companies have decided to just be okay with turning to marketing departments to sell the product with a story vs with science and engineering.
Maybe a team with an interest in audio but is not a manufacturer risking sales will do a study.

I can just about guarantee you Dirac, Audyssey and other room correction software companies will never do what I personally would want in a study.
The software and user interfaces have evolved but I am not sure what if anything has changed about what can and can not be captured in room. Something that does provide great sound is in in my book, I just want to see some evidence.

Despite my current point of view ,where I am dubious about many RC software claims, I am definitely open minded about it and as audiophile, I ultimately want great sound. Also as a hobbyist and definitely a non-expert, I have to be realistic about the quality and strength of my opinion.

Yes, lets see what things are coming as I am sure some are very cool.