MCACC v. MultEQ XT (pros/con's of each)

EndersShadow

So I keep coming back to the same problem over and over. There are a couple brands of AVR I like and am researching. One set (Denon, Onkyo) uses Audyssey XT while the other Pioneer uses MCACC. Since the AVR's I am looking at are all decent close in feature set, and in my case are all going to be used mostly as a pre I really want to hone in on the EQ differences.

I want to start this thread for folks to talk about what pro's con's they see to each EQ. This is NOT a thread to talk about any other features one AVR has that another doesn't. This is JUST for EQ

So here is the list I will start. If your going to add something please copy this list and add to it.

MCACC Pro's
1. Easier procedure since there is only 1 listening point
2. Graphical view of system response

MCACC Con's
1. It doesnt EQ the sub
2. Its only a 9 band EQ
3. One x-over point for all speakers, so your weakest link sets everything

Audyssey XT Pro's
1. More measured points for a better response in room
2. EQ's the sub
3. Most XT AVR's are pro capable for more customization

Audyssey XT Con's
1. You cant see what its doing

Please keep adding to this list as you go. If any of the entries are incorrect let me know. Thanks!

leroyjr1

[PHP][/PHP]I'd say do yourself a favor a save a little more and that'll put you in a totally different level of sound quality and features. I't doesn't take but a few hundred dollars more to get into the 4311 & SC range.

nooshinjohn

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?124925-MCACC-v.-MultEQ-XT32-(Pio-SC-35-v.-Denon-4311CI)

There may be some information in here Dan.

kuntasensei

^ What he said. Already asked and answered.

EndersShadow

leroyjr1 wrote: »

[PHP][/PHP]I'd say do yourself a favor a save a little more and that'll put you in a totally different level of sound quality and features. I't doesn't take but a few hundred dollars more to get into the 4311 & SC range.

Leroy, just cant do it in this case. If I dont bite now its gonna be about 3-5 years before I will have the cash again for another upgrade. After July any additional money will be used for expenditures/endevours other than audio (I know its hard to believe).

EndersShadow

nooshinjohn wrote: »

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?124925-MCACC-v.-MultEQ-XT32-(Pio-SC-35-v.-Denon-4311CI)

There may be some information in here Dan.

LOL, true but I wanted to see if anything had changed, plus that thread I started was about XT 32 v. MCACC. XT is a step down .

B Run

Personally I can comment because I had an Onkyo 3008 (XT-32) and a Pioneer SC-35 (mcacc) back to back. I like everything about Mcacc better personally, my only complaint was about having to have a universal crossover. The Audyssey always seemed a tad bright or thin on the top end for my tastes and I could not manually tweak it like I could with the Pioneer. I did like that XT-32 eq'd my sub (or dual subs), but other than that I don't really miss Audyssey at all. Side note my Onkyo broke after a month, and lets just say customer service isn't exactly on par with Polk

EndersShadow

Thanks B Run, thats what I am looking for.

Keep the comments on the two systems coming....

mantis

Ok
I've done MCACC and Audyssey and I have mixed feelings.

MCACC seems like it goes piece by piece and checks levels a few times. It checks phase , levels , EQ , placement , distance etc etc etc. I takes much longer to check these points then Audyssey.
As far as the sub is concerned , it checks for distance , level and phase. I'm not exactly sure when it stops at 63hz for testing and eq. There has to be a good reason or they would full sweep the sub and eq it as well. ARC from Anthem sweeps the sub and calibrates eq's. Audyssey does this as well. But MCACC been around longer in receivers then both of them and I have 2 schools of thought. 1) It doesn't require and more eq after level and phase or they simple need to rethink this and update MCACC.
MCACC is only found in Pioneer receivers. No one else uses this technology. Like Anthem with ARC which no one else uses it , pioneer and AIR Studio's have some kind of agreement with MCACC.
Auydyssey based receivers like Onkyo , Integra , Denon , NAD , Marantz are all fine AVR's. But in the early days of Audyssey , I felt it sounded worse after a calibration. I re tested the room and still found it to sound thin , weak and lifeless. I was very puzzled by these results and decided to manually calibrate system and turn Audyssey off.
Today and for the last year now I have been doing Integra receivers and I'm waiting on a pro calibration kit. I just did a full dedicated 9.2 theater with Integra separates ran factory Audyssey. All my theaters and surround rooms , media rooms with Integra with Audyssey used seemed to thin out and shallow out the overall experience. Maybe I'm not a full Integra sound quality fan since we also do many Pioneer Elite theater rooms , media and surround rooms and if I decide to do a manual calibration , the system performs extremely well , if I run Mcacc , it seems to really add space and depth with no noticeable drop in performance.
Now over the years I have ran MCACC on every single model that had it , yes I mean every single Pioneer Elite receiver made from the very first vsx49 to the current and soon to be replaced SC-57. Never have I ever felt that MCACC ruined the experience. Now I have gone in on a few rooms and boosted or cut some levels due to 2 or 3 rows of seating. MCACC What I usually do is place the mic in a theater room in the center of the seating or the KING seat. That seat gets perfect sound and all others get whatever they get being out of the sweet spot.
This really works as I run clips and sit in different seats and rows for detailed testing. Once I figure out how each seat sounds , I make a professional decision to alter MCACC or leave it as factory set.

Audyssey forces you to use at least 3 positions for calibration. I haven't dug deep enough to figure out IF I can force it to allow me to calibrate just one position. The Sub EQ I'm into as personally I feel the sub needs to be EQ'd even in a well treated room. I've only done a few in my lifetime a THX certified or fully perfectly spec'd treated room. Most theaters I have treated got good control over bass , 1st order reflections , Standing waves and some very nice defusing on back walls and places that sucked the life out of the room. Audyssey hasn't fully impressed me ever and I want to own it myself as my room sucks **** and I want to spend hours digging deep and see if I can make any improvements with the tools Audyssey gives you.

Most people love Audyssey and I want to find out why. I hate it basically but I have not done a full Pro kit yet which is where Audyssey is suppose to really show off and compete with ARC or basically blow it away for accuracy. I know THX had much to do with this calibration tool and I fully respect what THX has done for our industry as paying attention to details for us professional and hobbits to get the very best experience out of our systems we build.

You ask a tuff question and I give you a tuff reply. But I know you wanted to strictly keep your thread focused on the 2 calibration systems but with that in mind you have to consider Pioneer Elite vs everyone else for a receiver. I'll forget about features and such as you don't want to focus on them at all but you also have to keep in mind the overall sound quality of the SC models. Even the VSX models give all others problems when competing for overall sound quality. One test I did with Integra and Elite was heavily favored on the Elite side and this was without any calibration. True preamp and amp bypass modes vs battle and everyone who listened to the test picked the Elite over the Integra every time.
I however don't feel this really proves Pioneer to be a better overall receiver , I proves the people listening liked it better. I also think Integra receivers do sound very good but don't give you that feeling of separates like the SC model do.

I think this is a very good topic and should be explored more. I for one am willing to bring home an Intgera and really live with it for awhile , rip apart Audyssey and see if I can find anything that other do. In the field SC models of Elite sound much better doing anything over the Integra Audyssey calibrated. Maybe I'm just so use to how the Elite's respond and have that lush warm sound. Maybe Elite mates much better with Definitive Technology speakers as they really seem to be the choice over the last few years. We do other brands but no where near as much as DEF TECH and for really good reasons. DEF TECH is probably the best overall double duty speaker company dollar for dollar on the market and has a huge following. We have customers asking for them all the time and want them in their homes. They probably just mate better with Pioneer then Integra.

On a last note , one thing that pisses me off to no end but I get around it but don't wanna is the dual sub outs. Integra high end models have dual sub outs and they are actual channels that calibrate each , the Elite models have dual sub outs but they are just internal splitters with test tone out both at the same time. Now what kills me is Pioneer came out with this first in the SC-09 and you could calibrate each sub out by itself. It made setting up dual sub systems much easier. Yeah I have spent years perfecting my technic's in calibrating dual subs going back to the days when I thought stacking 2 subs on top of each other was the bomb and then down the road found out I made a bad choice. Moving the sub apart in key areas of the room filled so much better. Level and phase is an art form I developed when setting up 2 subs in a room and when Pioneer Released the SC-09 with dual sub outs discrete I almost cried. Funny I never purchased one( Something is wrong with me allowing my wife to stop me in spending that kind of money on a receiver).

EndersShadow

Dan:

You mention the Pio's were preferred over the Integra's by your group. Have you ever done the same test using them ONLY as pre's on the same amp?

I only mention it because I know the SC models have the ability to totally turn off their amp channels (not sure if the VSX models do this too). I was curious if that changed the sound in any way as I have heard its supposed to remove any noise and I was curious if that would make any difference.

I am aware that its a really tough question to answer as to which is better, but I appreciate hearing thoughts from someone whose installed them in multiple scenarios. I also know that there is probably not going to be a blanket answer as its going to possibly be both gear and room dependent.

Are there different versions of MCACC or is it a one size fits all kinda deal?

Dan, if you take an Integra home for a bit I would love to hear your thoughts. I know WingNut is LOVING his XT32 model. I wonder if this years Integra's with XT would sound good. I know you were interested in getting your ears on them.

Also Dan, both Audyssey XT and MCACC handle subs the same with regards to the dual outputs. Until the XT32 models the dual subs are basically just a internal splitter :sad:.