MCACC v. MultEQ XT32 (Pio SC-35 v. Denon 4311CI)

EndersShadow · October 2011

^ I am pretty familiar with all of those with regards to MultiEQ. Its the same for 2EQ. I basically used my main seating position as #1, one foot to the left of my seating position, and about 3 feet to the right and about 1 foot up (covers where my wife sits). Everything was calculated with the mic on a tripod (that has a level to ensure I am good) with the AC off so the fan didnt affect anything, with both dogs eating peanutbutter outside.

I appreciate reading from all you guys about the subtle differences between them. The more I think about the pro's of each (Power for Pio, EQ for Denon), the more the NAD seems to merge both. NAD power is always underrated so its still got decent balls to it, and its got Audyssey.

It looks like the model I would want, T 775, is about 1400 refurbed. If I step up to the T 775 HD its 2k. Not really sure what extra I get from the HD 775 over the standard 775.

Right now though they dont have an option for XT, BUT with the add on modules it might come later on. Since I dont have 2 subs right now I dont really need it (though it does a lot more filtering than XT), and can add the module on later and not have to purchase a new AVR.

Drenis · October 2011

A couple questions,

1. Doesn't the Pio's use Wolfson DAC's inside? Isn't that the best brand of DAC chip? It's hard to think of it getting better with the suggestions of NAD and Cambridge, Anthem... so I'm rather curious...

2. I find that MCACC actually makes the sound worse. I seem to lose all my mid-range after it runs. Once I disable the EQ and Standing wave... holy crap it sounds boss. So why is it suggested to be a better system then Audyssey? I like the simplicity of MCACC and the information it sends back to help with adjustments and levels... but can someone clarify why it sucks for SQ?

kuntasensei · October 2011

EndersShadow wrote: »

^ I am pretty familiar with all of those with regards to MultiEQ. Its the same for 2EQ. I basically used my main seating position as #1, one foot to the left of my seating position, and about 3 feet to the right and about 1 foot up (covers where my wife sits). Everything was calculated with the mic on a tripod (that has a level to ensure I am good) with the AC off so the fan didnt affect anything, with both dogs eating peanutbutter outside.

The difference being that 2EQ doesn't equalize the subwoofer AT ALL - just the main channels. Most of the critical mic placement is specifically to address equalization of the sub, which is why MultEQ requires more care. But if you already did that for 2EQ, then you're on the right track. Even standard MultEQ XT would be a vast improvement over 2EQ.

EndersShadow · October 2011

kuntasensei wrote: »

The difference being that 2EQ doesn't equalize the subwoofer AT ALL - just the main channels. Most of the critical mic placement is specifically to address equalization of the sub, which is why MultEQ requires more care. But if you already did that for 2EQ, then you're on the right track. Even standard MultEQ XT would be a vast improvement over 2EQ.

LOL.... trust me I am more than aware of the improvements of MultiEQ over 2EQ. I cry myself to sleep most nights as a result

Doing my due dilligence on the NAD's but unless I am massively missing something the T775 seems to be where its at. HDMI 1.3 (so it decodes audio), XT for EQ and 4 HDMI in's plus the ability to add in new boards later on (which arent cheap, but dont cost as much as replacing the full AVR)

kuntasensei · October 2011

I hear ya'... I have MultEQ XT and I still feel the itch to upgrade to something with XT32. :cheesygrin:

EndersShadow · October 2011

kuntasensei wrote: »

I hear ya'... I have MultEQ XT and I still feel the itch to upgrade to something with XT32. :cheesygrin:

Yeah, but my main want for XT32 is for dual subs which is a bit off, so while more filters would help regardless, I think saving some cash now with the NAD might be what I shoot for. Now to just start watching Agon and ebay for em.

mantis · October 2011

kuntasensei wrote: »

1) I use height channels. Marketing gimmickry aside, Dolby's implementation of height is designed to work with the existing mixing standards for movies, wherein ambient sound is mixed out-of-phase in the surrounds, so nothing HAS to be recorded specifically for this format. In the theatrical space, this method of mixing allows sound to resolve as if it were generally above you because the speakers have enough distance from the listener to allow a dipole-like effect. In the home space, the speakers are too close for this to fully resolve. The height channels work in conjunction with the surrounds to anchor that sound above you in a smaller space, giving you the sound of the theatrical space in a much smaller home area without any fakey environmental simulation DSP sound. Because mixes have been done this way since the advent of digital 5.1, DPL-IIz Height tends to be very effective even with catalog titles. It's subtle... until you turn it off and realize that theater sound is suddenly missing. Audyssey's DSX height is a bit more in-your-face, but still effective.

2) 7.1 for the home was initially created to address propagation of sound directly behind the listener in the home space, because a single rear point source can have a perceived reversal such that it sounds like it is coming from in front of you. This made reproducing Dolby Digital EX mixes difficult in the home space. Having two rear surrounds defeated this perceived reversal as it allowed the sounds panned around the surrounds to always come from multiple point sources, effectively reproducing the effect of speaker arrays in the theatrical space. Since most modern mixes are done for DD-EX and have been for some time, your statement that most content is recorded in 5.1 is woefully incorrect. Most modern mixes are done for 5.1 with a matrixed rear surround channel for the theater, and the only way to correctly reproduce that in the home is with a 7.1 system (though 6.1 with DPL-IIz Music applied to the surrounds spreads the rear data across multiple point sources fairly well).

3) Now that Dolby 7.1 is becoming common in the theater, 7.1 in the home is a definite boon. Recent releases mixed for discrete 7.1 include Tron: Legacy, Tangled, Megamind, Transformers: Dark Of The Moon, Thor, Toy Story 3, Captain America: The First Avenger, Cars 2, Super 8, Kung-Fu Panda 2, and Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. Upcoming movies in theatrical 7.1 include Real Steel, John Carter, War Horse, Brave, and Puss In Boots. Just sayin'... It's not a 5.1 world anymore... and hasn't been for some time.

1)Thanks for the cut and paste of Height and Width. Honestly I have not dug in to these formats other then listen to our reps talk about them. I'm not really intrigued like I usually am.
2) I know all about 7.1 , why it was made , why it's pretty damn awesome when something is actually recorded in it. When it's just in 5.1 and it's matrixed into the rear channels mono mostly it does add a little to the room if you have a deep room. Most home theater spaces don't have the ability to take advantage of this technology. Deadicated theater rooms and nice long Media rooms can.
3) I have many Blu ray movies that are just a few years old or less.
1-Clash of the Titans is just 5.1, 2-Terminator Sarah Connor Chronicles 5.1 ,3-Ironman 5.1 ,4- Xmen Wolverine 5.1 , 5-Hancock 5.1 , 6-The Dark Knight 5.1 ,7- Terminator Salvation 5.1 , 8- Ironman 2 5.1 , 9-Transformers Revenge of the Fallen 5.1 ,10-AVP Requim 5.1 , 11-Ultraviolet 5.1 , 12-Max Payne 5.1 , 12-Pirates of the caribbean 5.1 13-Jpurney to the center of the Earth 5.1 , 14-Resident Evil Extinction 5.1 ,15- In the Name of the King 5.1 16-Night at the Museum 5.1 , 16- Avatar 5.1 , 17-Underworld Rise of the Lycans is just 5,1 So thats 17 of my last movie purchases on Blu ray that are just 5.1 audio. Now to make it fair I will list the 6 Whole movies I own that are in 7.1 recorded format which include Crank ,Transporter 3 ,From Paris with Love ,Rush Hour 3 ,Transformers Dark side of the moon and Thor which I believe you already listed.
So my point is there is WAY more movies in 5.1 then 7.1 so yeah it's a 5.1 world. Do you even know how long 7.1 has been around? Like over a decade and hardly no one uses the format. Do I like this? Absolutely no. I hate the industry and replay Industry all together as they never agree. They always have this or that gimmicky thing to prove this is better then that. Whatever everyone has there path and hopefully the space to do so.
If someone has a room that you can wire up correctly in the correct placement 10.2 or 30.7 or what have you , I'm game but to spend money on these things when the content isn't really there enough to warrant spending the money on all these channels is retarded IMO. I'd rather design a killer 5.1 of much higher end quality parts then use the same amount of money and spread it over 7 to 9 channels. Remember 5.1 can replay anything 7.1 or 9.1 can. Correct placement and setup is Key.

Drenis · October 2011

Forget 7.1, who remembers 6.1? My old Yammy was a 6 channel receiver.

mantis · October 2011

Drenis wrote: »

Forget 7.1, who remembers 6.1? My old Yammy was a 6 channel receiver.

It's basically the same exact thing. It's rear center Info. A 6.1 system can replay a 7.1 audio track but it makes the rear center mono. Now under todays recording standards 7.1 should be Discrete on every 7.1 recording. Back in the early days Dolby used what was called Surround EX.

kuntasensei · October 2011

mantis wrote: »

1)Thanks for the cut and paste of Height and Width. Honestly I have not dug in to these formats other then listen to our reps talk about them. I'm not really intrigued like I usually am.

Actually, I didn't cut-and-paste any of that.

mantis wrote: »

3) I have many Blu ray movies that are just a few years old or less.
1-Clash of the Titans is just 5.1, 2-Terminator Sarah Connor Chronicles 5.1 ,3-Ironman 5.1 ,4- Xmen Wolverine 5.1 , 5-Hancock 5.1 , 6-The Dark Knight 5.1 ,7- Terminator Salvation 5.1 , 8- Ironman 2 5.1 , 9-Transformers Revenge of the Fallen 5.1 ,10-AVP Requim 5.1 , 11-Ultraviolet 5.1 , 12-Max Payne 5.1 , 12-Pirates of the caribbean 5.1 13-Jpurney to the center of the Earth 5.1 , 14-Resident Evil Extinction 5.1 ,15- In the Name of the King 5.1 16-Night at the Museum 5.1 , 16- Avatar 5.1 , 17-Underworld Rise of the Lycans is just 5,1 So thats 17 of my last movie purchases on Blu ray that are just 5.1 audio. Now to make it fair I will list the 6 Whole movies I own that are in 7.1 recorded format which include Crank ,Transporter 3 ,From Paris with Love ,Rush Hour 3 ,Transformers Dark side of the moon and Thor which I believe you already listed.
So my point is there is WAY more movies in 5.1 then 7.1 so yeah it's a 5.1 world. Do you even know how long 7.1 has been around? Like over a decade and hardly no one uses the format. Do I like this? Absolutely no. I hate the industry and replay Industry all together as they never agree. They always have this or that gimmicky thing to prove this is better then that. Whatever everyone has there path and hopefully the space to do so.

All 16 of the movies you listed were mixed in 5.1 EX theatrically (Sarah Connor Chronicles was 5.1 for television). The rear-channel data is there in the 5.1 mix from the master on the Blu-rays. But just like most 5.1 EX tracks on DVD, they're almost never flagged as DD-EX. There are a few exceptions (the Pixar movies come to mind), but every one of the movies you listed were intended for rear surround playback in the theater. Manually engaging EX (or, as Dolby recommends, DPL-IIx Movie) on a 7.1 setup will properly reproduce the matrixed rear surround data that the mixer intended you to hear. So no... it isn't a 5.1 world and hasn't been for some time. Very few studio movies have been mixed for straight 5.1 since Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.

Of the 7.1 movies you listed, only Thor and Transformers: Dark Of The Moon were 7.1 in the theater. Dolby 7.1 as a mixing standard is a recent development, and Toy Story 3 was the first 7.1 mix done theatrically. Discrete 7.1 tracks on Blu-ray are typically repurposed from the original audio stems to make them 7.1 using the matrixed audio (based on the phase/level relationship the same way DPL-IIx extrapolates it on your AVR anyway)... but new movies are being mixed specifically for the new Dolby 7.1 format and the Blu-rays will have the lossless 7.1 from these mixes.

mantis wrote: »

If someone has a room that you can wire up correctly in the correct placement 10.2 or 30.7 or what have you , I'm game but to spend money on these things when the content isn't really there enough to warrant spending the money on all these channels is retarded IMO. I'd rather design a killer 5.1 of much higher end quality parts then use the same amount of money and spread it over 7 to 9 channels. Remember 5.1 can replay anything 7.1 or 9.1 can. Correct placement and setup is Key.

I agree that forcing 7.1 into a room that can't support proper placement is problematic... but you're way off base on the lack of content. Well-placed surrounds in a 5.1 setup can create a nice sense of envelopment on their own, but if a movie is mixed with rear surrounds in mind (as most have been for some time now), the only way to properly reproduce that at home is 6.1 with DPL-IIx Music Mode or 7.1.

MCACC v. MultEQ XT32 (Pio SC-35 v. Denon 4311CI)

Comments