Room Correction for 2 Channel?

[audioguy]

AUDIOGUY QUOTE -

Hi Audioguy, do you have any experience with Audyssey vs. TacT

We would be comparing Apples and Boats.

I am a HUGE fan of Audyssey, Audyssey Pro and the Audyssey SubEQ. Given that you can purchase an $800 reciever and get that kind of functionality is absolutely amazing to me. And for HT, a pre-pro with Audyssey and Audyssey Pro is an outstanding solution. You can purchase used for under $1000 any number of pre-pros that support Audyssey Pro and that will provide an incredible HT experience. To get better, you really need to spend a LOT more. That is what I use for HT.

Having now played with both the Tact and Audyssey, this is my opinion:

For two channel listening, it is no contest as I believe the TacT is a FAR better solution. But remember that the Tact cost up to $6800. It has FAR more flexibility in terms of Target curve definition, crossover settings, instantaneous listening of any small change you make to a target curve (unlike Audyssey Pro where you listen, re-load all of the filters and then listen), filter resolution, etc. And while it is primarily a single point correction, according to Boz, it can learn about the room in those single point measurements and "simulate" other room postion correction parameters. The older Tact that I also have does provide the ability to measure up to 9 positions but, according to Boz, that is not necessary (I don't actually buy that given my experience with the Audyssey SubEQ). Net net is that in my opinion, you will get a much, much better two channel listening experience with the Tact than with any combination of Audyssey supported products --- with one possible exception.

Even though my pre-pro supports Audyssey Pro, I purchased the Audyssey SubEQ. It (in my room) greatly improved the bass frequency ringing that Audyssey Pro partially dealt with. I have a dedicated room and is very heavily trapped. The HT bass with the SubEQ is outstanding. When I get some time, I may try the SubEQ with my Tact for two channel.

If I were to purchase what I believe to be the outstanding combined solution for HT and two channel (the best -- who knows?), I would purchase the TacT TCS system and probably the Audyssey SubEQ. That would be a dynamite combination in my opinion.

[brianherlihy]

Thanks Audioguy...very helpful.

[Ron]

I am using the new McIntosh MX150 processor. It not only corrects for 2 channel, but corrects up to 7.1. In my system it correct for the 2 fronts, center, 2 surrounds, and my subwoofer. I have a 5.1 setup. I had it set up by someone with experience, who was trained on this particular processor.

[LesAuber]

Is it possible to 100% correct a relatively small room passively? IE simply through dimensions, absorbers, diffusers etc? By small say something under 1000 sq ft. Detroit's Orchestra Hall is the best room I've ever heard but it hardly qualifies for something you could fit in a normal house. Though normal for me would be much smaller, say 300 sq ft.

[amirm]

If by 100% you mean 0db response variations the answer is a definitely no. Even +-3db would be a major accomplishment.

[audioguy]

If you could start a room from scratch, and your room size could be closer to 4000cf, and have it designed by the best, then I suspect you could, as Amir suggested, get more than close enough so that electonic EQ MAY not be necessary. But as I have stated elsewhere, I have only been in one room like that --- and even that room is a room within a room. The inside room is probably 4500cf but the room that it is within, is MUCH larger.

[FrantzM]

Is it possible to 100% correct a relatively small room passively? IE simply through dimensions, absorbers, diffusers etc? By small say something under 1000 sq ft. Detroit's Orchestra Hall is the best room I've ever heard but it hardly qualifies for something you could fit in a normal house. Though normal for me would be much smaller, say 300 sq ft.

Answer is No ... As Different speakers in the room will almost certainly require different placement for best performance. The directivity of the speakers also account to what we hear from it (and the rooms). The best solution is a good room AND Active Room correction.

[LesAuber]

Thanks, pretty much the answer I was expecting though I was hoping to hear otherwise as I'm a proponent of the KISS rule. Less stuff in the chain being less chances to have a weak link to muck something up. So much for the dream of having a perfect room someday...

[sxr71]

I came here through a Google search on DRC. Up until yesterday I was the kind of audiophile guy who would have never considered this. But I saw Ethan Winer's AES 2009 presentation on YouTube and I realized that I've been looking at this whole thing wrong. Who care's about that $20,000 preamp when your room is going to screw it up anyway? I don't have a dedicated space and I cannot treat my room as well as I should. It's time to get practical. That video changed my perspective. A lot of what we think we can hear is just our mind playing tricks on us. I will just believe my PCM converted, DSP processed music is the best I can get in my room and just be happy.

This second time around I realized thankfully how much crazy stuff is going on in the audiophile and I settled on Pro gear. A Metric Halo LIO-8 and Focal Solo 6 monitors. Frankly I cannot think of anything that makes more sense than active powered monitors. Just MHO, but amplifiers that are perfectly matched to the driver and a crossover that operates on a low level signal.

Before i digress too much, I just want to say that I'm ready to throw in the towel and sometimes I envy the Bose (yes I said Bose) owner who buys the thing, sets it up, let's it do it's acoustic calculations and just enjoys the system. Now, I'm not about to run into Best Buy and buy a Bose system because I know that they are flawed just using the basic principles of physics. But there has to be a middle ground.

I'm here to hopefully find it. I don't want to spend $5000 on a Tact, but I will if I have to. But there has to be a simpler easier way to get into this and do it in the most advanced way possible. Maybe there is some computer software that is more cost effective. I am open to a PC/Mac as my audio source and maybe I could leverage the power of some of these very powerful computers.

[terryj]

I came here through a Google search on DRC. Up until yesterday I was the kind of audiophile guy who would have never considered this. But I saw Ethan Winer's AES 2009 presentation on YouTube and I realized that I've been looking at this whole thing wrong. Who care's about that $20,000 preamp when your room is going to screw it up anyway? I don't have a dedicated space and I cannot treat my room as well as I should. It's time to get practical. That video changed my perspective. A lot of what we think we can hear is just our mind playing tricks on us. I will just believe my PCM converted, DSP processed music is the best I can get in my room and just be happy.

This second time around I realized thankfully how much crazy stuff is going on in the audiophile and I settled on Pro gear. A Metric Halo LIO-8 and Focal Solo 6 monitors. Frankly I cannot think of anything that makes more sense than active powered monitors. Just MHO, but amplifiers that are perfectly matched to the driver and a crossover that operates on a low level signal.

Before i digress too much, I just want to say that I'm ready to throw in the towel and sometimes I envy the Bose (yes I said Bose) owner who buys the thing, sets it up, let's it do it's acoustic calculations and just enjoys the system. Now, I'm not about to run into Best Buy and buy a Bose system because I know that they are flawed just using the basic principles of physics. But there has to be a middle ground.

I'm here to hopefully find it. I don't want to spend $5000 on a Tact, but I will if I have to. But there has to be a simpler easier way to get into this and do it in the most advanced way possible. Maybe there is some computer software that is more cost effective. I am open to a PC/Mac as my audio source and maybe I could leverage the power of some of these very powerful computers.

I use deqx, and room treatment.

There are a few open ended points in your post...what you regard as good and reasonable money to spend, yada yada.

You current level of knowledge (do you have room measurement gear? can you use a room measurement program? you'd prefer 'just letting the machine do it') also needs to be clarifies.

BUT, here is my point (well, depending on some of the answers above heh heh). If you are ALSO undecided if it will be good for you, why not buy a deq 2496?

What, a couple of hundred? maybe second hand?

And you can on sell if you don't feel the results are worth it, OR you like the results but want to buy a better machine after the test.

Worst case scenario, you are out less than a hundred bucks. BUT, with more knowledge than you have now.

Surely worth a punt?