A/V Auto-EQ's and Ascends

[Gov]

Howdy,

I have been busy enjoying my new Ascends lately and have realized that I may actually like the sound of them without my Pioneer 1014 EQ engaged. How many Ascend owners use the EQ on their receivers vs. how many do not? I am pretty sure most prefer it off. I also have better results with my SPL meter and the S&V HTT disc vs. MCACC with the Ascends. Looking forward to your comments.

Thanx

[curtis]

I have heard MCACC with Ascends on two occasions, and didn't like it either time....it seemed to sound artificial to me.

[Asliang]

Are the Ascends internally-EQed or is the FR the complex sum of the natural drive unit roll-offs?

[curtis]

Are the Ascends internally-EQed or is the FR the complex sum of the natural drive unit roll-offs?
The speaker's crossover does that work for the most part.

[swank121]

Interesting. I prefer the sound with the auto-eq on my H/K AVR 635. I do have an unusual shaped room with vaulted ceilings and a triangular opening into the kitchen (stairs in the middle).

[Gov]

My room is also open to a kitchen and my speaker arrangement is good, but not the best. Unfortunately I do not have much of a choice due to the how it is layed out. Anyway, I have played with the EQ with several different sources on (i.e Music Choice, CD, DVD) For DVD material I could NOT tell the difference at all. With Music Choice via Comcast I noticed a bit. With CD I could tell quite a bit. The best way I can describe the sound with the EQ on is a bit muffled sounding. It seems like everything blends together to much for my liking. With my old JBL Northridges the EQ sounded considerably better on than off. But, the Ascends are another story.

[curtis]

Interesting. I prefer the sound with the auto-eq on my H/K AVR 635. I do have an unusual shaped room with vaulted ceilings and a triangular opening into the kitchen (stairs in the middle).
Auto EQ on the HK's works differently, and I have not experienced it yet.

MCACC tries to flatten the response. The HK system tries to remove the differences the room creates. On the HK's, you take a nearfield measurement, which removes room induced FR changes, then it takes a measurement at the listening position. After these are done, it tries to match the listening position measurement with the nearfield measurement.

The thought is you bought the speakers because of how they sound, and it tries to preserve that sound rather than change it to be a flat FR.

[Gov]

Auto EQ on the HK's works differently, and I have not experienced it yet.

MCACC tries to flatten the response. The HK system tries to remove the differences the room creates. On the HK's, you take a nearfield measurement, which removes room induced FR changes, then it takes a measurement at the listening position. After these are done, it tries to match the listening position measurement with the nearfield measurement.

The thought is you bought the speakers because of how they sound, and it tries to preserve that sound rather than change it to be a flat FR.

I believe that is the goal of MCACC as well? Atleast thats I how I understand it.

[curtis]

Unless MCACC takes a nearfield measurement of the speakers, it can't know how they are suppose to sound and remove room effects.

[BGHD]

Use MCACC on my Pio 74 w/ Ascends. Without MCACC/EQ, everything's just louder and more fatiguing to my ears, so I tend to prefer it 'on'.

[Gov]

Unless MCACC takes a nearfield measurement of the speakers, it can't know how they are suppose to sound and remove room effects.

Thanks, I guess I just misunderstood what MCACC really does. It appears that I just like the sound of the Ascends without any processing, as many others do.

[einsteinjb]

My Onkyo TX-SR702 has an auto-setup which did a pretty good job setting the distances (delays) for my speakers, but I don't think it did anything to the onboard EQs. Been a while since I played with it. Anyway I always had to EQ the balls offa my Boston Acoustics CR75s (as surrounds) to get them to match my B&Ws (the Bostons were bright little suckers), and I generally like a dB or two off the low mids on the B&Ws to smooth the response which had the slightest hint of boxiness to it, plus I'll add a dB or two at 80Hz on my SVS SBS-01s in surround position to give them a hint more bottom around the xover frequency, but so far when I've tried my CBM-170SEs as front LR I liked 'em flat. Now I haven't had much time to play with them there and I may change my mind on that (the B&Ws sound bigger but it might just be a volume matching issue, they're pretty sensitive), but first impressions were I didn't really feel the itch to EQ them. And I'm a sound engineer... I like tweaking. :p

[Gov]

Yeah....I guess that the greater majority of Ascend owners prefer no EQ at all with these speakers. Since I have the EQ on my receiver I am determined to use it, just cuz I have it. Anyway, the more I try and use it, I just keep going back to turning it off. I guess I am just going to keep it off.
Since switching to the 170SE's for F/R, 340SE center and 200 surrounds, the auto MCACC has pretty much been worthless except it sets the distances correctly. The channel levels still needed to be tweaked with my SPL, and well I have already stated the EQ stuff. I am beginning to think that these auto calibration features on lower to mid priced receivers are basically just a starting point and need a fair amount of fine tuning. Maybe the advanced auto calibration features on the higher end/flagship receivers are much better. I will never know because I will never be able to afford those things :D

[einsteinjb]

Yeah....I guess that the greater majority of Ascend owners prefer no EQ at all with these speakers. Since I have the EQ on my receiver I am determined to use it, just cuz I have it. Anyway, the more I try and use it, I just keep going back to turning it off. I guess I am just going to keep it off.
Since switching to the 170SE's for F/R, 340SE center and 200 surrounds, the auto MCACC has pretty much been worthless except it sets the distances correctly. The channel levels still needed to be tweaked with my SPL, and well I have already stated the EQ stuff. I am beginning to think that these auto calibration features on lower to mid priced receivers are basically just a starting point and need a fair amount of fine tuning. Maybe the advanced auto calibration features on the higher end/flagship receivers are much better. I will never know because I will never be able to afford those things :D
C'mon now Gov, never say never! Your ship might still come in. ;)

Ya know, just because you might own a gun, that doesn't mean you have to use it on someone, right? Those EQ features are nice to have, but they're there to correct equipment problems or acoustic problems that real-life rooms will have, or to satisfy someone who just wants to hear things differently. To most people, excellent equipment in a good sounding room with good sources will never need EQ. I say be happy your Ascends sound so good in your room that you don't need to add additional unnecessary processing (and therefore noise and distortion) to fix the sound! That's a GOOD thing. :)

That's the reason most really high end gear doesn't have EQ features. The manufacturers figure anyone willing and able to spend that much on their amps and pre/pros will have spent money on great speakers and on acoustically treating their rooms, and would only use great source material, so they don't need EQ. It's those of us with champagne tastes on beer budgets (as me mum often says) that need EQ to fix our room and/or equipment problems.

Of course if you're DETERMINED to use it, you could always go back to your JBLs... ;) :D

[Gov]

Well my room is not acoustically treated at all, nor laid out the best. Not that the JBL's were bad sounding speakers, I will NOT be going back to them anytime soon! ;) The more I listen to my Ascend set up, the more amazed I continue to get.

Dave F, thank you for putting out such a quality product at such a steal of a price!!

Gov