The Auto-Calibration Trap

Modern receivers and processors like to employ in some shape of form an "auto-calibration" system, that attempts to look at how speakers interact in the room, and "curve" the response to be flatter and more accurate. The key with this feature is to understand exactly what it does and doesn't do, and adjust your expectations accordingly.

Audyssey, Pioneer's MCACC, and Yamaha's YPAO (chicken) all attempt to, using a mic about the size of a disposable pen, look at up to eight seating positions and average out problematic frequencies (frequency peaks are typically more of a concern than valleys, which are caused by speaker cancellation due to improper placement, and cannot be resolved by boosting a frequency that isn't there). Most of these systems lack sufficient resolution under 50Hz (sometimes higher), and often do not offer the granularity required to "fix" whatever it thinks is right. What is does do is equalize speaker levels, relative distances, and alert to phasing issues that can result in thin bass. Plug in your Bic mic, keep the room relatively quiet for five minutes, and you (presumably) have a better result that you did before. Keep in mind, this process will typically alter the sound of your speakers to allow them to play nicer in their environment. This is the McDonald's hamburger option to room calibration.

The Spago version is far more complex. Sure it's pricier, but the results are far better. Utilizing spectral room analysis with various laptop-based programs, real microphones (calibrated to the task), and the know-how of the techs, this room examination can reveal things in spaces that were thought to be "good" before. The process typically results in a several page full-color analysis of room modes that can then be used to deploy the appropriate types of treatments in the room to ensure a response that allows the listeners to "reach out and touch" the performance. This addresses everything, from where to place seating areas, speakers, screens/displays, and even the type of sound rating the door to the room should have.

Key in this process is the fact that it addresses the structure of the room itself, not just how certain speakers react in a pre-existing environment. Isolating the room (also known as "floating") allows the equipment to not fight the space it's in. This creates an interesting scenario, in which people discover environmental and effect sounds that were not heard before, improving dialogue, and enhancing dynamics. Note that speaker frequency response is not affected, so what you fell in love with sonically is not fundamentally altered; just optimized through improvement of the acoustic space. Again, the room is treated from the studs in, leaving the electronics alone other than ensuring proper setup. Audyssey in fairness does a good job of smoothing uniformity of response over a given listening area, but only after the room is adequately addressed structurally. The analogy of using room calibration to solve a room's ills without doing anything else is using fine-grit sandpaper to cut down a tree.

As with anything, there are price considerations to be made whenever courses of action are considered. Buying a new receiver will get you some semblance of room calibration, it's just important to realize that in this scenario, the room itself isn't being optimized in any way. Proper room (and system) analysis will determine needs, goals, proper equipment for the task, and development of the space involved to all work in synergy so that finally you can hear what's on the disc--maybe for the first time ever.

The Brain

Sometimes I create a post, and it strikes me that the topic I'm about to address really should have been resolved three to five years ago. Nonetheless, there isn't a day that goes by that I'm not questioned by someone about what looks like an old subject.

The most important component (besides speakers) of any system is by a clear head the receiver/processor. The receiver is literally the hub that everything funnels into, from audio/video signals, camcorders plugged into front panel jacks, iPod docks; the list goes on. Folks ask me all the time, "what do I need on these things, and how inexpensive can I go?" And while the answer to that involves more than a simple list of features, there are some quick, significant things to examine to make sure you aren't putting yourself behind the curve as you walk out the door. Notice that power ratings aren't on the list.

HDMI and HDMI upconversion: At least three inputs, one output. HDMI is already the de facto digital standard for modern components. Ensure they're 1.3 compliant (most will be). I see new devices everyday that only have HDMI and composite. HDMI upconversion allows one HDMI cable to be run to the television; the receiver takes any signal S-video and up, and converts it to something than can be sent via that single wire. Simplifies connections, makes holes in the wall smaller, and helps to counter remote juggling.

Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD decoding: At some point, you will probably replace your older DVD player with a BluRay player. Although you may not dive in immediately into BluRay as a format, if you do, it makes a ton of sense to ensure that lossless audio formats can be decoded in the receiver, thus retaining all the settings and bass management that are applied to everything else. This is important to ensure all of the parameters of your system are handled correctly, since the processing options in most players are heavily watered-down, and can possibly conflict with the settings already programmed in the receiver.

Second/third zone output: It's nice to be able to have music in the house, and the ballgame on the patio, all amplified and switched from one receiver.

Room correction: This is the least important of all of these, but for people maybe a little technophobic, auto-calibration routines can be incredibly helpful to handle the distance, level, and speaker size settings automatically. This can be useful also to help counter the fact that more than likely, main speakers will be a different size (and certainly shape) than the center, which will also be different than the surrounds. Auto-calibration can help mitigate these physical differences to place the listener in a more-believable "bubble" of sound.

Today, many of the things we used to refer to as "future formats" are here. Therefore, having a receiver that is truly plug-and-play is easier than ever, since there's less of a mystery as to what's coming down the road. The good news is, no matter what those formats may be, there is a 99% chance that HDMI will be the connection of choice. Don't paint yourself into a corner; you can get a receiver that will truly last you 10-15 years without any trouble if you pay attention to some basic issues.

HD Hubris

Of all the annoying phrases and pieces of marketing-speak that I've been exposed to over the years, the winner for the silliest (right above "reputable internet vendor") is "FullHD" (sometimes inaccurately referred to, but not to be confused with Dolby's audio format "TrueHD"). Just what is "FullHD?"

Let me help.

"FullHD" is Sony marketing at work. Period. Sony developed that phrase to infer that anything less than 1080p is not high definition. This is news to those that have owned beautiful 1080i high-def RPTVs and 720p flat panels, most of whom today still have no objection over their sets.

Here's the interesting part, and the one that needs to be spotlighted. Although 1080p existed in various types of televisions for awhile, it wasn't until Sony introduced their 1080p LCD sets to market that "FullHD" as a slogan was seen. Ironically (although not surprisingly) the release of the PS3 also carried this logo, in an attempt to infer that the 720p-based Xbox 360 was also deficient. The thrust of these statements is that even 1080p isn't good enough; it has to be Sony's iteration of 1080p. Let's ignore the other 18 versions of high-res formats. Nonsense.

Why is this an issue worth taking umbrage over? The idea that one company's definition of what constitutes the state of a certain technology is highly egotistical, and factually incorrect. As I've said many times on previous posts, the last thing the industry needs is to create more confusion in the marketplace. "Leaders" like Sony have a history of taking advantage of their name brand recognition to manipulate the buying public and influence the followers in the industry to warp what defines an established set of standards.

And people wonder why marketers aren't trusted.