New Receiver: Yamaha or Denon?

[Woochifer]

so if you had an SPL meter, would you need a YPAO. i dont own this feature, but i have heard some good complaints that state it is not as accurate as a meter. maybe not though. i was really just saying that i dont think one should measure a receiver on this feature. in the way that people do, i think it is overated.

With a home theater receiver, the SPL meter is used for two main purposes -- adjusting the levels on the speakers and calibrating the subwoofer with an external parametric equalizer. The SPL meter can duplicate the level adjustment function of the YPAO, but it CANNOT in ANY way duplicate the parametric filtering that the YPAO does through the seven main channels. NO home theater receivers I'm aware of can accept external processors for all seven channels. And in order to duplicate the parametric filtering on the YPAO, you would need seven premain inputs PLUS enough parametric equalizers to handle all seven channels. Currently, that cannot be done by any home theater receiver on the market.

In a room with bad acoustics, parametric equalization can make a huge difference by eliminating the largest frequency peaks. My understanding is that the YPAO can do these adjustments for all seven channels in about 10 minutes. When I did the parametric filtering for my subwoofer using a SPL meter, it took me 1 1/2 hours. Even presuming that the receiver can take a premain input (and none of the receivers on the market have premain inputs for all seven channels), would you want to potentially spend 1 1/2 hours for EACH channel manually setting a parametric equalizer when something like the YPAO can do it for you in 10 minutes?

IMO, the measure of how much of a factor anyone should regard a single feature is in the degree to which it improves sound quality. In general, the differences between midlevel receivers are relatively narrow. The differences between speakers and rooms are much wider. Acoustic room calibration systems like the YPAO compensate for these wide differences. That's why receiver manufacturers are in this mad dash to incorporate them into their newer models. Previously, in A/B comparisons the audible differences were subtle to nonexistent. But, with a parametric room calibration, the differences can be very noticeable.(Whether or not it's better is entirely subjective) By this time next year, just about every manufacturer will likely have their own variation of this feature available. To drag their heels potentially means losing market share.

perhaps the inaccuracy is based on additional room noice. or even bad mics. i dont have it, but i assume that since high end equipment doenst either, then is it really that necessary or is it a modern sale gimmick? after all, yamaha and DSP were.or maybe not, of course its preferance, it all is. these are just my opinions.

You don't have it because up until Pioneer began introducing their acoustic calibration feature into their Elite receivers a couple of years ago, it was ONLY high end processors like Lexicon, TAG McLaren, and Theta that incorporated any kind of functionality to compensate for room acoustics. It's no gimmick because it works and is based on a very solid premise -- that addressing the effects of room acoustics will audibly improve sound quality. Pioneer and Yamaha have now migrated this type of functionality under the $500 price point. Other manufacturers will ignore this trend at their own peril.