Audiolense as alternative to Trinnov?

[TheLion]

Hello!

I can tell you it was quite an odyssey that leads me to writing this
post. Let me describe my situation.

I have a pretty high performance home theater setup that (will shortly
be expanded to) consists of 7 speakers (Seaton Sound Catalyst front
stage, Genelec 1037CEM surrounds) and 4 sealed subwoofers (4x Seaton
SubMersive XL). Naturally I was confronted with the task to optimize
the performance by taking care of room acoustics. First step proper
placement - assisted by measurements of course. Next room treatment -
massive DIY bass traps in corners, first reflection points, what have
you. It has a significant impact. But the room is quite small (33m2)
and not purpose build with acoustics in mind. That brings me to
digital EQ.

Let me tell you - I have tried almost all of them. From simple
multiband graphic EQ, parametric EQs (feeded by Room EQ Wizard),
standard integrated Audyssey MultEQ XT (even the new XT32), an
dedicated Audyssey Pro unit, I have tried Lyngdorf, Tact, Anthem ARC.
All of them have great potential (sans the graphic EQ ;-) ) and I
really enjoyed some aspects of them BUT I just couldn't live with
other attributes. In general I feel that the extensive digital
processing (with obviously insufficient resolution) leeds to an
"overprocessed" sound. Most of the systems sound gimmicky - quite
pleasant at first, much "fuller", more expansive sound staging - but
if you listen closer transparency is lost, transients smeared, detail
and resolution lost - the remaining detail gets pronounced to give the
impression of a more detailed sound. It is the equivalent of a
contrast boost or edge enhancement/sharpening of a video signal. It
seems "better" at first - but you degrade the source signal.

At the other hand once you experience what EQ can do especially below
Schroeder frequency there is no going back. Therefor I am looking for
an EQ system to integrate my 7."4" (not really individual subwoofer
channels, but they all should be driven with different delays for best
integration for example). After a home demo of the Trinnov MC
Optimizer I am almost ready to pull the trigger. The first time that
it is almost all good and not much bad about EQ. The first time I can
live with the compromise (and I know that not using EQ is an even
bigger compromise). But before making such an investment I would like
to see what other options are out there.

The one other option I am seriously considering is going with an HTPC
solution. Simple because of the flexibility, unlimited upgrade path
and because it allows me to use professional preamps (Prism Orpheus!)
with my professional monitors. I come up with a system solution for
music and above all movie playback (exclusively Blu-Ray at this point,
using MPC HC and appropriate filters including a Wasapi path with
Reclock as renderer). To make it a worthwhile alternative to Trinnov I
would need state of the art DEQ/room correction (whatever you call
it).

So - other than using some parametric EQs my options - as far as I can
see it - are DRC, acourate and Audiolense. One free to use, two
commercial. I know and respect Dr. Ulrich Brüggemann, so acourate
seems like a natural choice. I tried the demo and certainly prefer
your user interface. BUT user interface, learning curve and such
things are clearly secondary to me.

All i need is state of the art sound quality. DEQ without an
perceivable loss of transparency and detailing. And I can tell you - I
am very sensible in that regard. My speakers are a curse too - with
the Genelecs you plainly hear anything there is to hear. So I am quite
in a different position than customers using consumer speakers (even
very expensive ones...).

-> So down to my specific questions: How does Audiolense compare to
DRC and acourate concerning JUST the actual processing? (I know of all
the other advantages concerning usability) Therefor if you feed the
very same measurement data and target the very same paramters (eg.
target curve) how ould the resulting filters differ?

-> Is Audiolense based on the same algorithms as the DRC library (or
some other) or is it it's own development?

-> How does it compare to stand alone solutions like Audyssey Pro,
Tact and Trinnov? (from your perspective and experience)

-> Does Audiolense work in a media player classic WASAPI path using
the reclock renderer? What consequencies does your ASIO support have
(I cannot use ASIO because reclock doesn't support it..)

-> How does Audiolense support the integration of 4 subwoofers? Does
it set individual delays/phase corrections for any of them? Does it EQ
them as one or individually? The IMHO best way to do it is integration
by proper individual delays (giving the flattest in room response as
base) and then EQ them as one. Do you agree?

-> Do you consider Audiolense to be a proper solution for a dedicated,
pretty high end home cinema setup?

-> Can I use/do you provide mic correction files for the Behringer
ECM8000?

-> What kind of support can I expect when purchasing Audiolense -> do
you assist with room planning/optimizing? Do you provide support if
the integration into my software chain fails - eg. WASAPI interface
support?

Thank you very much for your time!

Best regards from Austria,
Walter

[Christopher Hayden]

Riiiise, rise from the dead, thread. 

So where are you at 8 years later? I just arrived at your point.