Denon DVD-A1UD/DVD-A1UDCI Blu-Ray/DVD/SACD/DVD-A/ Universal Player - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 08:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB View Post

A am not using Audyssey personally at this point.

I was not responding to your post but, in any case, why?

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 09:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
dicey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB View Post

The DACS are these ones: http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/jap...90/ak4390.html and they were developed for the ultra high end DCD-SX SACD/CD player. They are 32 bit and along with AL32 should outperform the AVP when using the balanced connection.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the specs for the AKM 4390 DAC that the A1UD is using, it appears to me that these DACs are incapable of natively decoding DSD! That would seriously SUCK!!! Anyone out there know for sure?!?

You are all WEIRDOS! - Sam the Eagle
dicey is offline  
post #273 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 09:08 AM
Member
 
jason shep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maidstone,England
Posts: 161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

So, your room is acoustically correct for 2 channel but, for multichannel, you need Audyssey? Curious.

I'm with you on this Kal,i run a cd transport for 2 channel into my AVP,that way room correction & bass management e.t.c is performed without A to D conversion.
I did not buy this amazing pre pro to run analogue in
jason shep is offline  
post #274 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 09:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
MarkB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: England
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

I was not responding to your post but, in any case, why?

No, I know you wasn't mate. The reason is that I am currently only using 2 channel and I had hoped to put a dedicated extension on the side of the house and get the rest of the stuff, and then do the Audyssey thing. This may now come later next year, but I would rather have a dedicated cellar and this has complicated things somewhat.

In any case, I thought that Audyssey was mainly for multichannel listening rather than pure 2 channel - if not, dedicated stereo amps like the PMA-SX would have it.
MarkB is offline  
post #275 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 09:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
MarkB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: England
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dicey View Post

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the specs for the AKM 4390 DAC that the A1UD is using, it appears to me that these DACs are incapable of natively decoding DSD! That would seriously SUCK!!! Anyone out there know for sure?!?

Why would that suck?
MarkB is offline  
post #276 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 09:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB View Post

In any case, I thought that Audyssey was mainly for multichannel listening rather than pure 2 channel - if not, dedicated stereo amps like the PMA-SX would have it.

Well, the reason that the pma-sx lacks it is that the amp is entirely analog. How could it implement any DSP?

The other issue is that hard-bound 2channel audiophiles have an ingrained opposition to DSP because it conflicts with their life-long disdain for additional stages and processing. Of course, that is based on having analog sources (rare today) and outdated concepts of the quality of processors.

So, as I implied in an earlier post, are the acoustics of your room any different when you listen to 2 channel and to multichannel?

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #277 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 09:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
locutus2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rome, Italy
Posts: 602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't get one thing: everyone is speaking of the DL4 and HDMI, but for me the *real* point of interest on this player are the analog 7.1 outputs where you can have all the available audio formats decoded at best. Otherwise is simple too pricey for a "simple digital" player.

Am i wrong?
locutus2k is offline  
post #278 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 09:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus2k View Post

I don't get one thing: everyone is speaking of the DL4 and HDMI, but for me the *real* point of interest on this player are the analog 7.1 outputs where you can have all the available audio formats decoded at best. Otherwise is simple too pricey for a "simple digital" player.

Am i wrong?

No argument but I have no need for the analog outputs.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #279 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 09:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
locutus2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rome, Italy
Posts: 602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Then, maybe, this player is too pricey for you: 80% of his value for money will be useless for you. Better wait for a new transport with DL4 by Denon, no analog section and more friendly price.
locutus2k is offline  
post #280 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 09:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
MarkB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: England
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Well, the reason that the pma-sx lacks it is that the amp is entirely analog. How could it implement any DSP?

The other issue is that hard-bound 2channel audiophiles have an ingrained opposition to DSP because it conflicts with their life-long disdain for additional stages and processing. Of course, that is based on having analog sources (rare today) and outdated concepts of the quality of processors.

So, as I implied in an earlier post, are the acoustics of your room any different when you listen to 2 channel and to multichannel?

Well, with that post I believe you have answered your own questions! At £5000 i'm sure if Denon thought it necessary to include DSP for Audyssey they could have, but the purists as you say demand pure (balanced) analogue, which is what the DVD-AVP-POA system gives you - if you want it.

For those that do not want it, Denon (and others) need to think hard about making another transport based on this system. But can BD 2.0 functions be implemented into a transport?
MarkB is offline  
post #281 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 10:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
dicey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB View Post

Why would that suck?

In my experience, converting DSD to PCM always results in a loss of resolution and "continuousness" which is what makes SACDs sound so good in the first place. Granted, some of the better DSD-PCM converting players do a pretty good job, but the effect is almost always noticeable in direct comparison. I compared a friends Esoteric UX-1 ($16,000) with my Denon 2910 ($650) in a reference stereo system (Magico V3's, professionally treated room, etc.) and both of of us agreed that the Denon sounded every bit as good with SACDs as the UX-1 but the UX-1 was noticably better with PCM. This proved to me that by simply natively converting the DSD data, you keep 99% of the magic and this allowed the humble 2910 to compete with a cost-no-object design that converted the DSD data into PCM.

I was hoping the A1UD would take SACD playback to the "next level" at its $3800 pricepoint, but now it appears that it will probably only be "as good" as Denon's older native-DSD decoding players.

What really kills me is that AKM makes a 32bit DAC that decodes DSD natively! Its the same one that is used in Esoteric's D-05 DAC. I'm sure its a little more expensive but COME ON, DENON! If you're building a SOTA universal player, why not use the right DACs that will make the SACDs sound as good as they can, just like they have done in the past?!?

You are all WEIRDOS! - Sam the Eagle
dicey is offline  
post #282 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 11:35 AM
Advanced Member
 
MarkB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: England
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Well, I didn't ask any questions about the player (which I expect to receive one of these days). However, no one, afaik, includes any EQ on a player, so your point is not relevant.

Then I must have miss read your posts then - my apologies.
MarkB is offline  
post #283 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 11:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
MarkB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: England
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dicey View Post

In my experience, converting DSD to PCM always results in a loss of resolution and "continuousness" which is what makes SACDs sound so good in the first place. Granted, some of the better DSD-PCM converting players do a pretty good job, but the effect is almost always noticeable in direct comparison. I compared a friends Esoteric UX-1 ($16,000) with my Denon 2910 ($650) in a reference stereo system (Magico V3's, professionally treated room, etc.) and both of of us agreed that the Denon sounded every bit as good with SACDs as the UX-1 but the UX-1 was noticably better with PCM. This proved to me that by simply natively converting the DSD data, you keep 99% of the magic and this allowed the humble 2910 to compete with a cost-no-object design that converted the DSD data into PCM.

I was hoping the A1UD would take SACD playback to the "next level" at its $3800 pricepoint, but now it appears that it will probably only be "as good" as Denon's older native-DSD decoding players.

What really kills me is that AKM makes a 32bit DAC that decodes DSD natively! Its the same one that is used in Esoteric's D-05 DAC. I'm sure its a little more expensive but COME ON, DENON! If you're building a SOTA universal player, why not use the right DACs that will make the SACDs sound as good as they can, just like they have done in the past?!?

I think you are correct - it would be DSD decoding also I imagine. I asked which DACS the unit had and I was pointed in that direction. I will find out for sure.

The following is the diagram for the old CD/SACD DCD-SA1 unit and it shows the DSD decoder seperate from the DACS. They may have changed this for the DCD-SX and DVD-A1UD.

MarkB is offline  
post #284 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 12:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
MarkB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: England
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I found this diagram of the DCD-SX and it clealy shows the DSD decoder and DACS seperate. I would imagine that the DVD-A1UD uses a similar configuration.

MarkB is offline  
post #285 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 12:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
dicey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB View Post

I think you are correct - it would be DSD decoding also I imagine. I asked which DACS the unit had and I was pointed in that direction. I will find out for sure.

Thanks, MarkB. If this player doesn't decode DSD natively, I'm going to have a few choice words with DenonJeff at CES!

To my knowledge, all SACD players have some form of DSD decoder. What is critical is if the DSD decoder can output raw DSD to the DAC, but then the DAC must also have the ability to process the DSD datastream natively as well. And I don't think the AKM4390 does. But I hope I'm wrong about this.

You are all WEIRDOS! - Sam the Eagle
dicey is offline  
post #286 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 12:16 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Axatax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: S. Florida, USA
Posts: 1,617
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
How can BM, time alignment, levels, etc. be performed _without_ converting to PCM?
Axatax is offline  
post #287 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 12:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
MarkB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: England
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dicey View Post

Thanks, MarkB. If this player doesn't decode DSD natively, I'm going to have a few choice words with DenonJeff at CES!

Perhaps it is something to do with the balanced configuration? The DCD-SX is a £5000 player - they must have gone this route for a reason, but I would be very interested to see what Jeff says too!

I feel a bit saddened really by the lack of interest for the fully balanced configuration of the DVD-A1UD - I thought it would have been a coup to have access to a fully balanced path from the heart of the DACs to the speakers that the DVD-AVP-POA system gives.
MarkB is offline  
post #288 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 12:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
dicey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axatax View Post

How can BM, time alignment, levels, etc. be performed _without_ converting to PCM?

They can't. That's why DSD is such a double-edged sword. On the one hand, when sourced from high-resolution masters, SACDs can sound amazing. But on the other hand, the 1-bit datastream is incredibly difficult to manipulate so as to allow for all of the above adjustments, which is why so many manufactures choose to convert DSD to PCM. And I have no problem with that, but all I ask is let us 2ch-analog guys who don't need all of those adjustments be able to hear the native resolution of SACD. Pretty Pleeeeeezzzzzeee!!!!

You are all WEIRDOS! - Sam the Eagle
dicey is offline  
post #289 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 12:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
dicey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB View Post

I feel a bit saddened really by the lack of interest for the fully balanced configuration of the DVD-A1UD - I thought it would have been a coup to have access to a fully balanced path from the heart of the DACs to the speakers that the DVD-AVP-POA system gives. [/font][/color]

I, for one, am all over the balanced outputs and am so happy to see Denon include this feature. Having a fully-balanced system usually results in a noticeable improvement is SQ. And by balanced, I mean a fully-balanced circuit (which is what the A1UD has), not a SE circuit that is converted only at the input &/or output stage, like a lot of the cheaper "balanced" designs do.

You are all WEIRDOS! - Sam the Eagle
dicey is offline  
post #290 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 05:31 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 24,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by dicey View Post

. . . Having a fully balanced system usually results in a noticeable improvement is SQ. And by balanced, I mean a fully balanced circuit (which is what the A1UD has), not a SE circuit that is converted only at the input &/or output stage, like a lot of the cheaper "balanced" designs do.

More urban legend.
pepar is offline  
post #291 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 05:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Les Auber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 1,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Can't speak to SQ but I've found that if you have noise problems and hum that no amount of cable routing etc will solve balanced might. Even lifting the power ground (not recommended) on the amp didn't eliminate it. Balanced is dead silent without a source playing. So I guess that's an improvement in SQ of sorts. This noise rejection is what I understand drives studios to use balanced.

I'm one who is interested in the analog outs on this new unit. Well at least until the HDMI upgrade for my processor comes along.

Les
Les Auber is offline  
post #292 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 06:01 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 24,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Auber View Post

Can't speak to SQ but I've found that if you have noise problems and hum that no amount of cable routing etc will solve balanced might. Even lifting the power ground (not recommended) on the amp didn't eliminate it. Balanced is dead silent without a source playing. So I guess that's an improvement in SQ of sorts. This noise rejection is what I understand drives studios to use balanced.

Yes, that is precisely what balanced lines are all about. Long runs and/or use in a high-EMI/RFI environment. Balanced lines do not improve SQ, but keeps it from sounding worse.
pepar is offline  
post #293 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 06:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
dicey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Yes, that is precisely what balanced lines are all about. Long runs and/or use in a high-EMI/RFI environment. Balanced lines do not improve SQ, but keeps it from sounding worse.

A piece of equipment with SE circuitry and XLR in/outputs will indeed have a lower noisefloor (in a noisy environment) when the XLR connections are used, but since the SE audio signal has to go through an additional conversion stage, the RCA connection will usually sound more transparent, if a little noisier. And if that same equipment is used in a low-noise environment, the RCA connection will almost always sound better. Now, a fully-balanced circuit lets you have your cake and eat it too (a low noisefloor and transparent sound, regardless of environment) but the parts cost doubles, which is why fully-balanced circuit deigns are pretty rare in entry-to-mid level products. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of great SE-only gear, but whenever I have the choice between SE or fully-balanced, I always prefer balanced.

You are all WEIRDOS! - Sam the Eagle
dicey is offline  
post #294 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 10:24 PM
Member
 
ian_o's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB View Post

Perhaps it is something to do with the balanced configuration? The DCD-SX is a £5000 player - they must have gone this route for a reason, but I would be very interested to see what Jeff says too!

I feel a bit saddened really by the lack of interest for the fully balanced configuration of the DVD-A1UD - I thought it would have been a coup to have access to a fully balanced path from the heart of the DACs to the speakers that the DVD-AVP-POA system gives.

Very major features of this player are Blu-ray and SACD- both of which are ususally multichannel. This leaves the player confusing. Best mode works with stereo, but the best source material is mainly multichannel. For multichannel, unless you have 7 identical speakers you need at least audyssey for level control if nothing else so the best results for the featured formats will be obtained using the player as a transport- but for the old CDs and stereo SACDs as a full player. Strange really.
ian_o is offline  
post #295 of 3625 Old 12-08-2008, 10:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
moonhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: La Madera, New Mexico
Posts: 3,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian_o View Post

Very major features of this player are Blu-ray and SACD- both of which are ususally multichannel. This leaves the player confusing. Best mode works with stereo, but the best source material is mainly multichannel. For multichannel, unless you have 7 identical speakers you need at least audyssey for level control if nothing else so the best results for the featured formats will be obtained using the player as a transport- but for the old CDs and stereo SACDs as a full player. Strange really.



______________________

__________

Dave

moonhawk is online now  
post #296 of 3625 Old 12-10-2008, 10:13 AM
Senior Member
 
IwantmyTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Greater Metropolatin Los Angeles area Suburb
Posts: 463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian_o View Post

Very major features of this player are Blu-ray and SACD- both of which are ususally multichannel. This leaves the player confusing. Best mode works with stereo, but the best source material is mainly multichannel. For multichannel, unless you have 7 identical speakers you need at least audyssey for level control if nothing else so the best results for the featured formats will be obtained using the player as a transport- but for the old CDs and stereo SACDs as a full player. Strange really.

It seems pretty clear to me. Most 2 channel setups don't use audessy or other eq's. they rely on room acoustics speaker placement etc. Once you get into multi channel you rely on audessy etc. I for one would love to run a completly separate 2 channel setup with a tube amp running to a set of polk SDA's. and a surround sound setup for movies and SACD/DVDA. I am thinking that they would be 90' off of each other(or better in the living room) in my setup. Just have to work out the seating.

"Pure-Direct" is my friend
Now where is the "LIVE" button?
IwantmyTHX is offline  
post #297 of 3625 Old 12-10-2008, 01:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
MarkB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: England
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian_o View Post

Very major features of this player are Blu-ray and SACD- both of which are ususally multichannel. This leaves the player confusing. Best mode works with stereo, but the best source material is mainly multichannel. For multichannel, unless you have 7 identical speakers you need at least audyssey for level control if nothing else so the best results for the featured formats will be obtained using the player as a transport- but for the old CDs and stereo SACDs as a full player. Strange really.

I cannot see much of an advantage in running something like Audyssey on pure two channel listening - I do not believe that this was what the system (Audyssey) was ever intended for. This then, to me, makes the intent of the player quite clear: pure balanced analogue 2 channel listening for CD and highly robust digital transmission of everything else. I cannot personally see what is confusing about that! And even if you were confused or unhappy (because you may believe it to be a waste of time etc) - you could simply run stereo through the Denon link, Audyssey, tone and any other digital circuits that you want - this setup gives you the choice.
MarkB is offline  
post #298 of 3625 Old 12-10-2008, 01:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
MarkB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: England
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

More urban legend.

Explain
MarkB is offline  
post #299 of 3625 Old 12-10-2008, 03:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB View Post

I cannot see much of an advantage in running something like Audyssey on pure two channel listening - I do not believe that this was what the system (Audyssey) was ever intended for. .

I do. It works just as well for 2 channel as for multichannel. Do your room's acoustics change with the number of speakers in use?

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #300 of 3625 Old 12-10-2008, 04:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
MarkB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: England
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

I do. It works just as well for 2 channel as for multichannel. Do your room's acoustics change with the number of speakers in use?

Most likely. Using 2 full size speakers verses 7.1 the room is going to have a different acoustic signature because the point source origins of the sound waves is going to be different and right round the room, possibly high(er) and low(er) and with possibly different sizes and distances. Compensating all of that I can understand more than 2 channel - personally - perhaps I am wrong.

In any case I did try using Audyssey and I found it made very little difference and I put this down to the fact that I was using just 2 full size speakers in a reasonable position.

When I complete my cellar with 7 identical(ish) speakers and 2 subs I will try it again.
MarkB is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Players

Tags
Denon , Blu Ray Players

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off