Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 540 Old 12-22-2012, 05:49 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 19
So being the type to have to see it to believe it I finally got a new receiver with HDMI and the new lossless formats and basically got the cheapest receiver I could find with the features I need which is very few as I listen to music in 2ch stereo and movies in the standard DD or DTS. So anyway I went from a Harman Kardon AVR 525 which has a pretty nice amp and weighs 44lbs to a Denon 1513 which is 17lbs, went with Denon because it appears to be the only budget receiver that doesn't fold like a cheap suit with all channels driven. But anyway in stereo I really don't notice any difference except maybe that the Denon is slightly cleaner sounding but my HK was 10 years old too. Actually I should say it does seem like maybe the HK played the low frequencies with a little more authority than the Denon but if it's true it's a small difference. I just know with 80hz crossovers on the HK it felt like too much bass in the fronts and center and with the Denon an 80hz crossover sounds fine to me.

Those 2 sentences may seem slightly contradicting but if there are any differences they are definitely subtle and considering this thing is a $200 receiver I'm happy with it. Now do I expect this thing to still be going strong in 10 years like the HK, hell no but that's ok. Oh and going back to spring clips kinda hurts my snobbish audiophile ego but I can live with it:)
aarons915 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 540 Old 12-22-2012, 08:20 PM
585-645-1006
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 46,036
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1768 Post(s)
Liked: 1699
Your opinion would change had you upgraded to the 1613 with Audyssey MultEQ as that is the game changer.

---------------------------------
"JD" – jd@avscience.com ; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - Authorized dealer for AVRs, Speakers, etc. 

Daily 8am – 8pm EST (Sat/Sun too if you leave message)
Call for pricing - Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo, Def Tech, Atlantic Tech, Oppo
** Think the AVR is defective?  Reset the microprocessor 4-5 times. 
jdsmoothie is online now  
post #3 of 540 Old 12-22-2012, 09:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jim McC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oconomowoc, WI.
Posts: 5,912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

Your opinion would change had you upgraded to the 1613 with Audyssey MultEQ as that is the game changer.

Is the 1613 the cheapest of ANY brand receiver with MultEQ?
Jim McC is offline  
post #4 of 540 Old 12-22-2012, 09:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
Louquid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

Your opinion would change had you upgraded to the 1613 with Audyssey MultEQ as that is the game changer.

So true about Audyssey. Buddy of mine just picked up a cheap Sony receiver with no auto calibration at all. No MCACC period.

He's been trying for a while now to calibrate it himself. I've tried helping, but I just can't get his setup to sound anything like mine. Sure the speakers and receivers we have are different, but his setup just lacks something. We used his speakers on my Denon 791, ran Audyssey to get a base for what his system should sound like after we manually calibrate it. We just can't get there with his Sony.

Louquid is offline  
post #5 of 540 Old 12-22-2012, 10:55 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 19
I thought about spending the 100 bucks more for Audyssey as the network stuff I don't really care about but I just can't justify it, I mean I'm not picky about home theater at all but I thought about the 1613 just to see what all the fuss was about, I don't know maybe I'll see someday. I was mostly comparing listening to music though in stereo because the new HD formats with dolby truHD and DTS master audio seem cool, not a big difference between the lossy formats in bluray but I seemed to pick up some details I didn't hear before but nothing major.
aarons915 is offline  
post #6 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 08:36 AM
Member
 
bargugl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 22
I have a Harman Kardon 2600 and while EZ Set/EQ is generally looked down on, it does equalize the subwoofer. Having experienced what a big advantage that aspect alone is, I would definitely say that any receiver that has an EQ program that can do subwoofer EQ is a worthy upgrade (Not all receiver eq programs do this).
bargugl is offline  
post #7 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 08:42 AM
585-645-1006
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 46,036
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1768 Post(s)
Liked: 1699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McC View Post

Is the 1613 the cheapest of ANY brand receiver with MultEQ?

AFAIK, yes, aside from the 1612 which is currently on clearance. The mid/lower level Onkyos (717 and lower) only use Audyssey 2EQ which cannot EQ the sub.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post

I thought about spending the 100 bucks more for Audyssey as the network stuff I don't really care about but I just can't justify it, I mean I'm not picky about home theater at all but I thought about the 1613 just to see what all the fuss was about, I don't know maybe I'll see someday. I was mostly comparing listening to music though in stereo because the new HD formats with dolby truHD and DTS master audio seem cool, not a big difference between the lossy formats in bluray but I seemed to pick up some details I didn't hear before but nothing major.

Last year's 1612 (w/MultEQ), where still available, can be found on clearance usually at or below what you paid for the 1513. Another option would be a 1612 refurb at AC4L although currently out of stock.

http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/DENAVR1612/DENON-AVR-1612-5.1-Channel-A/V-Home-Theater-Receiver/1.html

---------------------------------
"JD" – jd@avscience.com ; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - Authorized dealer for AVRs, Speakers, etc. 

Daily 8am – 8pm EST (Sat/Sun too if you leave message)
Call for pricing - Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo, Def Tech, Atlantic Tech, Oppo
** Think the AVR is defective?  Reset the microprocessor 4-5 times. 
jdsmoothie is online now  
post #8 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 08:45 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

AFAIK, yes, aside from the 1612 which is currently on clearance. The mid/lower level Onkyos (717 and lower) only use Audyssey 2EQ which cannot EQ the sub.
Last year's 1612 (w/MultEQ), where still available, can be found on clearance usually at or below what you paid for the 1513.

I was looking at that model actually but can't find it anywhere and amazon is kinda high too although I could wait for a sale. Well if you guys really think Audyssey is all that I can give it a try, I have a month to return the 1513. I've just been doing a lot of research on Audyssey and I've read that up until the XT32 it's nothing special.
aarons915 is offline  
post #9 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 09:04 AM
585-645-1006
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 46,036
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1768 Post(s)
Liked: 1699
Although using XT32 will result in significantly higher audio quality than any of the lower versions, there should still be a noticeable difference between no EQ at all on the 1513 and MultEQ. Give all of the authorized on-line resellers listed on Denon's website a "call" to see if the 1612 (or better yet 1712 with the next higher version MultEQ XT) is available at an acceptable price for you.

---------------------------------
"JD" – jd@avscience.com ; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - Authorized dealer for AVRs, Speakers, etc. 

Daily 8am – 8pm EST (Sat/Sun too if you leave message)
Call for pricing - Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo, Def Tech, Atlantic Tech, Oppo
** Think the AVR is defective?  Reset the microprocessor 4-5 times. 
jdsmoothie is online now  
post #10 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 09:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
commsysman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,292
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 257
I know that I am out of step with most of you on this, but I will express myself anyway...lol. My opinion is that:

1) All receivers do not sound the same. If you read the Home Theater review of the Cambridge Audio 551R receiver, THEY make it quite clear that they agree with ME on this. They give it 5 stars for Sound Quality and use some definite superlatives to describe its excellent sound quality. They evaluate this stuff for a living...so what do they know??...lol.

2) IMO Audessy is a Band-Aid for cheap audio circuits that sound like crap. It allows you to adjust your crappy sound and make it sound a little less crappy. A receiver that has very good sound quality to start with does not need all of that EQ (but sticking in Audessy at the factory is a lot cheaper than putting a good power supply and amplifiers in the receiver...lol. Why do it right when you can do something cheap?).

3) Anyone who uses a 80 hz crossover should either have tiny front speakers that will not go any lower, or they are wasting the capabilities of their front speakers. If they will go down to say, 50 Hz, then you should use that capability and operate them down to 50 Hz. Using a subwoofer up to 80 Hz is undesirable IMO, unless there is no choice. It is first of all monaural, and secondly it is not what the SUBwoofer is designed for. The very NAME...SUBwoofer....says that it is designed primarily to operate from 40 Hz on down.

If you disagree, join the club. I'm sure you have lots of company. I'll just stick to my opinion, thank you. It took me many years of audio listening and testing to arrive at my opinion, and it won't change anytime soon.

biggrin.gif
commsysman is offline  
post #11 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 09:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
67jason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,903
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 794
Just my opinion, but commsysman's opinion does not carry any weight....and I didn't have to read it in a rag mag to come to my conclusion tongue.gif

The fact of the matter is receivers do sound the same when you take away any and all room correction and dsp's. Run different manufactures receivers in direct mode using the same source and leveled matched, within tolerances, ....do this blindly to remove bias and guess what...it would be very difficult if not impossible to tell one competently designed avr from another regardless of price points.

However once you factor in the features of room correction and various dsp's and you will get different results between brands with different processing and room correction techniques.
gtpsuper24 likes this.

I don't need snobs to tell me how to think, thank you!
67jason is offline  
post #12 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 09:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
commsysman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,292
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 257
I love it when people say that my OPINION is worthless and their OPINION is "THE FACT OF THE MATTER'...nothing arrogant about that position, huh??



Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

Just my opinion, but commsysman's opinion does not carry any weight....and I didn't have to read it in a rag mag to come to my conclusion tongue.gif
The fact of the matter is receivers do sound the same when you take away any and all room correction and dsp's. Run different manufactures receivers in direct mode using the same source and leveled matched, within tolerances, ....do this blindly to remove bias and guess what...it would be very difficult if not impossible to tell one competently designed avr from another regardless of price points.
However once you factor in the features of room correction and various dsp's and you will get different results between brands with different processing and room correction techniques.
commsysman is offline  
post #13 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 09:58 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

I know that I am out of step with most of you on this, but I will express myself anyway...lol. My opinion is that:
1) All receivers do not sound the same. If you read the Home Theater review of the Cambridge Audio 551R receiver, THEY make it quite clear that they agree with ME on this. They give it 5 stars for Sound Quality and use some definite superlatives to describe its excellent sound quality. They evaluate this stuff for a living...so what do they know??...lol.

So you're basing your opinion entirely off of what someone told you without any thought on your part?
Quote:
2) IMO Audessy is a Band-Aid for cheap audio circuits that sound like crap. It allows you to adjust your crappy sound and make it sound a little less crappy. A receiver that has very good sound quality to start with does not need all of that EQ (but sticking in Audessy at the factory is a lot cheaper than putting a good power supply and amplifiers in the receiver...lol. Why do it right when you can do something cheap?).

Maybe I personally don't like the idea of a program setting up my system but I also haven't tried it yet and may be pleasantly surprised.
Quote:
3) Anyone who uses a 80 hz crossover should either have tiny front speakers that will not go any lower, or they are wasting the capabilities of their front speakers. If they will go down to say, 50 Hz, then you should use that capability and operate them down to 50 Hz. Using a subwoofer up to 80 Hz is undesirable IMO, unless there is no choice. It is first of all monaural, and secondly it is not what the SUBwoofer is designed for. The very NAME...SUBwoofer....says that it is designed primarily to operate from 40 Hz on down.
If you disagree, join the club. I'm sure you have lots of company. I'll just stick to my opinion, thank you. It took me many years of audio listening and testing to arrive at my opinion, and it won't change anytime soon.
biggrin.gif

Actually an 80hz crossover will still have information below that if you knew how crossovers worked..and my fronts are very capable of going below 80hz but the sub will always play frequencies below 80 better than your towers and if that isn't true then you need a better sub.
aarons915 is offline  
post #14 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 10:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bfreedma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 9 iron from Philly
Posts: 1,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

I know that I am out of step with most of you on this, but I will express myself anyway...lol. My opinion is that:
1) All receivers do not sound the same. If you read the Home Theater review of the Cambridge Audio 551R receiver, THEY make it quite clear that they agree with ME on this. They give it 5 stars for Sound Quality and use some definite superlatives to describe its excellent sound quality. They evaluate this stuff for a living...so what do they know??...lol.
2) IMO Audessy is a Band-Aid for cheap audio circuits that sound like crap. It allows you to adjust your crappy sound and make it sound a little less crappy. A receiver that has very good sound quality to start with does not need all of that EQ (but sticking in Audessy at the factory is a lot cheaper than putting a good power supply and amplifiers in the receiver...lol. Why do it right when you can do something cheap?).
3) Anyone who uses a 80 hz crossover should either have tiny front speakers that will not go any lower, or they are wasting the capabilities of their front speakers. If they will go down to say, 50 Hz, then you should use that capability and operate them down to 50 Hz. Using a subwoofer up to 80 Hz is undesirable IMO, unless there is no choice. It is first of all monaural, and secondly it is not what the SUBwoofer is designed for. The very NAME...SUBwoofer....says that it is designed primarily to operate from 40 Hz on down.
If you disagree, join the club. I'm sure you have lots of company. I'll just stick to my opinion, thank you. It took me many years of audio listening and testing to arrive at my opinion, and it won't change anytime soon.
biggrin.gif

This reminds me of playing the "opposite game" with my kid when she was younger.

What an amazing collection of incorrect statements. Audyssey is a band-aid for cheap circuits, not a room eq product? Who knew? Wonder why Audyssey has been lying to us? rolleyes.gif
bfreedma is offline  
post #15 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 10:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
commsysman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,292
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

This reminds me of playing the "opposite game" with my kid when she was younger.
What an amazing collection of incorrect statements. Audyssey is a band-aid for cheap circuits, not a room eq product? Who knew? Wonder why Audyssey has been lying to us? rolleyes.gif



Maybe they would lie because they have a product to market?? Is that ever possible?...rofl.

Besides, I never said they were lying, so please don't put words in my mouth.

Maybe they lie for the same reason 90% of the receiver manufacturers lie blatantly about their power outputs or omit multi-channel and distortion numbers altogether (and if you actually think THAT is not true...you ARE living in la-la land).
commsysman is offline  
post #16 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 10:34 AM
Member
 
Guzzi 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

Just my opinion, but commsysman's opinion does not carry any weight....and I didn't have to read it in a rag mag to come to my conclusion tongue.gif
The fact of the matter is receivers do sound the same when you take away any and all room correction and dsp's. Run different manufactures receivers in direct mode using the same source and leveled matched, within tolerances, ....do this blindly to remove bias and guess what...it would be very difficult if not impossible to tell one competently designed avr from another regardless of price points.
However once you factor in the features of room correction and various dsp's and you will get different results between brands with different processing and room correction techniques.

You do understand that any correction device is to correct the acoustics of a room. NOT to simply make the reciever sound better, although that is the end result. While my 5008 was out for repair, I put in a Sony 7.2 reciever to use. I went to the store and bought it brand new. It has some kind of room correction that Sony uses. Tell you what, it sounded like crap against my 5008! Same room, same speakers, minus 1 pair, and sir, I didn't read in a rag either to come to THAT conclusion! Don't even get me started on how crappy the HDMI switching is on the Sony.

Before built in room correction, many of us used a SPL meter (Sound Pressure Level) and a tape measure to set the sound levels and delays for distances. The whole idea is to have a frequency arrive at a given level and at the proper time, to your ears. If a certain frequency is down 10 dB from others due to something in the room, you are not hearing the sound that was recorded as it was meant to be heard. If I send out a 300 Hz tone at 0 dB, and recieve that tone at, say, -5 dB, then every other tone sent from that source should arrive at the same place at a -5 dB. If you have say a 2500 Hz tone down at -25, you have a hole in your frequency response. Depending on where that hole is, you may or may not notice it. You may simply think something is not quite right, but you cannot put your finger on it.

John
Guzzi 1 is offline  
post #17 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 10:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Milt99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Of California
Posts: 5,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Has anyone ever convinced anyone else one way or another in the "All AVR\Amps\Disc Players whatever sound the same" arguement?
Not that I'm aware of but then again it is pointless to argue, see above.
One other thing I wonder about, is that people who hold this belief seem to grant a magic exemption for speakers.
Why is this?
I think it's because you can actually see the physical differences between speakers plus they move.

One other thing the OP actually contradicted himself and contradicted the contradiction.

See the title.
Then goes on to say that the Denon DOES SOUND DIFFERENT from his HK.
Then the HK plays the low end with more authority but then states it is too much and that the 80hz x-over point on the Denon is better than the HK.

I guess what I'm getting at is that the OP titles the thread one way and then goes on to directly contradict that statement.
Maybe people should qualify these statements with something like, "they don't sound different enough for me to care about the differences".

And commonsysman, subwoofer refers to the ability\functionality of a subwoofer to play the frequencies below that of the woofer in the speakers.
It's good to see that after years of open-mindedness you've decided to shut the door.tongue.gif

 

It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so

Milt99 is offline  
post #18 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 10:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bfreedma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 9 iron from Philly
Posts: 1,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

This reminds me of playing the "opposite game" with my kid when she was younger.
What an amazing collection of incorrect statements. Audyssey is a band-aid for cheap circuits, not a room eq product? Who knew? Wonder why Audyssey has been lying to us? rolleyes.gif



Maybe they would lie because they have a product to market?? Is that ever possible?...rofl.

Besides, I never said they were lying, so please don't put words in my mouth.

Maybe they lie for the same reason 90% of the receiver manufacturers lie blatantly about their power outputs or omit multi-channel and distortion numbers altogether (and if you actually think THAT is not true...you ARE living in la-la land).

Given that numerous Audyssey users have posted measurements showing audible improvement, there is more than enough objective data out there to confirm the efficacy of the tool.

Your strawman about power measurements is unrelated to this discussion.
bfreedma is offline  
post #19 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 11:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post

One other thing I wonder about, is that people who hold this belief seem to grant a magic exemption for speakers.
Why is this?

There is no magic, just science.

You must not be the least bit familiar with the size of the differences in things like frequency response or distortion among speakers versus the differences in frequency response and distortion among DACs and amplifiers.

Differences in frequency response and distortion among speakers are 10-100 times or more larger than they are among amplifiers. DACs have 2-20 times smaller distortion and frequency response variations than amplifiers.

Audible differences between speakers are so large that it is very difficult to do a blind level matched listening test that is not positive for audible differences among speakers.
arnyk is offline  
post #20 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 11:33 AM
Member
 
Jond0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

Given that numerous Audyssey users have posted measurements showing audible improvement, there is more than enough objective data out there to confirm the efficacy of the tool.
Your strawman about power measurements is unrelated to this discussion.

When I auditioned receivers at the store, they did not have Audyssey calibrations on them, so I chose the one that sounded best out of the box. Many users here say that if I had run Audyssey on them at home I would have come to a different conclusion. How is it that Audyssey makes a not as great sounding receiver sound better after it is run if it not covering for the base electronics in some way?
Jond0 is offline  
post #21 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 11:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bfreedma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 9 iron from Philly
Posts: 1,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jond0 View Post

When I auditioned receivers at the store, they did not have Audyssey calibrations on them, so I chose the one that sounded best out of the box. Many users here say that if I had run Audyssey on them at home I would have come to a different conclusion. How is it that Audyssey makes a not as great sounding receiver sound better after it is run if it not covering for the base electronics in some way?

Audyssey is a tool for correcting issues within your listening environment/room which are typically orders of magnitude more significant than any differences in electronics.
bfreedma is offline  
post #22 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 01:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
NorCalJason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post

Has anyone ever convinced anyone else one way or another in the "All AVR\Amps\Disc Players whatever sound the same" arguement?
Not that I'm aware of but then again it is pointless to argue, see above.
One other thing I wonder about, is that people who hold this belief seem to grant a magic exemption for speakers.
Why is this?
I think it's because you can actually see the physical differences between speakers plus they move.
One other thing the OP actually contradicted himself and contradicted the contradiction.
See the title.
Then goes on to say that the Denon DOES SOUND DIFFERENT from his HK.
Then the HK plays the low end with more authority but then states it is too much and that the 80hz x-over point on the Denon is better than the HK.
I guess what I'm getting at is that the OP titles the thread one way and then goes on to directly contradict that statement.
Maybe people should qualify these statements with something like, "they don't sound different enough for me to care about the differences".
And commonsysman, subwoofer refers to the ability\functionality of a subwoofer to play the frequencies below that of the woofer in the speakers.
It's good to see that after years of open-mindedness you've decided to shut the door.tongue.gif

I found that funny too.

All receivers sound the same. Except a little different. Especially the bass! But yes, the same. Lol!
NorCalJason is offline  
post #23 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 01:59 PM
Member
 
Guzzi 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jond0 View Post

When I auditioned receivers at the store, they did not have Audyssey calibrations on them, so I chose the one that sounded best out of the box. Many users here say that if I had run Audyssey on them at home I would have come to a different conclusion. How is it that Audyssey makes a not as great sounding receiver sound better after it is run if it not covering for the base electronics in some way?

Read my post above. Unless you have an acoustically perfect sound room, sounds will be reflected and absorbed by various things. Furniture, drapes, walls, etc. all contribute to the sound field. Even when your wife decides to rearrange the room, it will change the acoustics of the room. In order to get the best possible sound out of whatever you are using, compensating for those things help to make the listening room neutral. Part of my job entails working on data circuits. Back when most of them were analog, it was necessary to use electronics to align the circuit. On a voice circuit, that was generally between 300 and 3000 Hz. What you have to have is a flat circuit, as I describe in my previous post. In my world, the things that affect that are the length of the cable from the central office, the gauge of that cable and the loading of that cable. Adjustments have to be made to make the frequencies fall within certain levels from low to high. Usually across a circuit like that, someone sends at 0dB and you are supposed to recieve that signal at a -16 dB. The goal is that all frequencies are recieved at the same level with no more than a 3 dB difference. Gain has to be inserted at certain freqs. and loss at others. A signal is sent at a given level and measured at the other end. Think of loss as volume. The higher the loss, the lower the volume. If, for instance, there was a huge loss at whatever frequency someone wispers at, you may not hear what was said. In the case of this discussion, room correction devices help to even out those things, making the listening area as neutral as possible. Some, such as Audessy, do a better than others at acomplishing that task. The ability to hear all the audible differences in music or movies. Subtle things that might go unnoticed otherwise.

I'm not talking about a DSP that makes something sound like a church or concert hall. I'm only talking about room correction. Correcting the acoustics of a room will improve the sound of ANY reciever. But, assuming all things are otherwise equal, it does not make all recievers sound the same. The Sony I spoke of in the other post sounds bright and tinney compared to my Onkyo that has a much warmer sound. As I said, My Onkyo sounds better than my Sony in the same room with the same speakers! Same goes for calibrating the video on your TV. Display models in the store are cranked up to the point that it is ridiculous. A properly calibrated picture will let you see details that you would not otherwise see. Same with audio.

John
Guzzi 1 is offline  
post #24 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 01:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
chashint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Well if people want to hear differences in electronics they will hear them, those same people hear differences between interconnect cables and speaker wires so whatever blows your hair back and makes you happy is what each individual should go with.
It's unfortunate that the beginner has to wade through the snake oil though when they are just starting out.

As far as that Cambridge is concerned there is just nothing in the spec list that makes me think it is anything special at all.
http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/specifications.php?PID=897&Title=Specifications
With MSRP at $1299, the specs and features are barely in line with a $300 Pioneer, Denon, Onkyo.
If I were inclined to spend $1300 on an AVR the Cambridge would not be on the list.

Regards,
Charlie

chashint is offline  
post #25 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 02:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gtpsuper24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,082
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

I love it when people say that my OPINION is worthless and their OPINION is "THE FACT OF THE MATTER'...nothing arrogant about that position, huh??
.

Well your opinions aren't worthless. But what ticks everyone else off including myself is how you make up lies about other products to push your personal favorites. You don't like room correction? Fine totally ok but don't make up a lie about how its just cheap circuits that take the place of quality amps and how Japanese receivers are all garbage.

Don't make up lies about how the Cambridge audio is the ONLY receiver to get 5 stars in Sound quality from Hometheater when in fact several on their front review page have received 5 stars.

Don't make up lies about how no other receiver but the Cambridge makes it power under all channels driven when in fact it doesn't and alot of the other "garbage" receivers do infact out perform the CA all channels driven.

You parade around this forum that your the ONLY one that knows anything about sound quality. Seems the only thing you know anything about is outdated 30 yr old audio equipment. This is a MODERN audio forum not, antique audio.
gtpsuper24 is offline  
post #26 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 02:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,883
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 320
Standing ovation!

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #27 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 02:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
NorCalJason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by chashint View Post

Well if people want to hear differences in electronics they will hear them, those same people hear differences between interconnect cables and speaker wires so whatever blows your hair back and makes you happy is what each individual should go with.
It's unfortunate that the beginner has to wade through the snake oil though when they are just starting out.
As far as that Cambridge is concerned there is just nothing in the spec list that makes me think it is anything special at all.
http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/specifications.php?PID=897&Title=Specifications
With MSRP at $1299, the specs and features are barely in line with a $300 Pioneer, Denon, Onkyo.
If I were inclined to spend $1300 on an AVR the Cambridge would not be on the list.

I wish I couldn't hear the difference between components. I'd still be using a HTIB, and have a lot more money in my pocket! biggrin.gif

I'm with you on the audio interconnects... Never been able to hear a difference between cheap copper wire from Home Depot, and expensive Monster stuff....

People who believe it all to be the same, haven't tried out different gear in their own room. wink.gif
NorCalJason is offline  
post #28 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 03:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
chashint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Even though I do believe the DBT reports I have read and do not think there is any discernible differences in the electronics the only times I champion the lower grade of electronics is when it means getting 'better' electronics or getting better speakers.
For the people who like to play with this stuff, it does not matter if it is fact or fiction it is what they find entertaining.
For someone who is just trying to put together a good system on a budget the most effective way to get better sound is to get better speakers.
Of course this is just another IMO opinion.

Regards,
Charlie

chashint is offline  
post #29 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 03:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
M Code's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Joshua Tree, CA
Posts: 9,954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Liked: 131
I wonder if my Wave Radio would sound better if Bose added Audyssey.... biggrin.gifeek.gif

Just my $0.02... wink.gif
M Code is offline  
post #30 of 540 Old 12-23-2012, 03:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,070
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

.
Well your opinions aren't worthless. But what ticks everyone else off including myself is how you make up lies about other products to push your personal favorites. You don't like room correction? Fine totally ok but don't make up a lie about how its just cheap circuits that take the place of quality amps and how Japanese receivers are all garbage.
Don't make up lies about how the Cambridge audio is the ONLY receiver to get 5 stars in Sound quality from Hometheater when in fact several on their front review page have received 5 stars.
Don't make up lies about how no other receiver but the Cambridge makes it power under all channels driven when in fact it doesn't and alot of the other "garbage" receivers do infact out perform the CA all channels driven.
You parade around this forum that your the ONLY one that knows anything about sound quality. Seems the only thing you know anything about is outdated 30 audio equipment. This is a MODERN audio forum not, antique audio.

Phew is it getting hot in here??

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

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