Originally Posted by Jason1976
Give it up. If you can't hear the difference between a 300 dollar all in one receiver and a respectable audio setup on a "low five figure" set of speakers, then you have no place arguing your point about room correction.
Why? What pray tell does being able to hear measurable differences in frequency response, time alignment and so on have to do with not being able to hear differences that don't exist?
Especially considering the fact that your Panasonic doesn't even have room correction system we have been discussing.
Ah, but the Pioneer Elite EX-500 on my other
low-five-figure set of speakers (see my profile for details) does.
But I do things differently from most people. For instance, I modified the crossovers in my main speakers specifically for their placement in my living room. (Call it "passive room correction," if you wish.) I use speakers that are properly designed for constant directivity through the mid-tweet cross, rather than those idiot-boxes most hi-fi salons sell that have a tweeter blithely flush-mounted on the baffle and accordingly have awful power response characteristics in the upper mids.
Your Velodyne room correction is something totally different. When you try to eq mid to high frequencies, there are tradeoffs for every adjustment you make. Our ears are designed to hear mid to hi frequencies better, which is why you can eq a sub to no end with few repercussions. You can even put a cruddy, high distortion amp in a sub and it will make very little difference, which is what is in the majority of consumer subs available.
A smart consumer is no more likely to buy a sub off the shelf than he is to buy suits that weren't cut and tailored especially for him.
Most of the room correction in basic receivers does more harm than good to the sound wave, especially if it is a parametric eq.
Excuse me, but what the hell do you think the crossovers inside your speakers are? If they are competently designed, they provide passive frequency division and passively EQ the frequency response of your speakers.
Parametric active EQ and parametric passive EQ are no different sonically, allowing for the loss of efficiency in the latter option.
The Pioneer models, which are some of the highest regarded, use a graphic equalizer as a base for the processing to avoid this.
Actually, a graphic EQ is just a parametric EQ with constant Q. In other words, Pioneer goes that route because it takes less processing power. If you understood anything about the science of audio rather than inanely blathering on about nonexistent sonic differences, you would know that...
No the variables in your amp are cost and efficiency. Panasonic did not design your $300 dollar receiver to be competitive with world class amps.
Not intentionally, I agree. They could care less. (And to be sure, if I were running speakers with nasty impedance curves, it wouldn't be competitive.) But amps are commodities now. I've put up the XR55 (and the Pioneer EX-500) up against my previous setup (Marantz AV600 pre/Adcom amps) and more expensive setups, too. Amazingly enough, when levels are properly matched not even people who claim to hear differences in wires can tell the difference between the Panny and Classe or Linn equipment.
We are happy that you are content with your amp, but you aren't going to convince many here that there aren't any differences.
I'm sorry that you have such a low regard for the intelligence of your fellow travelers.