Sherwood R-972 User Thread - Page 75

Originally Posted by rajdori 

I have tried Denon 2312CI and Pioneer Elite VSX-60 with their room correction. But they DID sound much worse than HK 254 w/o correction+flat. And hence I have been using HK 254 so far.

Originally Posted by Encom Tron 


Here is the link to the user notes thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1397757/r972-trinnov-user-notes

I connected the front height speakers in my basement system to the rear surround speaker terminals on the R-972. During calibration, Trinnov located the position of these speakers and now routes the signal properly. Instead of sending rear surround effects to the speakers they are now magically functioning as front height speakers. I consider this a very impressive feature considering how well it works.

Originally Posted by rajdori 

WOW... strong reactions against receivers being warm/bright. I would not argue as i don't consider myself sooo discerning in that area.

But let me tell you what i have personally experienced.. I have tried Denon 2312CI and Pioneer Elite VSX-60 with their room correction. But they DID sound much worse than HK 254 w/o correction+flat. And hence I have been using HK 254 so far.

i was getting ready to purchase at $500=25 s/h from sherwoodonlinestore.com, but then... I wrote to sherwoodonlinestore.com asking them about new or refurb, and if warranty is transferable. they came back saying they don't have R-972 in stock. and after my comments that site allows me to purchase, they took it down from website. so only option will be to purchase from AC4L.com., at $600+20 s/h..

Originally Posted by Elmo C 

I tried bipoles once in another room and the 972 did have trouble.It did not see the left rear after 9 or 10 burst. I'm glad I was just trying it in that room as an experiment. It's now in it's usual place, all direct working fine.When I recalibrated in the usual room I turn the subs down to 10 oclock and the 972 did not hear them.I rerun at 11 oclock and after three burst all was good. The point, any little thing goes wrong,try again, maybe slightly alter layout etc..

Originally Posted by Raul GS 

Just because units have RC does not mean they are well implemented or that they were properly used. In a blind study done by Harman, a number of RC systems did worse than no correction at all. Trinnov is an excellent product, and many of us purchased this AVR because of it. But then again, some of us also have far more expensive units with better RC (and Trinnov also sells a number of them).

Originally Posted by Augmont 

my $.02...............I started with a HK 254.  Then upgraded to a HK 354 and HK 3600 before the R-972.  Each upgrade was due to amp power and other minor things but i liked the HK sound over Onkyo (my very 1st AVR) so i kept with HK for this reason.  I really, really like the R-972 sound better than the HK 3600 primarily because of the clarity and sound presentation i get from Trinnov.  I know it's been repeated a gazillion times but Trinnov is sure the real deal.  It does have quirks but i'm living through them because the sound quality and presentation trumps (at least for me) its quirks.    

Originally Posted by Raul GS 

Just because units have RC does not mean they are well implemented or that they were properly used. In a blind study done by Harman, a number of RC systems did worse than no correction at all. Trinnov is an excellent product, and many of us purchased this AVR because of it. But then again, some of us also have far more expensive units with better RC (and Trinnov also sells a number of them).

Originally Posted by rajdori 

interesting that Harman did such a study.. can you share URL or article?

Originally Posted by Curt_Trinnov 

The study is now quite dated, with most DRC systems generations beyond what was available then.

Originally Posted by sdurani 

perceptually flat response was preferred over a measured flat response.

Originally Posted by noah katz 

Sanjay,

We've touched on this in previous discussions, but is there a precise definition of "perceptually flat"?

It must have some relation to equal loudness curves; is there an SPL at which it's more or less equal to measurably flat?

Originally Posted by noah katz 

We've touched on this in previous discussions, but is there a precise definition of "perceptually flat"?

Originally Posted by noah katz 

It must have some relation to equal loudness curves; is there an SPL at which it's more or less equal to measurably flat?

Originally Posted by mogorf 

Perceptually flat is achieved at 0 dB ref. level MV setting, as we know already.

Originally Posted by sdurani 

By definition it is when someone hears all frequencies equally loud.

Originally Posted by noah katz 

I meant an accepted objective definition of a freq resp.

Originally Posted by noah katz 

Harman's results would say it's the smooth one w/10 dB downslope, but is that an accepted industry definition?

Originally Posted by sdurani 

That everyone hears as flat? Is that even possible, considering the subjective nature of our human hearing?

Originally Posted by bhazard 

Just hooked up an Emotiva XPA-5 for my front channels to this. Wow, just wow. This unit (from the 1saleaday sale), plus an XPA-5 from the secret Emotiva sale, plus the JBL 190s at newegg that are on sale (ending today), has to be one of the best bang for the buck deals in audio ever, and I've been at this for awhile. NOTHING comes close to this Trinnov receiver with 200w per channel hooked up to it, for less than $1000. With 2 JBL 190s, a 120 center, and the 130s.. $1,500 for a full mid/hi end system with an AVR and amp in it is just nuts. $1,800 if you bought the r-972 from Accessories4less right now is still an amazing deal. You would have to spend around 3 to 4 times this or more to get an equivalent sound.

The subwoofer you would want to use is another story. Mine was $2,000+. I would say the best deal now for around $300 is the klipsch sub at newegg. Should work well for a budget bang system. It can't hang with my Submersive HP though. Not much can.

Originally Posted by noah katz 

Not really, which is why a question mark materializes above my head every time it's referred as if it has a definite meaning.

Originally Posted by Curt_Trinnov 

The study is now quite dated, with most DRC systems generations beyond what was available then.

While the folks conducting the study at Harmon were aware of Trinnov, our system was not evaluated by Harman during the DRC study. This is perhaps because the R972 had not been released and because of the rarity at the time of Trinnov's high end systems. Also, Trinnov's approach to correction is very unique. Beyond, DRC, Spatial Image Correction (Remapping 2d/3d) is exclusive to Trinnov. One of the key elements that makes the Remapping effective is the ability of the Trinnov DRC to effectively match all the speakers to identical voicing in both time and amplitude.

Trinnov systems, owning to the PC/Linux architectural, can easily maintain an upgrade path as the art of DRC evolves. The R972 has Trinnov's Version 2 software, which benefited from approximately 10 earlier version updates. It represents the most sophisticated correction available for a single calibration point, as evidenced by the long computational time, as well as the results you all are confirming here.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by sdurani 

That Harman curve is something Olive & Devantier cobbled together in a couple of hours for the purpose of this comparison. It's not what the target curve looks like for their ARCOS room correction, let alone accepted industry definition.

Originally Posted by sdurani 

It does have a definite meaning, but not in the form of a single mathematical curve that perfectly matches every person's hearing. Even published equal loudness curves are aggregates, not necessarily a representation of your particular hearing. But that doesn't mean that equal loudness curves have no meaning, or that companies shouldn't implement loudness compensation based on those curves.

Originally Posted by sdurani 

It does have a definite meaning, but not in the form of a single mathematical curve that perfectly matches every person's hearing. Even published equal loudness curves are aggregates, not necessarily a representation of your particular hearing. But that doesn't mean that equal loudness curves have no meaning, or that companies shouldn't implement loudness compensation based on those curves.

Originally Posted by StevenLansing 

I believe Trinnov was only capable of correcting for a single position then.

Originally Posted by noah katz 

Fair enough; do you know of a published aggregate curve for what is perceptually flat?

Originally Posted by noah katz 

Just because only one position is measured doesn't mean that it doesn't improve nearby ones.

Originally Posted by sdurani 

There might be, but I haven't looked into it. Considering what we know about human hearing, it would likely be tipped up in the bass and possibly in the treble range (there's a reason so many people had the sliders on their graphic equalizers adjusted to a smiley face).

But even going back almost 40 years, the bass hump was known to be preferred:



Not too different from adding the 3dB or 6dB bass boost to the default Trinnov curve on the 972.