or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Sherwood R-972 User Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sherwood R-972 User Thread - Page 75

post #2221 of 3156
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..

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2222 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by rajdori View Post

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.
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).
post #2223 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Encom Tron View Post


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.

Thanks for sharing.........i've been thinking about adding a 2nd center speaker above my large 61"DLP TV as my current center sits very low.

post #2224 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by rajdori View Post

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..

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.    

post #2225 of 3156
I had a H/K AVR254 that H/K replaced with a AVR2600 that I was using before switching to the 972 and I couldn't be happier with the 972. Before the 972 I tried a Yamaha RX-A820 and a H/K AVR7550HD. The 972 is closest in sound to H/K being what I feel is a warmer sound. The Yamaha seemed too bright and didn't have as robust sound as the H/K's or the 972 have. When room correction is added to the mix nothing I've heard comes close to the 972.
post #2226 of 3156
Hey fellow 972 users,

I am moving and finally going to have a dedicated room to set up my theater. Have any of you had issues with certain types of surround speakers being recognized by the Trinnov mic? I understand that direct radiating speakers are the most setup friendly, but I am considering ceiling speakers for my back surrounds for my new install. I'm looking at Niles or Monitor Audio that have the directional tilt so they could be somewhat aimed at the listening area. Has anyone had luck getting the mic. to recognize the proper angle from ceiling speakers? How about with bipoles or dipoles as side surrounds? Thanks in advance for any help/advice.
post #2227 of 3156
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..
post #2228 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmo C View Post

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..


Thanks Elmo. Seems that the easiest way to get an accurate calibration is to use direct radiators. I'm sure with a 7.1 setup the soundfield will be adequate. I'm more worried about my dual subs. Hoping that they both register and even out to a good frequency response. The quirks of this unit do drive me crazy though. I HATE when I miss out on a THX intro or it delays when going from preview to menu or main feature on a blu-ray.
post #2229 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

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).

interesting that Harman did such a study.. can you share URL or article?
post #2230 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augmont View Post

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.    

thanks much for vindication of what i thought. gives me confidence of buying 972 without any demo etc, and risks of return costs..
post #2231 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

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).

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,
post #2232 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by rajdori View Post

interesting that Harman did such a study.. can you share URL or article?
The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curt_Trinnov View Post

The study is now quite dated, with most DRC systems generations beyond what was available then.
If someone wants to use the study to decide which room correction system to buy today, then the info is indeed dated since almost all the room correction systems tested (including Harman's own) have evolved significantly over the intervening 4 years.

However, the two main findings of the study aren't dated: 1) the smoother the response (fewer peaks & dips), the more it was preferred; and 2) perceptually flat response was preferred over a measured flat response.

It is these basics that Trinnov gets right, removing the room's unwanted contributions to the overall sound and letting the user set the response based on preference (even on the 972). Well worth it, even if the remapping feature never ends up being used.
post #2233 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

perceptually flat response was preferred over a measured flat response.

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?
post #2234 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

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?

Perceptually flat is achieved at 0 dB ref. level MV setting, as we know already. Any other MV setting needs compensation of equal loudness. Audyssey's DynamicEQ does a pretty good job in that department with it's two tier compensation algorithm, as we also know. First it looks at MV setting, then it looks into loud or soft parts of a given passage.

But this is nothing new Guys, why is this still up for discussion? smile.gif
post #2235 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

We've touched on this in previous discussions, but is there a precise definition of "perceptually flat"?
By definition it is when someone hears all frequencies equally loud.

Compare what was measured in the Harman comparison:

67139

To what was perceived by the listeners:

67140

The target curve at the top of the graph was the one most preferred. It had a 10dB downward tilt across the frequency range, yet listeners perceived it as being relatively flat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

It must have some relation to equal loudness curves; is there an SPL at which it's more or less equal to measurably flat?
You've seen equal loudness contours: even when listening at really high volume levels (130dB), our hearing isn't flat.



Fortunately there is more than one choice of target curve in the 972, not to mention the 3dB and 6dB boosts that could be downloaded. Somewhere amongst those adjustments is a response that will sound natural to each listener.
post #2236 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

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

Apparently not, as the curves Sanjay posted show, none of the equal loudness curves are flat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

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

I meant an accepted objective definition of a freq resp.

Harman's results would say it's the smooth one w/10 dB downslope, but is that an accepted industry definition?
post #2237 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

I meant an accepted objective definition of a freq resp.
That everyone hears as flat? Is that even possible, considering the subjective nature of our human hearing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Harman's results would say it's the smooth one w/10 dB downslope, but is that an accepted industry definition?
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.
post #2238 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

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

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

To be fair, I guess that there is a meaning was my assumption.
post #2239 of 3156
Hi everyone, interesting conversation. Quick question, can these units still be registered at Sherwood USA? I filled out my warranty card but I prefer to do this on-line. I cant't seem to get a hold of the correct home page, I kinda remember someone in this thread posted they re-designed thier web-site. Can anyone who might have done this point me to a link? Thanks! Doug G.
post #2240 of 3156
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.
post #2241 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhazard View Post

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.

Productive weekend for me as well. Waited till yesterday to install mine in the main theater. Not using the internal amps as I use (2) Acurus 200X3 in the theater so the 972 is being used as a preamp. I agree with the above that the sound from the 972 is a cut above my trusty Onkyo 805, even my wife commented on the crystal clear dialog as well as the improvement in surround channels. Still playing with the Trinnov setup, any tips from current users, will be greatly appreciated! Incredible piece of hardware.
post #2242 of 3156
I also agree about pairing this with high quality amp that you can get a good deal on. I got a great condition Sherwood A965 for $540 shipped and paid $369 shipped for the R972. From a pure sound quality perspective to get even close to that you would need a Denon 4311 paired with an amp which would run me about double the cost. Even then I think Trinnov out performs the Audessey XT32.

Getting a great deal on speakers is always a huge plus. I got a set of Aperion 6T's, a 6C and a set of 6B's locally for $850. So for less than what the R972 retailed for initially I got a R972, a great amp and a great set of speakers. All thanks to the crazy low prices the R972 is going for lately. The only quirk that I notice is the sound delay and that is a small tradeoff for the overall sound quality. And probably the main reason this item didn't flourish hence the blowout deals.
post #2243 of 3156
Make sure Trinnov gets a result for every channel. If it can't find one, place the speaker so it has a line of sight to the mic and try again. If it sends pink noise to the speaker 8 times, redo the calibration as well.

Use the +6b bass curve firmware file if you feel trinnov takes away too much bass.

Turn trinnov on via the quick ref section for all inputs, or turn it on in each input menu.

Room eq flat or natural, and 3d remap are my favorite settings. I haven't even tried other settings aside from 3d remap, because that is what I bought it for mainly.

The included amp is nice and more than enough, but an external amp and speakers that can handle higher wattage with clarity really can make it sing. My room sounds better than the local theater.
post #2244 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Not really, which is why a question mark materializes above my head every time it's referred as if it has a definite meaning.
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.
post #2245 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curt_Trinnov View Post

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,

I believe that the Harman study tested systems that took multiple listener position measurements into account.I don't think Trinnov's software had that capability at the time.I believe Trinnov was only capable of correcting for a single position then.That test also was more about what was perceived as "perceptually flat" versus a completely flat measured response.I think those systems were all tested with their default target curves,which is why the ones with less "tilted" responses didn't do as well.If Trinnov had been tested and used a default "Flat" target curve, it would have fared poorly,regardless of how well it corrected the response.
Edited by StevenLansing - 2/18/13 at 1:11am
post #2246 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

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.

Interestingly,I remember reading a post many years ago where someone said that in an interview with Floyd Toole,he thought that Audyssey's Dynamic EQ was a much better and advanced way of doing loudness correction.He commented that the "tilt" that was used by JBL Synthesis for many years was a more crude method and could only be used properly in a room that had appropriate bass treatment,otherwise it would result in a bass heavy dull sound.

It would have been interesting to see how Audyssey's Dynamic EQ would have fared in those tests if it had been available at that time.
post #2247 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

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.

Fair enough; do you know of a published aggregate curve for what is perceptually flat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenLansing View Post

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

Just because only one position is measured doesn't mean that it doesn't improve nearby ones.
post #2248 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Fair enough; do you know of a published aggregate curve for what is perceptually flat?
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.
post #2249 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

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

It would most likely only be a very small area centered around the spot where the mic was placed.When the R-972 was tested by David Rich with it's single measurement position,it had beneficial correction over about a 2ft square area.
Edited by StevenLansing - 2/18/13 at 7:11pm
post #2250 of 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

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.

Why don't you trust the research done by Audyssey Labs when it comes to implementation of DynamicEQ? Any objections you might wanna share with us? smile.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Sherwood R-972 User Thread