AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Marantz AV7005
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Marantz AV7005 - Page 306

post #9151 of 9371
2/19/13 at 2:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

Using speaker level inputs on a sub does not "rob available power" to one's main speakers in any significant or audible way, and is actually the preferred method according to some well respected, high end sub manufacturers.

I'm not saying I agree with them, mostly because of Audyssey's dedicated sub channel not getting engaged in this case, but I thought to point it out.

I'm confused. Are you responding to my post? The "waste pf electrical energy" I was referring to is the power being dissipated in the external amps he might be using unnecessarily. The AV7005 has a line-level (RCA) subwoofer output. If the subwoofer has a line-level input, using that line-level connection would be simpler, cooler, more cost-effective and more reliable (because fewer powered components would be involved). The amplifiers might be better used elsewhere. (And, as you say, using the line-level connection would provide better sound due to the use of Audyssey's dedicated subwoofer equalization.)

Of course, it's a different matter entirely if it's actually a passive subwoofer, which is why I asked for the exact model number in case there was a misunderstanding of some kind.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #9152 of 9371
2/19/13 at 2:58pm
Some active, powered subwoofers take their signal from the speaker level outputs of the main front speaker's amp. I was refering to them.

I'm not entirely sure what the other guy has going on,[ he might be mixing up terms like "input" and "output" ] but I think it may be one of these sorts of setups.
Quote:
I have a powered subwoofer and two monoblock amps and an av7005

I have the amps hooked up to the sub1 and sub2 preouts via RCA. Then I wired the amps to the Left and Right inputs on the subwoofer via speaker wire.

I now see what you are saying though.
Reply
Reply
post #9153 of 9371
2/19/13 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

It is, however, not an Audysessy sanctioned feature, it is D&M (and some other brands) feature; more importantly, Audyssey has gone on record to say they think it should never be used and makes no logical sense.

Yes, of course ... I've been around awhile to read Chris say this a number of times. wink.gif However, I was answering the OP's question as to the feature's availability as he simply wants to use the feature for "testing" purposes only.
Reply
Reply
post #9154 of 9371
2/19/13 at 6:54pm
OK, fair enough. I have modified my post to show that i was speaking more to the OP, not you.
Reply
Reply
post #9155 of 9371
2/20/13 at 7:50pm
Better yet, simply delete the post entirely as I'm sure he got the point with your first post saying the same thing. wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #9156 of 9371
2/20/13 at 11:26pm
Actually, my first post was just pointing out my view, but he doesn't know me from Adam and I have no connection to Audyssey, nor am I an expert on Audyssey, I'm just a consumer.

My second post was stressing that much more importantly than how I felt, the chief design engineers at Audyssey who invented it, including co-founder Chris Kyriakakis, CTO, EE, an expert on psychoacoustics, audio signal processing, and room acoustics, who has written over 100 papers on them, including some shared with another Audyssey co-founder, Tomlinson Holman, inventor of both home and cinema THX , also think "bypass L/R"* has has no logical merit and should never be used:

"Audyssey Bypass L/R should never be used. It turns off Audyssey in the L and R speakers and is not something we understand." - Audyssey



* Bypass L/R is not an Audyssey feature, keep in mind, but rather a D/M marketing feature catering to people who, as best as I can tell, naively think their front speakers are somehow magically immune to room acoustics, yet their sub (and other speakers in surround systems) aren't ?! rolleyes.gif By cleverly grouping this feature as if it were on par with the options of (normal) "Audyssey" and" Audyssey Flat", an average consumer might easily think this is an Audyssey sanctioned mode, like the other two indeed are, BUT IT IS NOT.
Edited by m. zillch - 2/21/13 at 12:23am
Reply
Reply
post #9157 of 9371
2/21/13 at 5:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

Jh901. you should never use "bypass L/R", there is no logical explanation why it even exists.

Appreciate your view and I understand where you are coming from.

I'm not a fan of active EQ and I won't use it except as a last resort. My HT system today is situated in a crowded room where my separate hi-end two-channel component stereo takes precedent. I would never EQ my hi-end system and for good reason. I have those speakers ideally positioned and I have the room treated with both 16" and 9" cylinder bass traps. I don't have my HT speakers ideally positioned and, frankly, those active speakers and supporting component (AV7005) aren't anywhere near the level where EQ'ing would be detrimental (and/or offensive to me). I'd wanted to bypass the L/R EQ in order to evaluate the difference. My presumption was that the Audyssey trims and delays would remain along with the sub EQ. Even if that's the case, my bypass option is grayed out. Perhaps because I have only front L/R and a sub (no center)?

Again, I appreciate everyone's views. It's how we learn. Many of us are set in our ways for all of the wrong reasons. On the other hand, some of us have experiences which others couldn't care less about.
Reply
Reply
post #9158 of 9371
2/21/13 at 9:40am
^^^

Have you ever plotted the in-room freq response of your 2 ch high-end system?
Reply
Reply
post #9159 of 9371
2/21/13 at 9:51am
Jh901, you would be a perfect candidate for the feature found on some high end stereo preamps called "HT (home theater) bypass", if you don't have it already; it is right up your alley and caters exactly to all the audiophile woo [IMHO] you seem to accept such as "active EQ is bad....except sometimes" and "AV/surround setups inherently compromise pure, 2CH, stereo sound reproduction and therefore such music should be handled by a completely different, dedicated audio chain tailored just for it". Look into it and I think you'll agree it configures your overall system in exactly the manner which will make the most sense, to you. Check it out.
Quote:
my bypass option is grayed out. Perhaps because I have only front L/R and a sub (no center)?
Yes. Bypass L/R doesn't behave exactly as Marantz implies it does here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post


In truth what it does is listen to the frequency response error of your front L/R speakers, in that room, from those averaged microphone listening positions, leaves it intact (no corrective EQ is applied), and then injects a similar response error (via EQ) into the remaining center and surround speakers, using the deviation it just discovered in measuring the front speakers as its target curve. Since you don't have any other speakers for it to inject this frequency response error curve into, the feature is grayed out on your setup.
Reply
Reply
post #9160 of 9371
2/21/13 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

Bypass L/R doesn't behave exactly as Marantz implies it does here:
In truth what it does is listen to the frequency response error of your front L/R speakers, in that room, from those averaged microphone listening positions, leaves it intact (no corrective EQ is applied), and then injects a similar response error (via EQ) into the remaining center and surround speakers, using the deviation it just discovered in measuring the front speakers as its target curve. Since you don't have any other speakers for it to inject this frequency response error curve into, the feature is grayed out on your setup.

Ok. Thank you.

I'm not interested in HT bypass, which I do have on my Cary SLP-05. An HT system and a stereo system are completely separate in my view. I'm not interested in compromising my 2-channel hi-end system in any way (ideally). HT is sort of an audio/visual amusement park. I'm enjoying my little set up far more than I'd have imagined and I could see upgrading to hi-end front L/R and sub plus rear L/R at some point. I won't rely on Audyssey at that point unless I'm unable to treat the room properly.

And no, my current room is not perfect (even for the stereo), but that doesn't imply that active EQ would be beneficial.
Reply
Reply
post #9161 of 9371
2/21/13 at 1:53pm
And I repeat:

Have you ever plotted the in-room freq response of your 2 ch high-end system?

smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #9162 of 9371
2/21/13 at 2:57pm
Kevin,

There's no reason for him to do such a plot. He spent a lot of time (I hope) auditioning speakers until he found the pair he liked the most -- the ones with the distortions that he liked the most. Of course EQing them would make them sound worse because they'd eliminate those distortions. It's the old "preference vs. reference" dichotomy. Home entertainment systems exist to entertain us, not to produce ruler-flat, extremely accurate audio reproduction. Some people are entertained by spending much of their free time measuring and adjusting for accuracy. Others are not.
Reply
Reply
post #9163 of 9371
2/21/13 at 4:06pm
Hello all,
I have my 7005 running with an mm9000 from long ago and happened to lose my blu-ray player. Old sony, didn't owe me anything... Got the wife to agree to let me buy an oppo. The big question I have is do I go with the 103 and let the 7005 do the work or do I go with the 105 and buy some nice analog interconnects? Is it worth the extra 700$ to use the oppo for processing or are the processors in the marantz as good?

My system is 5.1(set up for music though) and will not change, my tv isn't 3-d but one day will be... current as well as any future tv's will be sony XBR's.
Thanks
Mat
Reply
Reply
post #9164 of 9371
2/21/13 at 4:23pm
Using the multi analog inputs will disable Audyssey and most prefer using HDMI with Audyssey.
Reply
Reply
post #9165 of 9371
2/21/13 at 5:51pm
Thanks for the advice.
Reply
Reply
post #9166 of 9371
2/21/13 at 7:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin C Brown View Post

And I repeat:

Have you ever plotted the in-room freq response of your 2 ch high-end system?

smile.gif

Your are welcome to stop by and play around with measurement equipment. No way will you walk away recommending re-engineering (active EQ) Cary Audio flagship electronics driving Focal Diablo Utopia speakers. Proper positioning of speakers/listener position and cylinder bass traps (plus rug, etc) with the right gear create quite an experience. If you haven't heard genuine hi-end gear playing carefully selected, well mastered CDs/SACDs in a private home then I highly recommend it.
Reply
Reply
post #9167 of 9371
2/22/13 at 7:10am
I think that was a "No", Kevin.
Reply
Reply
post #9168 of 9371
2/22/13 at 9:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

I think that was a "No", Kevin.

Yes, it was. I did have some measurements performed by a former dealer prior to treatment and re-positioning of speakers and listening position. After addressing that, the dealer was so impressed that he constructed his own traps for his rooms.

I do not fear measurements. My room is far from perfect. Many of you are certain that active EQ is the answer. Some of "us" are more concerned with the downsides. I'm happy to entertain you or Kevin or any reliable forum source who lives nearby (Pgh, PA) to take a listen and report back. I can promise shock & awe to those who've never heard a near world class CD/SACD player or world class pre-amp in a treated room where speakers are away from the walls, etc.
Reply
Reply
post #9169 of 9371
2/22/13 at 9:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

I think that was a "No", Kevin.

I guess ignorance can indeed be bliss. smile.gif

Me? I want good sound that I can hear with my ears, and be verified with good in-room measurements.

BTW, I also have room treatment, proper speaker and listener positioning, carpeting with a thicker than std underpad to minimize floor bounce, etc, etc, etc. And I've also extensively quantified what I get with ETF5 and REW measurements. Measurements that I've done myself. No, I don't trust most dealers.

I used to keep up with the big long Audyssey thread. When proper Audyssey calibration has been done, it's extremely rare for someone to not prefer the end result vs w/o Audyssey.

Room EQ is a tool. Nothing more nothing less. It certainly can be misused. But by definition, if it's used correctly, it can only improve what you hear. If there's nothing to EQ, then Audyssey doesn't do anything.
Reply
Reply
post #9170 of 9371
2/22/13 at 12:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin C Brown View Post

I guess ignorance can indeed be bliss. smile.gif

Me? I want good sound that I can hear with my ears, and be verified with good in-room measurements.

Measured EQ is not the sole factor which determines the level of fidelity. Insult is not necessary. We have different views.

Wondering what your components are?
Reply
Reply
post #9171 of 9371
2/22/13 at 3:07pm
Jh901, googling your avatar name I see you frequent other audio forums where oneupmanship, snobbery, elitism, "tube fever", and brand fan-boyism may be the norm, however that's not the case here. Frankly, none of us here care what you own or how many thousands of dollars you paid your dealer for it. We aren't impressed, in fact we...um, well I digress. Most importantly, your schoolboy challenge to Kevin to name his gear, a sword fight or "duel" of brand comparisons I would deem it, is uncalled for. In terms of technical knowledge, feel free to challenge us to anything you want, we have some of the best minds in audio here, but as for battling brands, you are in the wrong forum.
Reply
Reply
post #9172 of 9371
2/22/13 at 3:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jh901 View Post

Measured EQ is not the sole factor which determines the level of fidelity.

No, but IMO, you simply cannot have verifiable good sound without measured results backing up what your ears hear. And it seems to me, that the problem is that you're not open minded enough to even consider that EQ'ed sound could be better than what you already have.


Quote:
Wondering what your components are?

Click on my sig. It's been there all along. I have nothing to hide.
Reply
Reply
post #9173 of 9371
2/22/13 at 9:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

Jh901, googling your avatar name I see you frequent other audio forums where oneupmanship, snobbery, elitism, "tube fever", and brand fan-boyism may be the norm, however that's not the case here. Frankly, none of us here care what you own or how many thousands of dollars you paid your dealer for it. We aren't impressed, in fact we...um, well I digress. Most importantly, your schoolboy challenge to Kevin to name his gear, a sword fight or "duel" of brand comparisons I would deem it, is uncalled for. In terms of technical knowledge, feel free to challenge us to anything you want, we have some of the best minds in audio here, but as for battling brands, you are in the wrong forum.

I'm afraid your harsh judgements on my character will get you nowhere. Is it not ok to share experiences with others? There was never a challenge of any kind. Merely an invitation. You simply read it as a negative since we disagree on something as harmless (in life) as an equalizer. Additionally, if I wanted to boast about brands then I'd pick a hobby where more than .01% of the population would be interested. Kinda hard to go pimpin' a tube pre-amp.
Reply
Reply
post #9174 of 9371
2/22/13 at 10:23pm
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/which-sacd-players-meet-my-criteria-help-appreciated.287383/
Reply
Reply
post #9175 of 9371
2/24/13 at 9:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin C Brown View Post

No, but IMO, you simply cannot have verifiable good sound without measured results backing up what your ears hear.
I've never measured anything in my dwellings other than by using a cheap SPL meter and my ears and everything I've listened to after setting it up according to what I could personally do has sounded great to me, my wife, and my friends. That has been through two "crappy" Sony receivers, one Sherwood-Newcastle AVP9080 and the Marantz AV7005 using an Adcom GFA7500 amp and admittedly bottom of the barrel Infinity SM series speakers. That includes all manner of media over the years. Everything sounds "great". No perfect level matching, no frequency response mapping, no bass traps, no sound deadening materials, etc. Yet no one ever says "You know, that sounds a bit off. Your system sounds harsh. This is total crap. I can't stand coming over to your house and listening to your system." Save for my Audyssey slight out of phase issue on 2CH CD audio.

Sure, better calibration might help a bit by extracting just that extra measure of "better" but, in the end, the measure of good sound is not simply a line on a graph. I don't need "verifiable... measured results backing up what my ears hear" because my ears are already hearing what sounds really good. In MY humble opinion, I *can* have verifiable good sound without anything backing that up because it's what I actually hear and my ears are verifying that for me.

I know that taking a poorly adjusted/calibrated system and doing ANYTHING to it can and will make it sound better. No doubt. But for many people here no one is worth their opinion unless they calibrate to a gnat's a#% with equipment no one has, time to move everything all over the room and mapping frequency response all over the house to ensure exact millimeter placement of speakers and angles etc. But in my experience with my equipment, my friends' equipment, driving all over L.A. going to plenty of high end audio demo rooms and trying out lots of different combinations, I have never heard anything anywhere that actually really sounds leaps and bounds better than what I have achieved in my own home. That indicates to me the equipment I've purchased actually is already pretty darned good and a cheap Radio Shack SPL actually does a really good job. Without any measured results backing that up at all.

I understand *science*. I'm an engineer myself. Still, the primary indicator of what sounds good is what I hear and what I'm hearing in my own home is really really good. Could it be better? Maybe. Does it need to be? Not necessarily. I've already proven to myself that my AVP9080 sounds equal to the AV7005. No, not double blind. No, not level matched exactly. But with the tools I have and set up methodically and patiently, they are exactly the same to me. I think that proves M. Zillch's assertion that most all components will generally sound the same regardless of price, bias, etc. Granted he wants level matching, pure double blind A/B testing etc. but I don't think you have to go that far to know it all sounds pretty freaking good with little effort and with no charts and graphs backing any of that up.
Reply
Reply
post #9176 of 9371
2/24/13 at 6:43pm
Well !!!! After salivating over this processor for the better part of two years, I finally pulled the trigger on one of these BAD boys Friday evening. All I can say is WOW ! I am really impressed.Haven't even looked at or used any network functions. It's been all about listening and enjoying this piece of gear. I picked it up from my local authorized dealer. It had been sitting on display in his store for over a year. I got it for $1000 out the door, with a full three year Marantz warranty. The unit is flawless. I had it all hooked up via HDMI. and the Audyssey ran, and my manual adjustments were made in about an hour. I take my time with this beauty ! LOL I am using a Marantz MM 9000 150 watts x 5 amplifer with it. The MM 9000 is ten pounds heavier, three inches deeper, and is rated 10 watts per channel more than the current Marantz 5 channel offering, the MM7055 which is rated at 140 watts per channel. My dealer flat out told me that he liked the sound of my MM9000 better than the 7055. I am running a 5.1 setup with Sierra One bookshelf speakers. The AV 7005 is replacing a Marantz SR5002 2008 model receiver ,that I was using as a processor, with the MM 9000. I have had the same set up along with a Velodyne SPL1200R subwoofer, for almost five years.I thought it sounded pretty good. Boy was I wrong !!! I am totally satisfied with this machine. It has taken my system to a whole new level. I should have moved up to separates a long time ago !! This processor is an EXCELLENT value !! Now to get me that OPPO 103 . LOL
Reply
Reply
post #9177 of 9371
2/25/13 at 5:52am
Congrats, JR Hooper! Nothing like a high value upgrade. Enjoy.
Reply
Reply
post #9178 of 9371
2/25/13 at 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinkar View Post

I've never measured anything in my dwellings other than by using a cheap SPL meter and my ears and everything I've listened to after setting it up according to what I could personally do has sounded great to me, my wife, and my friends. That has been through two "crappy" Sony receivers, one Sherwood-Newcastle AVP9080 and the Marantz AV7005 using an Adcom GFA7500 amp and admittedly bottom of the barrel Infinity SM series speakers. That includes all manner of media over the years. Everything sounds "great". No perfect level matching, no frequency response mapping, no bass traps, no sound deadening materials, etc. Yet no one ever says "You know, that sounds a bit off. Your system sounds harsh. This is total crap. I can't stand coming over to your house and listening to your system." Save for my Audyssey slight out of phase issue on 2CH CD audio.

Sure, better calibration might help a bit by extracting just that extra measure of "better" but, in the end, the measure of good sound is not simply a line on a graph. I don't need "verifiable... measured results backing up what my ears hear" because my ears are already hearing what sounds really good. In MY humble opinion, I *can* have verifiable good sound without anything backing that up because it's what I actually hear and my ears are verifying that for me.

I know that taking a poorly adjusted/calibrated system and doing ANYTHING to it can and will make it sound better. No doubt. But for many people here no one is worth their opinion unless they calibrate to a gnat's a#% with equipment no one has, time to move everything all over the room and mapping frequency response all over the house to ensure exact millimeter placement of speakers and angles etc. But in my experience with my equipment, my friends' equipment, driving all over L.A. going to plenty of high end audio demo rooms and trying out lots of different combinations, I have never heard anything anywhere that actually really sounds leaps and bounds better than what I have achieved in my own home. That indicates to me the equipment I've purchased actually is already pretty darned good and a cheap Radio Shack SPL actually does a really good job. Without any measured results backing that up at all.

I understand *science*. I'm an engineer myself. Still, the primary indicator of what sounds good is what I hear and what I'm hearing in my own home is really really good. Could it be better? Maybe. Does it need to be? Not necessarily. I've already proven to myself that my AVP9080 sounds equal to the AV7005. No, not double blind. No, not level matched exactly. But with the tools I have and set up methodically and patiently, they are exactly the same to me. I think that proves M. Zillch's assertion that most all components will generally sound the same regardless of price, bias, etc. Granted he wants level matching, pure double blind A/B testing etc. but I don't think you have to go that far to know it all sounds pretty freaking good with little effort and with no charts and graphs backing any of that up.

So if you had "great" sound with the 2 crappy Sony receivers, why did you eventually change to the Marantz AV7005?

Hmmm?

smile.gif

Not because you thought you'd get even better sound with room EQ?

Hmmm?

wink.gif

BTW, I 100% agree with M. Zillch that there aren't large audio differences between most modern electronics. However, the room matters. And speakers matter. And room EQ can most certainly help improve most rooms.

And in case you missed it, I only have a Radio Shack meter. I also disagree with most people that the Radio Shack meter is an inferior measurement tool. Use a calibration file, and you're all set. No, it's not a $300 "calibrated" microphone, but for setting levels and looking at freq spectra, it has certainly been proven over the years to be good enough.

I think you are missing that indeed you do now have in-room freq response measurements, and you have had them all along with the Sherwood and Marantz. You just haven't done them yourself. But those two room EQ products most certainly have improved your listening situation from the 2 "crappy" Sony AVRs.


It's like you're trying to argue with me, but I actually agree with almost everything you said.
Edited by Kevin C Brown - 2/25/13 at 10:15am
Reply
Reply
post #9179 of 9371
2/25/13 at 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin C Brown View Post


BTW, I 100% agree with M. Zillch that there aren't large audio differences between most modern electronics. However, the room matters. And speakers matter. everything you said.

It is difficult to quantify "large audio differences" and when you say "most modern electronics", which electronics have you found to produce a large difference?

I agree that the room and speakers matter. The speakers themselves matter, of course, but most definitely their placement in the room and the position of the main listening position ("sweet spot"). I've found that proper speaker position, well placed cylinder bass traps (16" in the corners for bass and 9" for side wall reflections) plus a rug for the floor reflection will enable a skilled listener to get the most out of a component system. Additionally, if the room is quiet, then component swaps will have a bigger impact. A single weak component in a chain can have a pretty dramatic effect, whether it is a digital front end, a pre-amp or power amp. Great components, especially with a power conditioner, will lower the noise floor in a meaningful way. That's where the "black background" comes in. Sure, that's audiophile lingo, but as one carefully upgrades, one is likely to eventually get it.
Reply
Reply
post #9180 of 9371
2/25/13 at 11:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin C Brown View Post

So if you had "great" sound with the 2 crappy Sony receivers, why did you eventually change to the Marantz AV7005?
Hmmm?
smile.gif
Not because you thought you'd get even better sound with room EQ?
Hmmm?
wink.gif
Of course not. I never thought I'd be getting appreciably better sound. Now having gone through 5 receivers/processors over the last couple of decades, I know that's not really going to change; they all really do sound great. The only reason to upgrade in my opinion is to take advantage of new features and additional/new connections. It's really difficult to take advantage of DTS-HD Master Audio when your receiver does not process it and only does Dolby Pro-Logic. It's also difficult to take advantage of the single-cable HDMI connections when your processor does not have HDMI in/out or turn on your amp with one button because your processor does not have a 12V trigger. As noted, my Sherwood-Newcastle AVP9080 was fine for about 10 years until I couldn't take advantage of new Blu-Ray audio. It's also difficult to take advantage of a Wi-Fi network and streaming without a device that does it. In this case, the AV7005 takes care of all that upgrading in one shot with no loss in audio quality or enjoyment. No significant increase there either in my opinion which shows the AVP9808 was darned good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin C Brown View Post

I think you are missing that indeed you do now have in-room freq response measurements, and you have had them all along with the Sherwood and Marantz. You just haven't done them yourself. But those two room EQ products most certainly have improved your listening situation from the 2 "crappy" Sony AVRs.

It's like you're trying to argue with me, but I actually agree with almost everything you said.
Actually the AVP9080 does not have an auto-calibration routine. I've only set it up using the Radio Shack SPL meter.

No, not arguing per-se. I was just refuting the blurb where you mentioned "you simply cannot have verifiable good sound without measured results backing up what your ears hear" because I have never measured my results and what I hear is most definitely good. I *could* measure it and by some miracle have a totally flat frequency response which *would* back up what I hear but i don't think that is required to know what I hear is good or have it actually be good. Sure it's improbable anyone would have a flat response out of the box or by only using Audyssey or a SPL meter. but it's not 100% impossible to be pretty close. In my house with what I've done, I am totally happy with that and there's no measured results backing that up. I defy anyone to take a listen and tell me it's crap.

I have definitely heard equipment that really IS total crap and my last two set-ups are nowhere near that!

By the way, I have also run my Adcom GCD700 directly through the GFA7500 amp with no processor in between and that also sounds great. That's as pure as one can get with 2CH audio and my impression is that the AVP9080 and AV7005 don't change that much if at all. No measured results necessary!

So, no, not arguing. Just saying I think you CAN have good sound without any measurements backing it up at all.

Kevin
Reply
Reply
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 › Marantz AV7005