The "Official" Onkyo TX-NR3009 Owners Thread - Page 19

Even if they were being cranked, the odds of you delivering 300 watts rms to the speakers is virtually zero. If nothing else it would be because content isn't like playing a test tone. Movies have a huge dynamic range, or can I should say. Music depends on genre and even time period that it was recorded. RMS, even cranked, you're still probably be pushing less than 100 watts except for the peaks/explosions.

Yep that is true. Also, as long as you are not getting distortion, it is fine. Distortion is no bueno for speakers.

Would a reset delete the latest FW installation?

It didn't on my 818.

As pat said, no a reset wouldn't reset the firmware as well.

I don't think the reset will help then but ill try it out. good excuse to raise my screen and center. Hello lens shift!!!

Just a note of interest in this thread, I have enjoyed my 3009 since I bought it in June, but I have also bought a Denon 4520CI with 11 channels since I have 11 hard wired channels in my HT.  Therefore, I have put my 3009 up for sale in the classifieds (Audio Gear) if anyone is looking for one at a good price.  Here's a direct link:  Denon TX-NR3009

The 3009 is a great device..

^ ^ ^

Very Informative.

Dear fellow owners of the Onkyo 3009.

Recently i bought mine and i am very pleased with the results of Audyssey and Neo:X, for upmixing 5.1 to 7.1
I have a setup as Audyssey recommends, with the front-wides at 60°.
However i was wondering somehting.

I watched Super8 in TrueHD 7.1 (blu ray) and it got downmixed to TrueHD 5.1
I found this all very weird, since its a 7.1 blu ray film.

I do understand the back-channels are for surround back speakers and i don't have those.
So of course i used the Audyssey DSX option to get the 7.1 sound and it still sounded great.

The weird part is that with the movie Shoot em up (clive owen) in DTS-HD 7.1 my Onkyo does use all the channels on the blu-ray.
I could not change it to Audyssey or Neo:X it just said: DTS HD Master Audio 7.1

Anyone here knows how that difference occurs?
Thank you, NewJersey.

Does my 3009 lose its 8 position calibration settings when I unplug it?
I unplug my electronic devices when thunderstorms are in the forecast.
I don't trust surge protectors.

No.

I have recently made a setting change in which I turned on the Audio Return Channel (ARC) in the HDMI settings. This seems to have caused a 2nd OSD to appear every time a change the volume.

Is there any way to turn that 2nd volume bar off while the ARC is set to Auto?

Thanks!

Hi
I had the Onkyo 818 for a couple of days, then I returned it because of stutter from Blu-ray using the HDMI Out 1 (no stutter on HDMI Out 2, but then no video processing)
Maybe I was being too hasty returning it as I liked the sound a lot
Right now a dealer sells the Onkyo 3009 for slightly more than the 818
Has any of you upgraded from the 818 to the 3009, and if so was the sound in any way better?
I don't care about features, only SQ
I will be using it for movies only
Thanks
Jakob
Edited by jake51 - 10/14/12 at 9:15am

If all you care about is SQ and not features and you'll be watching movies, why not just go with an oppo BDP-93/95 and an external amp?

Hi.

I'm sending along some listening notes comparing DSX versus Neo:X on the TX-NR3009. I couldn't resist close-out pricing on the 3009, but sadly and disappointingly, I ultimately was not happy with current implementation of DSX or Neo:X and ended up returning the unit.

(1) Notes on my setup (see attached figure).
a. figure is not to scale

b. room dimensions: 13'x11' with 8' ceiling

c. LF and RF at 30 degrees off-center (Infinity Primus 362)

d. LH and RH at 35 degrees off-center, mounted at ceiling & pointing down toward listener, but not toed-in
(Infinity Primus 153). Audyssey suggests LH and RH at 45 degrees. DTS Neo:X suggests LH and RH
directly above LF and RF, respectively. On Audyssey.com Chris Kyriakakis suggested that positioning LH
and RH at 45 degrees off-center was not critical—the most important matter was to mount the speakers at
the ceiling. Not knowing whether I would prefer DSX or Neo:X, I chose an aesthetically pleasing location for
the LH and RH speakers between 30 and 45 degrees.

e. LW and RW at 55 degrees off-center (Infinity Primus 363). I could have moved them down the wall some
more to obtain a 60 degree position, but that would have 'crowded' the room.

f. LS and RS mounted at ceiling, pointing down toward listener (Infinity Primus 152). LS and RS have to be
mounted at ceiling because there are doors below them.

g. center channel speaker Infinity Primus PC350.

h. MultEQ positions in red circles. Back wall is a hard surface, but upholstered chair backs were behind
Audyssey mic for positions 2 and 3 (as they would be for the listener). For position 1, I temporarily placed an
upholstered cushion about 6" behind the Audyssey mic during calibration. Distance from, e.g., position 2 to
position 6 approximately 4 feet. Optimally, positions 7 and 8 would be to the rear of positions 1-3: the
chosen positioning was suggested by Chris Kyriakakis at Audyssey.com for this type of room configuration.

i. this is a room used both for HT and music listening


(2) Impressions
a. DSX soundstage in music and movie settings was too wide. Don't get me wrong, I love a wide soundstage. but not this wide; essentially the soundstage image was discontinuous. Fortunately, the Onkyo has a DSX Soundstage setting under the Audio Adjust menu. When setting Soundstage to -3dB, I was much happier. I also noted that when DSX Soundstage was set to -3dB in cinema/movie modes the width of the DSX soundstage seemed equivalent to the width of the Neo:X cinema soundstage.

b. DSX has a more exciting sound whereas Neo:X is more restrained (to me, DTS Neo:6 also has a more restrained sound). Not that 'restrained' is a bad thing; it's all personal preference.

c. To my ear, DSX in music mode was lacking in upper midrange; I had trouble hearing, e.g., small bells. This was a real deal-breaker for me. Neo:X did not present this issue at all.

d. In Neo:X music modes the surround speaker output was notably 'too loud.' It was distracting and fatiguing--and again, excessive levels led to a discontinuous sound image. This was especially the case with electronic music that was mastered with surround sound processing in mind. However, in Neo:X cinema modes the volume of the surround speakers seemed just fine. If this room was only used for music listening, then I could have manually lowered the output level of the surround speakers and I would have been happy using Neo:X. However, doing that would compromise the surround levels when using Neo:X cinema mode. A conundrum. The surround speaker volume level in DSX modes seemed fine to me.

e. For movie watching, I tended to use Neo:X. I was going back and forth between THX and non-THX Neo:X.

f. At its best, Neo:X for music listening can be a very interesting experience. In some circumstances multiple and distinct sound images are present, e.g., an image plane above the listener as well as a spheroid image at the listening level. Very nice.

(3) Bottom line.
If DSX did not compromise midrange, then I would have kept the 3009; I probably would have preferred its more 'exciting' sound to that of Neo:X. If Neo:X in music mode did not produce 'exaggerated' surround speaker volume, or if there was a setting to adjust surround speaker levels that was specific to Neo:X music modes, then I would have kept the 3009. Either way, I would have been really happy. Instead, I am really bummed; close but no cigar! I have gone back to using my old Fosgate Model 4 for music listening; a bit of a let down going from 9.1 to 5.1, but I have always been happy using the Model 4 in 'Popular' mode for music.


Major Edit: Jan 30, 2013
Soon after returning my 3009, I had RMA-remorse. I started to dwell on the fact that receivers with 6/8 channel inputs were being phased out, e.g., the 3010 doesn't have 'em. I really wanted those inputs for SACD and, occasionally, listening to a Fosgate Model 4. So, sheepishly, I grabbed another 3009. My wife thought that I was crazy and I don't blame her, but I am glad that I decided to go back to the 3009.

Initially, I set-up the new 3009 just as before. I had previously given-up on DSX for up-scaling 2-channel music sources because of the poor mid-range response; I still had the same gripe about that. And, with up-scaling 2-channel music sources with Neo:X, I still found that the surround channel levels were too pronounced. In my book, surround channel sound should be almost imperceptible.

Next, I decided to do away with Audyssey MultEQ. I grabbed my ruler and sound pressure meter. I manually measured speaker distance to a central seating position (position #1 in the attached figure) and I adjusted the speaker levels to 75dB, from that same position. This produced a much more appealing auditory result. Perhaps a problem with my MutlEQ experience was that my room did not allow me to use MultEQ positions #7 and #8 that were to the rear of positions #1, #2, and #3; given my room configuration Chris K. suggested using #7 and #8 positions forward of positions #1, #2, and #3. Even so, I could have tried MultEQ with only positions #1 through #6 (as shown in the figure). However, I never got around to trying that. So at the moment, given my room set-up, I vote for manual adjustment of speaker levels.

Under Speaker Configuration, I entered the manufacturer specs for each of my speakers.

After experimenting with various settings, I decided to turn off some of the additional processing: THX Loudness Plus (off); Audyssey Sound Target (off); Audyssey Dynamic EQ (off); Audyssey Dynamic Volume (off); Equalizer (off).

Even with manually adjusted speaker levels, I sometimes thought that Neo:X Music had pronounced surround channel output. This was corrected for the most part when using THX Neo:X Music. Of course, this requires that Preserve THX Settings is set to YES. Also, I still prefer the Neo:X Center Image setting at 2.

Next, I spent some time comparing Neo:X 9.1 with heights and wides to 5.1 PLII. I played around with various PLII settings, trying to find something that best approximated Neo:X. To my ear, the PLII settings that best provided this were Panorama(on); Dimension(-3); and Center Width(5). Again, this is comparing to Neo:X with Center Image set to 2. For up-scaling particular 2 channel music sources the difference between PLII and Neo:X is pretty subtle; for other 2 channel music sources the difference can be more appreciable. I also have some suspicion that PLII may have an advantage (to my subjective ear) over Neo:X when playing 2 channel audio sources that were recorded and mastered in the 1990's whereas Neo:X has an advantage with 2 channel sources mastered in the late 2000s or later. That is just a hunch at this point, but it would make some sense: in the late 1990s Jim Fosgate was attempting to optimize PLII based upon audio sources available at that time; around 2010 DTS was likely doing the same wrt Neo:X. I do prefer Neo:X over PLII, but, really, what you get for the extra expense of a Neo:X receiver plus 9.1 speakers over something with 'only' PLII or PLIIx plus 5.1 speakers will not impress the masses. And, I have to say that with respect to wideness of sound stage in my particular room, PLII in Panorama (wide) mode is a very close approximation to Neo:X with wides. I attribute the main advantage of Neo:X with heights+wides over PLII 5.1 (configured as described) to the heights. Unfortunately, PLIIz does not offer the same settings as PLII/PLIIx; if it did, then it may be possible to approximate Neo:X with heights and wides even better with a 7.1 PLIIz system.

For further context, given a 5.1 system and the goal of up-scaling 2 channel audio sources, I believe that a Fosgate Model 4 out-performs PLII by a wide margin. I was always a little disappointed in PLII when making that comparison. The Model 4 simply did a better job at imaging. In contrast, I believe that the difference between 9.1 Neo:X with heights+wides and a 5.1 PLII system is less substantial. Still, because my Fosgate Model 4 is getting very long in the tooth, it is time to move on, and I personally prefer Neo:X over PLII. So, I am happy to have the 3009.

Finally, for movies with 5.1 audio I use a straight decode. I do not upscale with Neo:X or DSX. Movie soundtracks typically have a relatively wide sound stage and making it even wider through the addition of wide channels begins to make things sound artificial and strange to me. Still, I do sometimes use Neo:X or DSX when watching sports and may do so when watching the Super Bowl this weekend.

121014a setup.jpg 53k .jpg file
Edited by SEGSEG - 1/30/13 at 5:27pm

Sorry, what I want is 5.1 HD surround, not stereo
Edited by jake51 - 10/15/12 at 3:56am

Obviously you haven't looked at the Oppo's.

There's a full set of 7.1 pre-outs on the back. Plus the Oppo will have as good or better DAC's than any receiver.

Mine is a couple months old. I'm looking to part ways, let me know if you are interested.

Does the Oppo have easy volume control?

Help: As stated earlier, I recently made a csettings change. I have recently turned on my ARC (audio return channel) setting to AUTO so I could send audio from my TV apps to my receiver without having to run an extra cable.

This is causing an issue it seems with my activity based remorte control. Now, when I start up my TV app, the Onkyo 3009 initially turns to the correct HDMI input of "Cbl/Sat". However, it then sets to the TV/CD input. I have to hit help on the remote (Harmony) to get it to go back to CBL/SAT.

Turning back off the ARC fixes this issue. However, I would prefer to leave ARC set to auto.

Any ideas as to why this is happening or have a solution?

Thanks.

Why do you want it on Cbl/Sat when you select a TV App?

This is caused because you have enabled the HDMI-CEC feature on the TV in order to use the ARC feature. Set the TV's HDMI-CEC to OFF to remove the 2nd volume bar and use an optical cable from the TV to the AVR instead of ARC.


This is caused because the source input for your TV apps is "TV/CD" while the source input for your cable/sat box is "CBL/SAT". So two different sources with two different input source names. As suggested above, this is occuring because you have enabled HDMI-CEC/ARC on the TV. To avoid this issue, as suggested above, use an optical cable instead of ARC.

Also note, that depending on the brand of TV being used, in some cases (eg. Panasonic), the ARC will only output 2.0 whereas using the optical audio will output DD 5.1.

I don't. The receiver is going to TV/CD automatically upon start-up instead of going to CBL/SAT as I want it to. Apparently (going by the post above), the only fix is to ignore the ARC "feature" and run an optical cable. Bummer.


Thanks JD for your response.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. It has a volume buttons on the remote. Is that what you meant or something else?

Thanks SEGSEG for an interesting read. I'm sorry you weren't satified with the 3009. I am really enjoying mine but trying to figure out which of the myriad of playback modes to use with the myriad of sources. Hence, why I enjoyed your post. I have a 9.1 with front highs. Right now I'm using PLIIz H with THX Cinema for most DVR, cable and BD playback. I use Audyssey DSX for Sports. Using the PLIIx for music playback too. I don't have near as a complete review as to what I like and don't like about the various playback modes. I would love for more users to comment. I haven't sat down and used the same source with all the different modes, someday....

for those that are interested...and are near a Fry's electronics

They are selling the 5009 for about 1/3 or retail...and the 3009 for about $150 less than the 5009

store stock only...I bought the 5009 today

the website pricing is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the in store price



Warren

...after thinking more about it, I could have kept the 3009 as a dedicated music processor/amp: sticking with Neo:X music mode and manually adjusting the surround channel levels.
Then, I'd would have used my older AVR for HT. That would have offered a work-around for me. Too late now, though; I already returned the 3009.

Also, for me the height speakers were an important addition. Based upon initial disappointing reviews that I read about PLIIz and Chris K's 'wides before heights' position, I was expecting a lot less from the addition of heights. However, I was pleasantly surprised--especially for music sources.

For me front high and wide don't mean a whole lot. No multi-channel source is mixed higher than 7.1 and many are even 5.1. When you add height channels or wide channels, the processing is just taking information from the surround channels and routing it to the height or wide channels. I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool to have those channels, but until the mixes are incorporating those channels and they aren't just rerouted sounds I don't see them as worth it. YMMV.

I don't know what speakers you use, but it would make more sense to me to look into upgrading your speakers instead. I have tried wide channels before, but my room isn't huge and my speakers throw a pretty darn big soundstage. Based on that I decided heights wouldn't be much either (for me that is).

However, if you really like that stuff power to ya.

When I use Audessy and my 9.2 (I use High) speaker set-up, I think I get a much bigger sweet spot regardless of input. All those "redundant" speakers allow the sound to be pretty good from a variety of listening positions. If you are only listening from a single spot then fewer better speakers may be the right answer, but I am happy with my ragtag combination of speakers and a large listening area.