So what AV receiver do you have? - Page 2

I use bitstreaming here too (Intel i3-2100t, h67 board) for my Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA. But...

... if you decode to 8-channel LPCM (using ffdshow or LAV) then send the resulting multi-channel LPCM through HDMI, assuming the decoder is doing the right thing, you're getting the same result aren't you? Admittedly without the lights on the receiver indicating the true source format...

I've never tested that to see if in practice it matches the theory...

Yes.

Yes, but you should still be producing 7.1, lossless, bitperfect audio, just as it is recorded.

The post to which I was replying suggested 5.1 lossy audio was just as good or that the difference isn't noticable. I disagree.

i'm sorry if i mistyped about the type of audio i meant; i still meant lossless which what i thought the computer was outputing when it decode the audio and passes it to the avr instead of letting the avr do the decoding. in my experience i spent way too much time worrying about the bitstreaming thing while trying to get the video rate as close to correct as my setup would allow. so after learning that it did not matter to me who decoded the audio as long as it was right i could devote more time to tweaking the video which is more important to me. and i have always been told spent your money on the speakers so i thought the op could benefit from my experience as to the decoding. again sorry for the mistake

HTPC hooks up to my Yamaha HTR 6260. Gaming PC hooks up to my Pioneer VSX-521.

Using a Denon 3808 for the last 4 years or so. It's been absolutely great but is starting to fall behind on features. Will be upgrading it this year I think. Just waiting on the rest of Denon's '13' lineup to be released.

I have a Onkyo 705 hooked up to my HTPC and Plasma, and have had no problems.

No receiver.
Analog outs from Xonar HDAV to 5 channel Carver amp.

Movies recorded in 24 and slowed down to 23,976 have sound changed as well and not "bit perfect" anymore. Same thing with 1080i29 music videos. IMO the real "bit perfect" are native NTSC 24 and PAL 25.
My AVR is Onkyo 1007 and I don't use bitstream cause I use media speed adaptation.

I'm in Canada and I have only seen movies with a 23.976 frame rate, never a 24.0. Do you know of any movies I could try that have a 24.0 frame rate?

Lets see...

Hodejegerne http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1614989/

Forces speciales http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1656192/
Intouchables http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1675434/
Tacones lejanos http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103030/
Gojijeon http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2007387/
Nightwatch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119791/
Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1064932/
L'amant http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101316/
and much more

Thank you for the list. I'll have to look for them at my video store.

I have a Denon AVR-1610 hooked up to a standard 5.1 setup.

Important questions when choosing a receiver:

1. Does it have the I/O for what I need (enough HDMI inputs, composite/component inputs)?
2. Does it have enough power to fill my room (small rooms don't need as much power as big rooms...look at total cubic feet you need to fill)?
3. Does it have the features I need (auto-calibration, HD Audio decoding, multi-zone output, feeding all inputs out of the HDMI output, DLNA support, etc.)?

These days, even the low-end receivers are still good enough. Since a receiver is something that doesn't get replaced often, it's a good idea to plan for the near future. Are you thinking of getting a turntable? Get a receiver with a phono pre-amp built-in. Are you worried about supporting whatever codec is after TrueHD/DTS-HD? Get one with multi-channel analog inputs. Planning on putting an amp and speakers out on the patio? Get one with multi-zone support. Not planning on any of that stuff and just want something that works? Get the cheapest one you can find that meets your requirements.

None of us has any control over the recording, mic placement, mixing, cleanup, noise reduction, or any other processing that the studio chooses to make to the audio. All we can do is reproduce it exactly as it is recorded on the disk. TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are lossless compressions. When you decode them, you get exactly the same audio that the studio put on the disk. So if you're playing with it afterwards by changing the speed or whatever, and if your audio sounds differently than the TrueHD or DTS-HD MA track, then it is you who have altered the sounds and introduced distortions from what the director, producer, and studio intended.

The quality of amplifier sections in consumer electronics is dramatically improved over what it used to be, but there's still a difference in the quality of components, transformers, DACs and so forth. The "cheapest" will not be the equal of the better one. Whether you can actually hear the difference depends of course on your speakers and other components, and on you.

I consider one of the scourges of decent home audio to be the $200 box with a 10 inch speaker and a 100w amp labled as a "subwoofer." Every 2-bit computer speaker set and "surround sound in a box" set comes with something labled "subwoofer." It's a joke. If you're serious about watching movies, you need a bona fide subwoofer, and no, you can't buy one for $200.

You have valid points but not everyone that is serious about watching movies has a lot of money to put into a ht system. Sometimes, a person gets what he or she can afford, not what he or she wants.

That's absolutely true, and it's true for everyone, but I'd buy a cheaper AVR, and invest in a quality center channel and powered sub. To me, those are the two most critical components. With a good center and sub, you could actually use compact fronts and surrounds.

And if I had a basic or "box" system today and was looking to upgrade, investing in a read subwoofer would be at the top of my list. It would make a whole lot bigger difference in the ht experience than buying a $1000 bluray disk player.

This is a fine opinion to have as long as you keep it squarely in the realm of, well, your opinion.

A good movie experience can be had without having a massive subwoofer, and depending on room layout, personal preference and other considerations, the center speaker may not be that important. Certainly not to the point that a person should pair it with some tiny mains and surrounds.

Although I agree with the basic notion that a person should spend more on their speakers than their AVR, I disagree that the money *has* to be spent on a sub and center.

Further, I used to believe that a 3 to 1 ratio (speakers at least 3x more exspensive than AVR) should be the absolute starting price breakdown, with the advancment of DIY speaker kits being so easy to obtain off the internet at low prices, and the inclusion of real-world technologies that improve sound quality included in AVRs at certain price ranges, I don't think this rule is hard and fast anymore.

-Suntan

In my apartment my sub $200 BIC F12 does fine, I can't even turn it up as loud as I would like because even though it's on an isolation pad it still shakes the walls.

Who said anything about a "massive" subwoofer? Some of the best subwoofers made are small. You can buy outstanding subs in small packages. And there are a lot of total trash "massive" subs sold because they "boom" and sound loud while not actually going very low nor doing anything very accurately. But a sub has to be solid and heavily made, have a sufficient amp, be "clean", and produce accurate sound at sufficient SPLs down to at least 25 hz. The sub should be invisible. It should sound simply like your other speakers suddenly gained more bottom end. If it's booming, or if you can "hear" or locate the sub, then either it's not very good, or it's not set up right.

And the center produces all the main dialogue and over 50% of the total movie soundtrack content. It's unquestionably the most important speaker in video surround sound. And that is unaffected by room layout or personal preference. More important content comes through the center than from any other speaker. It's the most critical. Yes, if you have to skimp, you can skimp on the fronts and surrounds.

Sorry, but "shaking the walls" is not a test of whether it's any good at doing what it's supposed to be doing. You can "shake the walls" with distorted harmonics without actually reproducing low frequencies.

Even if you skip on the L/R speakers they should have timbre match with the center.. So bookselves instead of towers of the same line would work well to save a few bucks.

IDK about 3:1 speakers:AVR ratio. I'm at about 1½:1 and it works pretty well but I do need upgrade my sub which should take me to about 2½:1.

I understand. You made some very good points and I'd have to agree with you.

I am new to surround sound - got my first AVR a few weeks ago. I find that I generally don't like all the movie dialog coming only from the center channel speaker. With exclusive center channel dialog, the sound localization tends to come from below the screen, and sounds too narrow - particularly on films with a lot of dialog. I find having some percentage of dialog level also coming from the front L/R speakers (but with the center still handling the bulk of dialog) is preferable - at least to my ears. The triangulation of the sound seems to place the sound location as if coming directly from the screen, rather than from under it. And also this provides a wider sound stage without having the dialog decoupled from the screen. (I have tried the phantom mode that dispenses with center channel and don't like that - it does mess up the sound location. Rather what I like is maybe 80/20 or so split between center and L/R speakers.)

I realize the origin mixer may have had a certain idea from where the sound should emanate, and I am changing the original intention, but what can I say - to me it sounds better. I am sure in the recording of sounds compromises were made anyway, so I don't mind tweaking them. With that in mind, has anyone else noticed dialog pinned to the center channel speaker can at times give a narrow sound that isn't always so appealing?

While the PLII movie sound modes on my receiver do not allow for adjusting the center channel width, the PLII music modes do, so I have been playing around with them a bit, and can generally get the center/L/R dialog balance that I like. Too bad the movie modes don't offer that adjustment. With true 5.1 sound seems I am out of luck - no center width adjustment available. Since I am only using 5.1 of my 7.1 receiver capability, it would be cool if I could direct center channel sound to my currently unused two speaker outputs, place a speaker on either side of the TV (closer to the TV than my front L/R mains), and then turn the volume up enough to allow for the L/R dialog supplement. But looking at the user manual (Denon 1712), I don't find a way to utilize the extra two channels in that fashion.

That should be posted or searched in the Denon XX12 thread in the AMPs, Processors and Receivers thread but have you tried PLIIx in cinema mode? Have you run Audyssey? If you wanted to do that you need a 2312ci (maybe 2112ci too?) which allows you to re-assign the rear channel output to either Front High or Front Wide in a PLIIz matrix.

Yeah, I asked about center channel width adjustment in one of the main Denon AVR threads, and basically there seems no option to adjust, other than when using PLII in the "music" mode. (In fact most AVRs seem to function the same in this regard.) I was hoping someone here in the HTPC area might know some tricks about getting an additional portion of the dialog distributed to the front L/R channels.

In terms of amp reassign, the options are to double up on the front R/L channels (which would not get me any dialog), or as you mention, using for enhanced front height or side channels (which again would not get me any dialog).

I meant massive as in expensive. In any case, my point was that not everybody needs to have thump and boom to watch a movie. My system can run within 3 db of reference down to 18 hz. But I personally prefer to lower the sub output. If needs be, I'd be fine eliminating it altogether. If speakers had to go, I'd drop the rear surrounds, then the sub, then the side surrounds. It certainly isn't one of the most important speakers to me.


Point me to a small subwoofer that can keep a clean, linear, in-room output to within 3 db of reference down below 25hz without having to muddy the output by corner loading it. Tested output please, not manufacturer's trumped up marketing documentation.


I disagree. Personally, I see so many people's setups, where they have the center speaker sitting above or below the screen, often a couple of feet off axis from the mains let alone the height of the listeners ear, and just think how horrid the imaging must be. Yeah they say to themselves, the sound is nice and clear, and it seems to be coming from the direction of the TV. But they have little idea how bad it still is, all things being equal. Or how much better it could be with judicious use of treatments and/or speaker re-positioning.

Honestly, for most people, assuming they sit inline with their TV and not decidedly off axis, the compromises they must make to place their center speaker make it wasteful. They should put that money into better quality mains and just run a phantom center. Yes, the center speaker does help if you are sitting significantly off-center, but then the whole audio (and visual) experience is just compromised and at that point the center channel is little more than a band aid anyway.

In any case, all I said was that your opinions are fine, as long as they are kept in the context that they are just opinions. There's more than one way to setup your AV system.

-Suntan

The networked models allow you go connect via iPhone or android (3rd party but Denon app comming soon) to trim all channels SPL to your liking. I'm not sure, but you should be able to adjust the channel output in the 1712 using the GUI (See page 62 --> 43 of your manual).

I'm not a big advocate of this myself. The mains, although not responsible for the talking when setup in a 5.1/7.1 setup, are still responsible for a lot of mid-frequency audio. They should be fully capable of providing linear output down into the high low-frequency range to get a full sounding front soundstage. Once you cheap out on the mains, you start to wonder why the soundstage doesn't sound so rich and enveloping.

Of course, the AVR manufacturers have come up with a solution to this. They suggest you add "front highs" or "front wides" to increase the front sound stage. That way, a person can feel good about having up to 5 small speakers sitting in the front of their room, when what they really needed was 2 or 3 speakers capable of providing linear output well into the range where the subwoofer can take over.



I guess I should have clarified, that rule-of-thumb was based on the cost of just the main speakers. Not an entire surround setup. However, as I said, it is becoming less valid as speaker and AVR trends move on. Basically, with inventions like Audyssey making real world improvements for people that can't, or don't want to, properly locate and treat their speaker output; the AVR is becoming more important than it used to be.

-Suntan

I know we are drifting somewhat here but define "small" and "linear output well into...." It sounds like you're talking about SPL vs Frequency of the mains that doesn't dive off at too high of a frequency so there isn't a hole in the graph at the x-over frequency, yes?

Did you measure your system with a SPL meter to confirm this?