AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Onkyo TX-NR818 "official" owner's thread discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Onkyo TX-NR818 "official" owner's thread discussion - Page 188

post #5611 of 6973
3/9/13 at 10:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwcole1224 View Post

Fact: In the digital domain there is no loss due to filtering, mixing, or what ever.
You may not care for digital and that's fine, but your assertions are biased and incorrect, IMO.
Ignorance is your position.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #5612 of 6973
3/9/13 at 10:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

All digital filters have a negative impact to either phase, distortion or both. That fact is not arguable and you doing so shows me your lack of understanding on this topic.
What is negative impact for you? Change in phase on the measured graph? For me it is audible change. While it is proven in general that changing phase can produce audible impact, AFAIK nobody yet proven that realistic phase change done by the real world crossovers can create audible difference in the real room conditions. The think is that any reflection of sound in the room create much more phase distortion than any crossover do. And as pretty much nobody likes listening audio in completely 'dead' room...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

Crossovers consist of filters, you attempting to separate them from other filters is not correct.
Filters are different! They impact phase differently too! Compare the phase response of crossover and of PEQ filter - you immediately will see the difference!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

Use of filters in my system improves the overall sound despite their negatives, you claiming I advocate no filters is laughable and rude to be putting words into my mouth.
So, finally, those words from you. You use filters in your system and they improve the sound for you! Despite the fact they change phase... So... Digital Crossovers also improve sound for me, despite you are not believing in them and somehow think they are so special and different from other crossovers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

You not caring about the characteristics of the 818's digital crossover shows that you are not taking a good approach to what you are trying to accomplish.
What... I feel crazy... I care about the characteristics that are important! I have all of them! They are all described in the manual and repeated here by me in response to Markus! You care about something imaginary. I asked several times already - WTF characteristic you need to know? For me it is enough to know - high slope, in-phase overlap region, in-phase crossover region at the 0 delay settings, known possible crossover frequencies, separately configurable trim level and delay for LPF and HPF. Those are all tools that are needed to configure and match crossovers for any kind of real world application. If you designed crossovers yourself you would know that. Please read and do not repeat stupid things that are answered already several times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

Even your comments concerning analog versus digital are a bit alarming to me.
Ha ha.. Your thinking they are equal and all analog radio components are ideal don't alarm me even a bit already... Have you ever had a capacitor or resistor in your hands? What primary characteristics they have? The precision is one of them wink.gif Your inability to reason and inability to read what others are telling is already known to me. Don't be surprised I am rude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

Your goal is to reduce IMD, yet "Intermodulation is caused by non-linear behaviour of the signal processing being used." - wikepedia; so to reduce IMD you add more signal processing? My multiple college degrees also consist of a great deal of calculus, differential equations, and physics, but I don't need them to see the flaw in your approach to reaching your goal.
Ha ha.. I cannot even know what to tell here... Are you really believing that digital crossover filter can cause IMD? It needs to be seriously broken to do so. No, I don't feel crazy anymore, I feel someone else is crazy. Please read about what is Linear Time-Invariant. Most digital audio filters, esp. crossovers are LTI, and as such they cannot produce any THD or IMD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

Your word is not going to be good enough to convince me given your lack of understanding on the principles involved, not to mention your rude approach.
Don't be surprised I am rude after you tell idiotic things (see above) that you do not understand yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

Out of curiosity, do you work in a technical field and if so what do you do?
Programming, if you would work with Java then you would probably hear also about JRebel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

As I've said before we are simply talking in circles as you've done nothing to show my concerns are not applicable in this configuration.
The only your concern was phase, and you had so much concerns about it while using a lot of crossovers in your config already... including active digital and passive ones... As if you had so much problems with them. All of them shift phase in similar way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

For others, your goal should be to get your system performance as close to your desired frequency response as possible without EQ,
Please... not again. I don't need frequency response if the price is the enormous distortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

then use minimal EQ to further improve the sound if needed (and it is the vast majority of time). That is why acoustical treatments and speaker quality are the two most influential factors to sound quality. My room is not treated yet due to WAF and no dedicated room and I have to make the EQ compromise.
You are not alone, I too need to make compromises. And killing the possibility of IMD (one of the worst sounding form of distortion) from the source by using digital crossovers is a lot better than to think about imaginary phase shift that several researches were unable to identify any audible impact in real world conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

I do think the conversation is on topic, but since we are talking in circles at this point without Igor bringing in any evidence to support his claims, it's got to be getting old.
Works for me. If it doesn't work for you - report here. If you just think it will not work at all - it is up to you to provide evidence, but please, on topic, and topic here is 818, and so filters in 818.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

+1 to each of markus's valid points.
How much to each invalid one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

His understanding does exceed mine, yet when I do read on the topic it's amazing, all of markus's points are supported by the material. It is the kind of experience which causes me to take note of a forum members contributions.
Sure, Markus is great contributor here, no one objects that.

You want some links... you can read here about digital filters and their linearity, and here about audibility of phase shift done by different crossover filters. You can find more resources if you google it wink.gif

Again you provide nothing,
Reply
Reply
post #5613 of 6973
3/9/13 at 10:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwcole1224 View Post

Fact: In the digital domain there is no loss due to filtering, mixing, or what ever.
You may not care for digital and that's fine, but your assertions are biased and incorrect, IMO.

Please define "loss". Your statement is too general to be of any value. If you apply a high pass filter for example, information is lost. This applies to digital filters as much as to analog filters.

The topic here is the question if it's a good idea to apply a crossover with unknown filter characteristics to a speaker. It's a naive idea at best.
Reply
Reply
post #5614 of 6973
3/10/13 at 12:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwcole1224 View Post

Fact: In the digital domain there is no loss due to filtering, mixing, or what ever.

Bwaahahhaahahaha. Education is something you shall seek.
Reply
Reply
post #5615 of 6973
3/10/13 at 4:08am
I just purchased and set up this receiver while adding two klipsch reference speakers for heights (like the effect in video games, sports and movies, fits my room better than wides). Loving it so far and worth every dollar considering its impact on both sound and video.
I cannot for the life if me figure out if there is a way to set sub output level per source/input. Every input except for 'net' has bass just where I want it, but it is too muted on that source. I see subwoofer level on the setup menu but it seems to be static across all inputs and music modes. Any way to do this amongst the huge amount of options/settings?
Reply
Reply
post #5616 of 6973
3/10/13 at 4:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

The topic here is the question if it's a good idea to apply a crossover with unknown filter characteristics to a speaker. It's a naive idea at best.
You haven't answered again what characteristic you need to know and why. I know all characteristics that I need for the purpose of matching crossover. The ones I don't know are irrelevant for most if not all practical purposes.
Reply
Reply
post #5617 of 6973
3/10/13 at 4:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

Again you provide nothing,
Have you read the links? Read one research paper more: Perceptual Study and Auditory Analysis on Digital Crossover Filters.
Reply
Reply
post #5618 of 6973
3/10/13 at 4:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

You haven't answered again what characteristic you need to know and why. I know all characteristics that I need for the purpose of matching crossover. The ones I don't know are irrelevant for most if not all practical purposes.

That depends on the driver parameters, their position on the baffle and the box itself. As I've said before, get a copy of Dickason's excellent book. I won't cite anything from the book for you nor will I give lessons in filter design. Everybody would benefit if you could switch from argue mode to learning mode.

That said, it's probably feasible to find drivers with a specific parameter set and build a nice active system with the supplied features. Problem is we don't know enough about the filter characteristics.
Reply
Reply
post #5619 of 6973
3/10/13 at 4:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

Have you read the links? Read one research paper more: Perceptual Study and Auditory Analysis on Digital Crossover Filters.

So what did that study tell you about the filters available in the 818?
Reply
Reply
post #5620 of 6973
3/10/13 at 5:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

That depends on the driver parameters, their position on the baffle and the box itself. As I've said before,
As I said before the trim levels and delay adjustments do the work for matching all of this. You have all needed parameters to configure in 818 digital crosses. You are just ignoring them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

That said, it's probably feasible to find drivers with a specific parameter set and build a nice active system with the supplied features. Problem is we don't know enough about the filter characteristics.
We do. You are just ignoring them and want some more parameters that you cannot even name. I agree that it would be interesting to know about the type/slope of the filters, but for practical purposes they are irrelevant for matching as long as the slope is steep enough. Once you have measurement gear matching two speaker drivers for an enclosure and a room is simple task. You only need to match level and phase at the cut-off frequency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Everybody would benefit if you could switch from argue mode to learning mode.
It is you who arguing. Everybody would benefit if you switch to learning mode yourself. I have accomplished improvements in audio quality with a help of digital crosses in my system, you are only objecting and cannot even tell what is missing for you.
Reply
Reply
post #5621 of 6973
3/10/13 at 5:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

So what did that study tell you about the filters available in the 818?
It doesn't tell anything about 818 filters, but for those audiofools here who care about phase distortion in crossovers too much it tells that it is inaudible 'problem' with common types of digital filters on realistic signals. And even if you like to listen to square waves in anechoic environments you have some chances to hear some difference only with very high-order filters, you are safe with 8-th order LR filter even then for example.
Reply
Reply
post #5622 of 6973
3/10/13 at 7:23am
Again, you need to read up on crossover design. There are non-esoteric reasons why filter design isn't trivial. Crossovers affect lobing. The acoustic center of a driver changes with frequency.
You don't know what type of filters the 818 offers. They might or might not have a specific phase reponse. You even don't know the filter order. Without knowing any of that you're flying blind.
Reply
Reply
post #5623 of 6973
3/10/13 at 7:31am
Igor, here's a good link for you: http://sound.westhost.com/ptd.htm
Reply
Reply
post #5624 of 6973
3/10/13 at 8:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

Again you provide nothing,
Have you read the links? Read one research paper more: Perceptual Study and Auditory Analysis on Digital Crossover Filters.

Thanks for providing a link to a white paper supporting my position.
Reply
Reply
post #5625 of 6973
3/10/13 at 8:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by flinchn View Post

I cannot for the life if me figure out if there is a way to set sub output level per source/input.

You can't set different speaker level on a per input basis. What you can do is adjust the reference level or IntelliVolume for each input. This adjusts the amount of compensation DynamicEQ applies. Of course DynamicEQ has to be enabled.
Reply
Reply
post #5626 of 6973
3/10/13 at 8:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Again, you need to read up on crossover design. There are non-esoteric reasons why filter design isn't trivial. Crossovers affect lobing. The acoustic center of a driver changes with frequency.
This is a serious problem for passive crossovers to solve, largely unsolved anyway in practice. 818 have Audyssey XT32 and if the claims that it corrects not only the frequency domain but also the time domain are true then again - you have better tool for this. BTW it will do the same for ordinary speakers with passive crossovers and with no bi-amping if they have such problems, and any such speaker does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

You even don't know the filter order. Without knowing any of that you're flying blind.
With what knowledge of the filter order would help me if it is known that it is more than 4-th order? When it is less then the transition region is large enough to be important, when it is higher order, I can't understand how can it make any practical difference. There are no so much irregularities in such a short transition region.

Use right tool for right job. Crossover filters for separating LF/HF and matching gain/phase in the transition region, EQ for magnitude and phase correction over the different frequencies. You have told yourself - FIR such an XT32 can do that well. It is the great difference that you can do such thing digitally in math, together with room problems instead of doing (or mostly trying unsuccessfully) it with expensive passive filters and only for anechoic conditions.

I agree, there are problems with some speaker drivers that need to be corrected specifically. But it is not the general case and part of them also solvable with Audyssey. Surely - you have to know YOUR SPEAKER DRIVERS characteristics more when redesigning crossovers and it is much more useful information telling you how/if you can do this well with the tools provided wink.gif But the case with leaving passive crossovers is easy and harmless in this respect as it doesn't change the way how the drivers are matched. Except it doesn't work with so common today 2.5 way design and with such speakers you are in the 'measure, understand and do at your own risk' territory.
Reply
Reply
post #5627 of 6973
3/10/13 at 8:53am
*sigh* You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Reply
Reply
post #5628 of 6973
3/10/13 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

Thanks for providing a link to a white paper supporting my position.
I knew you will not understand what is written there smile.gif Your phasomania is so strong that you think everything is supporting your position even if what it does is the opposite. I'll leave you with your fear of phase alteration and every day thinking that you have at least 6 pairs of filters in your 5.1 setup that alter phase (or even more if it is 7.1 or 7.2, etc.). biggrin.gif
Reply
Reply
post #5629 of 6973
3/10/13 at 9:51am
Can anyone explain to me, Why? when I'm on my pc playing multichannel pcm games and I use the neo:x dsp mode I can't change it from front wides to surround backs. with neo:x, I'm suppose to be able to switch from sb to fw if I choose to. but it will not let.. when I use it anywhere else I have the option to utilizing it?
Reply
Reply
post #5630 of 6973
3/10/13 at 9:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

Thanks for providing a link to a white paper supporting my position.
I knew you will not understand what is written there smile.gif Your phasomania is so strong that you think everything is supporting your position even if what it does is the opposite. I'll leave you with your fear of phase alteration and every day thinking that you have at least 6 pairs of filters in your 5.1 setup that alter phase (or even more if it is 7.1 or 7.2, etc.). biggrin.gif

you are adorable
Reply
Reply
post #5631 of 6973
3/10/13 at 9:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Igor, here's a good link for you: http://sound.westhost.com/ptd.htm
Thanks. Pretty much sums up what I've been talking about here smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #5632 of 6973
3/10/13 at 10:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Igor, here's a good link for you: http://sound.westhost.com/ptd.htm
Thanks. Pretty much sums up what I've been talking about here smile.gif

In reality the link describes the exact opposite of what Igor is saying. In Igor's world he takes that as support. Talking to him is like talking to a wall.
Reply
Reply
post #5633 of 6973
3/10/13 at 10:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

In reality the link describes the exact opposite of what Igor is saying. In Igor's world he takes that as support. Talking to him is like talking to a wall.
Quote please.
Reply
Reply
post #5634 of 6973
3/10/13 at 11:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbie01 View Post

Found the setting...since all my devices (TV, BluRay etc) are newer...I could use the auto detect setting for HDMI...works like a charm.

Just to clarify, you were trying to get audio and video to pass through the receiver while it is turned off and use the tv's speakers only for audio? And setting hdmi to auto detect allowed that to occur?

I'm trying to get audio and video to pass through for those times I do not want the external speakers used for sound (and the receiver is off). However, it is not working. Video is being passed but not audio. Onkyo told me I had to enable RIHD/HDMI control set to "on." However this did not work but instead had audio coming through the tv and external speakers while the receiver is turned on.
Reply
Reply
post #5635 of 6973
3/10/13 at 1:20pm
posts deleted
Reply
Reply
post #5636 of 6973
3/10/13 at 1:46pm
I am starting to enjoy this now...
Reply
Reply
post #5637 of 6973
3/10/13 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

Thanks. Pretty much sums up what I've been talking about here smile.gif

Not really but I appreciate that you've read it. If you find out what filters the 818 supplies, please let me know.
Reply
Reply
post #5638 of 6973
3/10/13 at 2:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Not really but I appreciate that you've read it.
Sure there is much more good information there, but the conclusions are pretty much in the agreement about what things are irrelevant. And what problems are really exists but are not solved by passive crossovers in practice, so replacing passive with digital doesn't make them worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

If you find out what filters the 818 supplies, please let me know.
Sure smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #5639 of 6973
3/10/13 at 3:11pm
The block user tool is wonderful! smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #5640 of 6973
3/10/13 at 3:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWD69 View Post

The block user tool is wonderful! smile.gif
Where is it?!
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 › Onkyo TX-NR818 "official" owner's thread discussion