or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Official Pioneer SC-68/67 Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Pioneer SC-68/67 Thread - Page 2

post #31 of 1837
^^^

hey steve... am i allowed to play in your new sandbox? smile.gif
post #32 of 1837
Chris - aren't you a Pio quitter???? tongue.gif
Thought you jumped ship to the 4311. eek.gif

I for one will sure welcome your input and info even if Steve gives you the boot!!
post #33 of 1837
^^^

yup, i turned in my pioneer fanboy card and now have a denon one... tongue.gif

i'm a curious sort though, so i can't resist sticking my head in where it is sometimes not wanted... redface.gif

thanks... smile.gif
post #34 of 1837
Hello ss9001,

What a fine distribution from you to this forum - agian and again - and sharing about your big experience with pioneer electronics and Maggies.smile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gif

I have a VSA-10Ais (europe) and maggies 1.5 en the cc3.

One of your major omissions with the Susano was the only cut-off frequencies possible : 50 en 80 hz.
Is this changed with the SC-68 and now for every speaker flexibel (steps of 5hz like the Onkyo's)
And is there bassmanagement now like the audessy roomcorrection for the subwoofer?

It were mine only drawbacks for purchasing another Pioneer receiver and putting a heavy 2 ch power for the fronts.
Now i am looking/waiting for separates as the XMC-1 or the AV7007 with classD like W4S or D-Sonic

Jerry
post #35 of 1837
^^^

no and no...
post #36 of 1837
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

^^^
hey steve... am i allowed to play in your new sandbox? smile.gif

the more the merrier, even ex-Pio fans tongue.gifbiggrin.gif
post #37 of 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

the more the merrier, even ex-Pio fans tongue.gifbiggrin.gif

For some of us that have crossed over, this is purely an intellectual pursuit. But you never know when you'll learn a new trick...I have to admit it would be interesting to hear how the DACs are treating you.
Edited by sdrucker - 8/3/12 at 11:25am
post #38 of 1837
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

For some of us that have crossed over, this is purely an intellectual pursuit. But you never know when you'll learn a new trick...

or old one, like Phase Control

Based on a recent experience with a specialized speaker combination & a conversation with someone-in-the-know at Pioneer, I think there's more to this than we gave credit for.
post #39 of 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

the more the merrier, even ex-Pio fans tongue.gifbiggrin.gif

For some of us that have crossed over, this is purely an intellectual pursuit. But you never know when you'll learn a new trick...I have to admit it would be interesting to hear how the DACs are treating you.

yup...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

For some of us that have crossed over, this is purely an intellectual pursuit. But you never know when you'll learn a new trick...

or old one, like Phase Control

Based on a recent experience with a specialized speaker combination & a conversation with someone-in-the-know at Pioneer, I think there's more to this than we gave credit for.

are you going to expand on that a bit, or just leave us hanging? smile.gif
post #40 of 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

or old one, like Phase Control
Based on a recent experience with a specialized speaker combination & a conversation with someone-in-the-know at Pioneer, I think there's more to this than we gave credit for.

Given some tangential discussion about phase on the Audyssey thread...that's not completely academic to some of us. There's the "full band phase control", DAC adjustments (sharp/warm/short IIRC from the SC-57; DK if they're still part of the SC-68 set or not), and the Standing Wave/Delay stuff in Advanced MCACC.

Warning - Denon/Audyssey heresy coming.....
If your focus is less on sub/satellite integration and measuring at a medium to largish number of positions (8+), and more on how to tweak an existing calibration speaker by speaker, MCACC has some advantages that "set or forget" factory-issue Audyssey doesn't without hard work outside of the calibration per se. There's still the whole 'how do you verify this is really happening' thing, but there may be specific cases where this kind of tweakability is more important than the sub integration issues. I listen to a lot of MC stuff, and I want that integration and flat LF bass on my house curve, but if you've already got a few tandem tools to do it, there's something to be said for a setup that helps you with the configuration you've got. And those quad recordings you've got don't have a .1 channel, do they:)?
post #41 of 1837
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

yup...
are you going to expand on that a bit, or just leave us hanging? smile.gif

hanging...just kidding! I didn't want to bore you w/my usual long posts so I trimmed it down wink.gif too much I guess tongue.gifwink.gif so here goes...a book!! "How MCACC Changed My Life" biggrin.gif

This is just before I got the SC-68 so still applies to SC-09.

1. I have an existing Maggie center that's supposed to go to 80hz but realistically drops off fairly quickly < 100 or so, without measurements this is strictly an estimate on my part using the MCACC graphs, from all MCACC receivers I've owned. So, a small gap between the Xover of 80 & where the center can perform its best.

2. All new Maggie centers are severely bass-limited to 200 hz, so Magnepan makes a multipurpose bass/mid-bass "woofer" panel that goes from 40hz - 5Khz with its own internal Xover at 200. You connect woofer panel to AVR with 80 Xover, and center to woofer panel. 80-200 hz goes to woofer, >200 goes to center. Goal - create more of a full center without using Magnepan's non-standard bass mgmt setup, plus not spending $3000 on their top-of-the-line center with a 200 hz bass limit.

3. the woofer panel's internal Xover must be very gradual slope, to accommodate multiple uses, because it definitely reproduces well into the hi mid-range. I can hear the whistles from the X-Files theme song thru the woofer. The Problem - now I have 2 speakers separated by the height of a plasma panel (~4 ft), one above & one sitting on floor, that reproduce overlapping freq's. Sometimes get an echo effect, chesty dialog, & hollow sound. It sounds worse!! And I am disappointed I spent $800 on this! I can't tell the dealer to send it back so how can I make it sound half-way decent? The WAF is asking me why I spent the $800 tongue.gifbiggrin.gif

4. I try manual tweaking the problem freq's: 125, 250, 500 & 1K, tried various cuts, something you Audyssey fans can't do wink.gif Result - improvement but still not quite right but at least I know it's possible to get it sounding decent.

5. I create a new preset in the SC-09 (can std Audyssey do this? wink.gif) and re-run full MCACC Symmetry. New group delays in phase control, reverb measurements & standing wave filters. Result - totally different standing wave filters (makes sense) and modified group delays. A different EQ in the 125, 250 & 500 bands than my manually tweaked ones but look more like the previous ones, so if EQ was the issue, it should sound as bad as it did before. It doesn't.

Result - much improved integration of the woofer speaker with the center. Sounds much more like sound coming from a common center speaker.

What accounts for the difference? Can't be just EQ, because I tried that. IMO, the combination of different standing wave filters & phase control (making group delay between center & center woofer the same) are what caused it to finally blend together & with the fronts.

Before this, I really didn't think phase control did much, to be honest. When I did use it, most of the time I used the Full Band setting for movies but bass only setting for music (to preserve dipolar depth & stage characteristics). In my setup, Full Band brought sounds forward, in line with the speakers, whereas bass only phase setting allowed for increased depth in the soundstage. It was a personal choice thing.

Now, I'm thinking there's more to this feature that may be apparent. I know from my talks with Pioneer, their engineers place huge importance to maintaining accurate phase for "best" audio quality. To the degree that that is the primary reason behind their NOT putting independent channel Xovers in their AVR's. It's not an omission because they've "fallen behind" which has been our perception (mine, too). It's a deliberate, philosophical choice they make in their design. Even if I'd like to see independent Xovers because it would make my life easier, I can respect their decision because they have reasons to do it the way they do.

chris,

to me it sounds like the same kind of issue as video processing on HDMI. In the early SC models, we all were disappointed when we found we couldn't "monkey" with video settings on HDMI sources. Pioneer maintained (correctly) that "do no harm" was the right choice. Don't allow ill-informed owners to mess up what they paid good money to enjoy. But they bowed to customer pressure, because we all wanted it, their competitors had it & ended up putting the video proc in the loop as the default. And the result was predictable, posters asking why they couldn't get a picture to look right or it looked funny, or no picture because they choose a resolution that wasn't being displayed, etc etc. So what did we tell them to try? Turn it off and see what happens!

You & I have debated particular forum posters who've screwed around with the video proc settings, specific to a particular TV, swore how much better it looked, and then had the stupidity to tell other owners to try their settings, when they changed things in the TV's service menu tongue.gif Pioneer may have had it right to begin with rolleyes.gif We've often admitted this. Because now ill-informed newbies can fubar their calibrated TV picture & wonder why it doesn't look right. But Pioneer bowed to "us" wanting this feature because the "other companies" were doing it.

Maybe the same has been going on with MCACC with Xovers, etc. and we "think" we want something because company X has it.

Sub EQ, no question, Pioneer should look at including that. Maybe they will (or are wink.gif we'll have to see...

Do I know which philosophical approach is right? No.

But if the head of marketing for a major CE company asks about multiple XOvers & gets emphatically told by their design engineers how that can degrade audio quality, with papers, graphs & measurements, Pioneer may not be giving us "what we want" for a reason. And not because they're lazy, stubborn or falling behind the times. Maybe they know something we don't and have a dam good reason. Phase can be important to perceptions of depth & sound localization. Phase differences are what matrix surround processing uses, going back to the early quad era, to create surround information. sdurani & Roger Dressler can give the tech details, but IIRC, shifting the phase of hard panned left & right sounds and using out-of-phase sounds was how quad decoders synthesized quad from stereo and encoded the matrixed tracks.

Sorry this turned into a bit of a rant. Maybe I've drunk a whole lot of kool-aid, but I have to believe that if their engineers and Air Studios have stuck with the same approach and value time-aligned phase as much as they seem to, maybe they know something smile.gif

Does phase control make a night & day difference? No. But it does make a soundfield more seamless and that is the goal we all seem to value a whole lot. Maybe they just take a different approach to get there. Don't know but food for thought.

I came away with a different perspective than I had before on MCACC. I never bothered to use manual MCACC because I didn't think I needed to. But I found an advantage to having it. I also didn't think standing wave filters & phase control did that much either - because it didn't seem to help my bass response with the Velodyne parametric sub EQ. And while Full Band Phase Control made my front stage different, I couldn't say it was "better", just different.

That was before I got this woofer speaker. It's a lot better than I started with. At least now I'm not regretting spending 8 bills on it eek.gif It sounds pretty darn good now. Could Audyssey Pro do this as well? Probably yes. After spending $700, take lots of measurements for a custom curve. Could Audyssey standard 32XT also do it? Since it's also time based measurements, maybe. I won't know smile.gif

And remember what I said about the SVS AS-EQ1 end of Dec when I posted pics of response I got with the SVS?

It alone did NOT produce the flattened response I got vs the Velo EQ. I tried combinations of SVS audyssey, with Phase Control on & off, Standing Wave on & off, fronts set as Large and set as Small.

The curve still had the 2 nulls with Audyssey Multi32XT and still was pretty choppy. But IMO, what it did do was allow the Standing Wave filters & Phase Control to flatten the curve even more, better than I'd seen before using the Velodyne EQ. It allowed the those Pioneer features to finish the job. In that sense, Multi32XT was important to the final result. But it took the combination to get the best results. Nothing is a panacea...that's our curse being in this &*$# hobby biggrin.gif

Both systems have a lot of value. Once Pioneer adds sub EQ, it will have even more. But let's not forget the features it has which do seem to make a difference, at least for me, I found do (in my room, with my speakers...the usual wink.gif)

Just an opinion, having drunk the kool-aid tongue.gifbiggrin.gif
Edited by ss9001 - 8/3/12 at 2:56pm
post #42 of 1837
dang, you didn't just drink a glass, you drank the whole damn tank... tongue.gifbiggrin.gif

i need some time to digest that... smile.gif
post #43 of 1837
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghscholtens View Post

One of your major omissions with the Susano was the only cut-off frequencies possible : 50 en 80 hz.
Is this changed with the SC-68 and now for every speaker flexibel (steps of 5hz like the Onkyo's)..Jerry

Hi Jerry,

If you got thru my "book" above wink.gif my new perspective may not surprise you smile.gif

No, ccotenj is right, no 5 hz increments, no sub EQ, for now.

On 5 Hz increments, can that make a significant difference to the sound? I'm asking not being sarcastic smile.gif I admit, I was fully in that camp that wanted both. Part of me still does, despite what I've been told wink.gif

In the real world, if the slope is steep, how much would changing the Xover point from 75 to 80 mean to the bass & sub integration in a practical sense? Or is this one of those features we want because it can be done wink.gif

I don't know the answer. I suspect it would take a lot of measurements with a software pkg, like Omnimic or xtz, to really know the effect of that precision of adjustment. The Velodyne sub I have which was one of their flagships has 1 Hz increments in their internal Xover if you used it. I was never tempted to spend the time needed to try every one between 40 & 199 to find out wink.gif When I did use it, I set it to 80 and moved on to tweaking the parametric EQ which took hours in its own right. Is the gap between 50, 60 & 80 too much, is delta 1 Hz being anal eek.gif or is delta 10 a practical compromise redface.gif

Maybe some of you who do those kinds of measurements can help. IF THX and the vast majority of forum members use & recommend using 80 Hz, then does making it 75 or 85 significant?

just a question, and looking for enlightenment. Because if it can make a big difference, it should be something to ask for. Otherwise, it's gee-wiz window dressing done for (ahem) marketing reasons wink.gif but CE companies don't do that, do they? eek.gif
post #44 of 1837
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

dang, you didn't just drink a glass, you drank the whole damn tank... tongue.gifbiggrin.gif
i need some time to digest that... smile.gif

from a one-liner to a chapter in 1 post eek.gif

PM to be sent later smile.gif
post #45 of 1837
Thanks for your reply.

I only meant that when its flexibel you have the possibility to:
- put your CCR at 80 or 100hz for example.
- and align your front speakers better to your subwoofer.(now only 50 or 80 and if you choose 50 its also for your center, thats not good)
- and I haven't an equalizer on my sub
So that's why I optain for Audessy or perhaps Tact to finetune.
For the rest pioneer makes very good products.
Jerry
post #46 of 1837
@steve...

sometimes, once you get started, it's hard to stop... tongue.gif i've been known to digress on occasion, so i understand... redface.gif

i think i'll pour myself a scotch and fire up a friday evening cigar and muse upon your screed... smile.gif
post #47 of 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

Maybe some of you who do those kinds of measurements can help.
At your service smile.gif. We are in the process of qualifying new AVRs for our company. I have gone through the latest models from a few companies and rejected them all. The last one is the Pioneer. So far so good! I have only done cursory testing and hope to go way deep especially in the EQ department to determine what it is and it isn't doing. Pioneer has been wonderful in supplying us extensive documentation on the capabilities of the product -- far more than other manufacturers. But as you say, verification needs to happen with external tools which I plan to do. I also intend to replace my aging Onkyo AVR at my own house so assuming this testing goes well, I will be able to put one to use that way also.

So far, I really like the cool operation as my current Onkyo even cooks the granite top of my built-in bookshelf! And to my delight, I am not hearing the typical high frequency distortions of switchmode amps in the Pioneer. It had no trouble driving our Revel Performa F52s that we have in our smaller theater. A nice benefit of high efficiency amps (in the base that is).

More when I catch up to Steve smile.gif.
post #48 of 1837
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghscholtens View Post

Thanks for your reply.
I only meant that when its flexibel you have the possibility to:
- put your CCR at 80 or 100hz for example.
- and align your front speakers better to your subwoofer.(now only 50 or 80 and if you choose 50 its also for your center, thats not good)
- and I haven't an equalizer on my sub
So that's why I optain for Audessy or perhaps Tact to finetune.
For the rest pioneer makes very good products.
Jerry

and all good choices for room correction smile.gif

and the only reason I had wanted independent cross's was similar to yours - the Magnepan center. The CC3 (which I have) is supposed to reach 80 but I think that rating is a bit optimistic wink.gif With the CCR & CC5, bass is limited to ~200hz so they could use the ribbon & quasi-ribbons to integrate better with the 3 & 20 series models.

Thats' why Magnepan has this scheme of turning off subs in the AVR, set fronts as large, then wire the sub from the front preamp outputs, so subs get the full freq range. Set the sub's internal Xover to cut off > 120 and you get a full range Maggie in the middle tongue.gif Not for me! It's counter-intuitive and basically is the same as a double-bass or Plus setting in Pioneer-speak.

As much as I dearly love my Magnepans, their centers are bass deficient even tho they sound fantastic and integrate extremely well with their fronts. Their DWM woofer is a band-aid but I thought I'd give it a shot. It does work but as I found out, it's not plug & play.
Edited by ss9001 - 8/3/12 at 6:07pm
post #49 of 1837
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

At your service smile.gif. We are in the process of qualifying new AVRs for our company....More when I catch up to Steve smile.gif.

Hi amirm

Thanks for posting this. I know I'm interested in your findings smile.gif one way or another...nice to know results of objective tests, if that's what you are doing.
Edited by ss9001 - 8/4/12 at 3:26am
post #50 of 1837
Thread Starter 
Goodfellas27,

I hope to check out the USB dac sometime this weekend & post. I can tell you are really interested in this feature wink.gif I'm not sure what to expect any diff to be & maybe that's good.
post #51 of 1837
When the budget allows the 68 seems to be on my short list the D3 amps in the 57 have really impressed me and since music is most of my library and its sound signature is very pleasing it will be a painful wait.
post #52 of 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztech View Post

When the budget allows the 68 seems to be on my short list the D3 amps in the 57 have really impressed me and since music is most of my library and its sound signature is very pleasing it will be a painful wait.

And I feel the opposite. I have an SC55 which replaced a very old 2-channel Apt-Holman preamp and Crown power amp. I feel the Apt/Crown combo sounded far better for music than the SC55. I just don't feel like the SC55 has much in the way of definition. It doesn't seem to matter whether I'm using the full MCACC and other digital processing or have it in Direct mode. The SC-55 sounds good enough for movies, although I don't sense the really dynamic "crispiness" that I hear even in some far less expensive systems, but for music it makes everything sound very dull, IMO. And by the way, I don't see how the 68 would sound any different than the 55/57 - while there are some functional enhancements, I don't think the amp design has changed in the slightest.
post #53 of 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post


Thats' why Magnepan has this scheme of turning off subs in the AVR, set fronts as large, then wire the sub from the front preamp outputs, so subs get the full freq range. Set the sub's internal Xover to cut off > 120 and you get a full range Maggie in the middle tongue.gif Not for me! It's counter-intuitive and basically is the same as a double-bass or Plus setting in Pioneer-speak.
As much as I dearly love my Magnepans, their centers are bass deficient even tho they sound fantastic and integrate extremely well with their fronts. Their DWM woofer is a band-aid but I thought I'd give it a shot. It does work but as I found out, it's not plug & play.

well it is not the same as double bass as you are supposed to adjust your subwoofer so it doesn't overlap the fronts

the advantage in my mind and ears, is that the mid bass comes out maggies (fronts) instead of subs

even if you had the denon with flexible crossovers, the mid bass from the center would go to the subs

of course if one has unlimited money, good looks, and space; as you appear to have you could buy fancy new pioneer receivers and the dwm woofer. How did that work for you btw?
post #54 of 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

And I feel the opposite. I have an SC55 which replaced a very old 2-channel Apt-Holman preamp and Crown power amp. I feel the Apt/Crown combo sounded far better for music than the SC55. I just don't feel like the SC55 has much in the way of definition. It doesn't seem to matter whether I'm using the full MCACC and other digital processing or have it in Direct mode. The SC-55 sounds good enough for movies, although I don't sense the really dynamic "crispiness" that I hear even in some far less expensive systems, but for music it makes everything sound very dull, IMO. And by the way, I don't see how the 68 would sound any different than the 55/57 - while there are some functional enhancements, I don't think the amp design has changed in the slightest.

I don't believe the D3 amps have changed since introduction but as I said they sound great IMO without strain compared to some of the class AB I have heard of late and this is using CD,SACD and DVD-A besides BR as source material.
Not sure why you are experiencing dullness its not the general consensus among other owners and reviewers of course everyone hears things differently.
post #55 of 1837
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztech View Post

I don't believe the D3 amps have changed since introduction

and you should be right smile.gif

I think I can say this...based on info from someone hi up at Pioneer wink.gif the amp chips are the same. However, Pioneer did increase the transformer/power supply capacity for this year, so that's why they get a higher power rating.

I think we'll see a review come out in near future w/bench tests which will be interesting to compare to 57/55 models. In theory, the 5 & 7 ch driven test should be even better.
Edited by ss9001 - 8/4/12 at 3:34pm
post #56 of 1837
I got a question about the dual sub outs on the SC-68.

I know you own a SC-09 which also has dual sub outs. In the SC-09 they are discrete out's meaning if you have 2 sub's the SC-09 calibrates them by them selves. Elite has started adding dual sub outs on receivers the last few years but they are just internal splitters not discrete.
Does the SC-68 have a built in splitter or are they discrete outs? My reason for this question is I want to tune my dual subs discretely not with a internal splitter. I do that now with a external splitter , I got to unplug one sub , set it up , calibrate it , unplug that sub , plug in the other sub , calibrate it , then connect both subs and then use the Elite to calibrate them together( I still have a SC-07 which I wanted to replace with the SC-57 and found that the sub outs where just a internal splitter).

Anyone ?
post #57 of 1837
^^^

unless something has radically changed, they are an internal y-split...
post #58 of 1837
This is an excellent post on theorectical advantages and disadvantages of MCACC and Audyssey. The point on using a signal xo makes very good sense and I bet the masses cannot tweak Audyssey to equal the MCACC setup. I have used speakers from several of the Klipsch lines and have been blow away with how well MCACC as timber matched and integrated the different speakers. I have an SC 37 but having been waiting to hear about the SC 68.
post #59 of 1837
Hey guys,

I have an Elite and would like to know everyone opinion on Velodyne's Optimum series subs. I am looking at this unit since it has build in room EQ and I think this will compliment the Elite MCACC since it doesn't offer sub EQ.

Please let me know. I have a itchy finger on the Velodyne's Optimum 10 unit. I will be replacing the Polk MicroPro 2000 sub-woofer with the Velodyne's Optimum. Also, have the Mythos ST as the main with build in subs.
post #60 of 1837
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodfellas27 View Post

Hey guys,
I have an Elite and would like to know everyone opinion on Velodyne's Optimum series subs. I am looking at this unit since it has build in room EQ and I think this will compliment the Elite MCACC since it doesn't offer sub EQ.
Please let me know. I have a itchy finger on the Velodyne's Optimum 10 unit. I will be replacing the Polk MicroPro 2000 sub-woofer with the Velodyne's Optimum. Also, have the Mythos ST as the main with build in subs.

I think it'd be a very good choice smile.gif

I have a Velo DD18 sub and the Optimum's EQ looks to be an auto-EQ version of what's in the DD series & their SMS unit. If you don't want to do a lot of manual tweaking, it looks to be capable enough.

Another advantage with Velodyne, IMO, is that the mfg tends to meet its specs, unlike another name brand and they are well-made.

I had very good results using the manual parametric Velo EQ'er, the only possible choice better would be to find a used SVS AS-EQ1.

It's a good match with your Pioneer.

BTW - I was sick this weekend so trying out the USB-DAC didn't happen. I managed to do couple of posts here but that's about it. The bed & I were close friends most of the time wink.gif Feel a bit better today smile.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Official Pioneer SC-68/67 Thread