Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same - Page 17

Glad to see so many experts chiming in here! Graphs, plots, audessey, DBT, ABX....
So who here is an expert on the ear, the brain, and the interface between the two? They also have 'room correction', but do we understand what they can best correct for? And then there are other animal ears, some which are even more amazing, but are just an evolutionary 'curve' from our hominid ears. I don't think any measuring equipment can mimic the total ear/brain package and it's abilities.
I have friends who for their new HT room have little Bose thingies hung ~ 7' up on the walls, a Bose music server, with the sub in a corner. Costs like 3K or more! They love it. I also have multiple friends who listen to all their music as MP3s from ipod docks. Sounds good to them! Why do I not even bother to play music on these systems? But then I knew 2 women who went to Julliard music school, one for piano & one for violin. They practiced for hours to get the right nuances, weighting, etc.
This argument here is all good & cute, but for some, not all, many kinds of equipment can make the music sound different, and yes, better. Maybe you in particular like what Audessey does, maybe you like a certain cap in your speaker's xover. We all have individual ears, with incurred abilities, likes & biases. Some folks like equipment that will reproduce instruments to sound most like they are sitting in a good small concert room, like wot I do. The initial strike, the sustain, the decay.... Some not. I find that not all amps, preamps, receivers, etc. do this stuff equally well. There are many ears that agree with me, and more that don't.
Why? Is it training, exposure, innate ability, graph reading ability (the last, not in my case!)?
But don't let me interrupt....

Murf

Thank you, + me

I'd like to add that listening to both camps with an open mind is a better idea than the my way or the highway attitude. But I think it is more to audio SQ than basic performance measurements, frequency and distortion etc.

Especially if your priority is music listening pleasure vs just building a fine home theater set up, then keeping an open mind is a good idea. At least in my experience. Have you seen posts were people are satisfied with thier surround sound set up but not truly satisfied with the performance of their two channel performance for music listening? I think (call me nuts, I don't care!) other things besides room correction, speaker set up and room treatments can have a positive affect on sound quality, these other things that some would dismiss as snake oil, plecebo affects etc.


I've tried tweaks over the years that the scientific folks here would baulk at, and some very cheap DIY tweaks actually worked for me, though
yeiled small improvements.

To name a strange idea that worked for me, DIY room lenses. Other tweaks that address component resonance (footers, roller blocks etc.) AC power quality (dedicated AC lines etc.) contact cleaning and enhancers may be worth experimenting with, that is if you enjoy experimenting, which is part of the hobby to me.

I won't reveal the last free tweak I tried because it will be rediculed to peices here, I even baulked at and thought nonesense! But keeping an open mind and bored one day I gave the tweak a try.

Bottom line is this is a hobby not to be taken too seriously but to pass time and add enjoyment to your life!

 

How do you know they 'worked'?

the problem is that everything works. people's pain REALLY gets better when they take placebos. Not because of the placebo, though. Because pain is one of those really weird experiences. It might be caused by a twisted ankle or broken tooth but how much it bothers you can vary greatly depending on a wide range of factors. Heck, just watching a good movie can take your mind off the pain and make it seem to go away. That's why they have controlled tests and used them thar new-fangled statistics to figure out if the non-placebo actually works more or more often or more strongly than the placebo. If humans weren't human all them shennanigans wouldn't matter. Personally, I;ll take my humanity, but I like to mix in a strong dollop of science to inform my experience.

Hearing is very mujch the same. I hear different stuff on familiar recordings through the same system with no objective changes somewhat routinely. Because it's a state of mind kinda thing.

So, I admit, when I fall in love with the "sound" of a new guitar, I may be responding to factors other than the sound. (Ooh, it's purty! or I'ts gotta have character look how old and beat up it is.) And it's further complicated by the fact that an experienced player gets "his" (or her) sound largely through the use of their hands, varying their technique more or less subconsciously to get what they want out of a partiuclar instrument, more or less whether the instrument "wants" to give it or not. So does the guitar give me what I want more easily, or am I falling in love with a pretty (or at least characterful) face? Almost entirely un-testable, I fear, from a truly scientific perspective, if only because the player who can comfortably get everything they want out of an unfamiliar instrument with a blindfold on is few and far between . . . .

Well everything I tried didn't work. What about things people tried and decided didn't work, was it just the mood they were in? If something seems to work every day than does it mean my brain retains placebo affects? Some claim the money spent or something "pretty" or "cool" or hype causes the placebo affect.

If a change or tweak gives me more enjoyment or connection to the music and wanting to spend more time listening, to me it worked!

I don't want to argue, just an IMO and experience thing.
Edited by Todd68 - 2/15/13 at 11:50am

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Everything doesn't work for everybody, just like placebo pills don't fix everybody's pain. Everything (pretty much) works for somebody, though.

It occurs at a subconscious level, so no I can neither explain nor control it nor suggest that any human being could control it (that's kinda what subconscious means).

So did I hear a real difference in bass with different amps and different cables when audigioning my former Sonus Fabers? Maybe. Maybe they're hard enough to drive that a lower output impedance or different series resistance changed frequency response. Or maybe not. Today, I'd trust measurements properly made more than by subjective reaction on those points. More bass almost just has to be, by definition, more bass, and more can be measured . . . . But just like I can be subconsciously swayed by the look or feel or smell of a guitar my reactions to gear X on day Y may be controlled by factors other than what phisically impinges on my ears . . . .

But when I found that neither listening nor measurements actually demonstrated any differences in bass from my Maggies, despite the (at least) dozens of folks who say they need big power to make bass I didn't sit around and wring my hands and wonder why I couldn't hear what wasn't there. My final takeaway on the big-power-for-Maggies thing is that folks who hear a diffference are pushing the speakers into compresision, at which point, of course they sound different (and they'd measure different, too . . .)

The equipment can easily surpass the ear/brain abilities in terms of audibility, but you're right you can't influence the equipments' perception of what it's measuring like you can with the human brain.

 

Agreed. I too hear different things on familiar content, depending on all manner of things. My mood, whether I am tired, etc etc. If I am very tired, for example, my system can sometimes sound a little edgy. I know it isn't because I have measured it to death and, in any case, it usually sounds absolutely terrific. The only conclusion: my tired brain is causing the 'edginess' and not the system. When I notice this, I turn in and get some sleep. All is back to normal next day. That's one of the reasons I believe measuring is so important - it is entirely objective and repeatable.

 

Great answer. And in one sentence. I considered answering but decided it would take more time than I have right now - then I saw your to-the-point response. :)

I dunno, seeing your photo, would think your ears could challenge any gear

 

That's my golden ear. Extensive audio workouts over many years have developed it that way :)

Hey guys, I might market Ear Extenders! Different sizes for various levels of affects, really big ones similar to Kbarnes for most affect, I would guarantee you hear the difference!

Benefits are increased treble and midrange plus slightly wider soundstage, also I will include free of charge an ear wax removal system (Qtips) for those who can't hear subtle audible differences from high end cables!

Basic Ear Extenders will be a bargain at $199.95 this includes the wax removal system!

Reference models will be priced at $499.95, the reference model is made using the latest rubber extrusion technique and special mixture of compounds we found add the best stage width and depth, plus better coherency at all frequency ranges!

Plus, the q-tips included with the reference system have racing stripes.

 

LOL!!!

I personally have never heard Audyssey or any other auto room correction receiver in action. And other than when watching a movie I'm never sitting while listing to music, I'm moving from room to room doing things around the house.

so my question is, would I benefit from an AVR with room correction? or would I be wasting my money?

Isn't the main purpose of room correction in the AVR to balance out the sq at a specific listing point? (for the most part)

I've been leaning towards the outlaw 975, than I started to here a lot of talk about how great Audyssey is. The oulaw under $600. Audyssey over $700, and some over $1000.

If moving around, casually listening to music then no, obviously room correction won't matter at all.

It would probably help with movies, especially if you have a decent sub. I have an Anthem MRX500 with ARC room correction which equalises the sub and makes it sound good (it used to boom one note due to room reflections) plus it balances out the other speaker reflections as well.

Though if you are happy with what you have now then that's fine. Maybe put off your purchase for a while and lower priced kit will include better room EQ.

There are so many different add-ons you could create for them! Ceramic cones to put under your seat when you are listening, on and on...

The auto setup of receivers do quite a few things; not only do they set the speakers to be around the same volume at the primary listening spot, they do a lot of other things.

• EQ the speakers and the subwoofer (well most do, MCACC for example does not EQ the subwoofer)
• Set speaker distances and volume levels
• Speakers are generally set to around 75dB (but it is best to check with a meter because usually they are more "ballparked")
• Activate other features, like Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume

So to answer your question, yes it will change the sound because of the EQ and the settings it applies. Yet you will get the most benefit sitting near the main spot in the room. I have had room correction make my system sound worse and have lower dynamics, but mileage and tastes vary. When you do run the auto setup, search on this forum for tips on how to do it properly. One tip is if you have pictures or a mirror on the wall that is easy to take down, I would suggest removing them if possible before you calibrate. They tend to cause unneeded reflections and your room correction results will not be as good. I had two pictures on my wall directly behind my prime listening spot and removing them made my system sound much better.

Hope this helps.

I find this thread basically pointless because people are split on this matter entirely. If you think they all sound the same and think you have evidence to support this, that is fine. If you find they sound different, that is your personal experience and I do not think scientific study or tests will change that fact. But you may be shocked a very expensive amp or receiver does not outperform a much cheaper unit, so watch for snake oil. I do not find the need to talk of the different abilities of people in here; some know more than others but that does not make you more correct. The audio industry is fairly split on this subject and there are arguments that go both ways, this is true regardless of how much you know.

My take on it is this: in a double blind test, your senses are not going to be as sharp as they would be in subjective listening. Under certain circumstances you may hear receivers sound "similar" or "too close to call" but in real use, you will likely hear differences, some slight and some not so slight. Adding an amp alone can certainly change and likely increase audio performance but I am sure there are expensive products that work and sound no better than your average AVR. You should never assume a receiver or amp is going to sound better just because it costs more, it may but it may also get spanked by cheaper products or equaled.

One thing I have encountered from my experience is that Yamaha receivers I have heard do tend to emphasize the higher frequencies more than other receivers I have heard. This is especially apparent when you hook them up to bright speakers. I would not buy a receiver based on just sound quality because you can likely tweak all AVR units to sound similar and you can even tone down emphasized frequencies rather easily.

Once you set a receiver you are changing the sound almost completely different than you did when you brought it out of the box. Room correction, once used, applies an EQ. As soon as you apply EQ to something, you are changing the sound signature. This is why I do not understand this thread or the argument placed within it; a test room and your own room are different places. Every room has acoustics, shapes, reflection points, carpet/hardwood/drywall/concrete and other materials, vibrations, etc. Tests cannot account for these variations but your ears can and you will be setting your receiver differently to account for these changes. Even the same receiver placed in a different room would have different room correction setting results alone and it is extraordinarily difficult to do an accurate A/B test at home. It would not even be worth the time or effort. Not to mention you would be setting a receiver differently for a test than in normal use. Once you change a sound setting, there will be differences.

When setting two receivers into a proper DBT, you are doing everything you can to negate differences. You are bypassing the DSP, level matching them within .5dB. The room and speakers would be the same. In this case you would for sure have trouble audibly picking one receiver from another. The problem is this does not tell you what it would sound like in your room, or how it would sound if you did not bypass everything. It also fails to tell you anything useful other than the products can sound similar in that environment and the receivers can sound similar with everything bypassed. It is no indication of quality or even quantity of sound, it just says that in a DBT you would have trouble choosing one over the other. This is why I said this is pointless to argue about.

If I was going to buy a AVR, I would buy the one that gives me the features I would want and work 100% as intended. That is the most important factor because basically all AVR's sound good (unless paired with bad speaker matches).

Just my $.02. I am not starting trouble or getting into an argument, rather I just think people need to discuss things more civil or keep the opinions to yourself completely if you cannot do it in a civilized manner.

 

The main purpose of electronic room EQ like Audyssey is to compensate as far as possible for the problems which the room introduces into the SQ equation. All rooms have modes, most rooms have undesirable reflective surfaces and Audyssey can help tame some of these problems which are a form of distortion. If you have a room that is of ideal proportions, ideal construction and is well treated, then electronic EQ won't do much. But few people have such rooms, so electronic EQ is helpful. If you choose an AVR with electronic EQ, make sure that it EQs the bass frequencies because this is where the room has most problems and where EQ can benefit you most. Some electronic EQ systems like Pioneer's MCACC and Audyssey's basic MultEQ 2EQ do not touch the bass and so they are, IMO, useless. If considering Audyssey, go for at least XT and preferably, if you can, XT32. You can read about the differences between them in my Audyssey FAQ, here:

 

H. MultEQ: What Is It, How Does It Work?

Thanks Keith, I agree that XT32 would be the way to go in auto room correction IMO, but how about the part where I'm never in the same room as the speakers? I realize that the minute you start to adjust the EQ, you will hear the difference in every room, but in other rooms the bass may now sound to heavy, or the other way around. so am I really gaining any thing for the amount of money that I would have to spend in a receiver that has XT32?

Thanks for the tips on wall hangings RS143, who would have thought!
You brought up the DBT word, LOL... And we just got all those worms put back in to the can.

 

If you are not in the room where the system is playing, none of this matters. Getting the room right only matters if you are in the room when listening. For casual listening like the sort you describe (which I also do too) it doesn't matter. When you listen in the room the system is in, XT32 will make a significant difference/improvement to your SQ.

Thanks Arny,

No manual equalization... WOW, I never caught that! I will look closer at the 975

I do not plan to use the power amps of an AVR I have seven amps already, so the pre pro works for me.

Audessy in an AVR for under $300.??!! To use one of your phrases "please provide a reference." And I will check it out.

What I'm wanting out of an AVR is to be able to decode the 5.1 over the air TV broadcasts, and use my own amps. The only way I know to do that is through either a pre pro, or the pre outs of an AVR. And most AVR's with pre outs start at $600.

in recent months I bought some new Wharfedale speakers that my old amps would not power efficiently. So I bought the Xpa3 by emo, and all is great. so my concern is that a small AVR may not provide the power that My Wharfedales require to woke efficiently.

going as inexpensively as possible is important to me as I pursue this quest to get 5.1 sound from over the air broadcasts. any Ideas?

search amazon or other sellers for lower end denons and onkyos, you can find plenty of models from the last couple of years going for under $300. granted most of the lower models only have audyssey 2eq or basic multeq, but still audyssey tech none the less.

here is just one example:

http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AVR-1612-Channel-Theater-Receiver/dp/B004U403WM/ref=sr_1_9?s=aht&ie=UTF8&qid=1361112840&sr=1-9&keywords=audyssey

Lower end models of Denons, at least, won't have pre-outs, which is one of the stated requirements. He'd have to step up to the 3312ci (or 3313ci for the current model) for that feature.

+1
I am surprised at the features in this Denon though for the price. I'm downloading the manual now just to take a closer look, it has an L. R. pre out put that I don't understand.

Edit
The two pre outs on the back are for 7 channel operation.
Edited by ZOOM ZOOM - 2/17/13 at 7:32am