or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › Adding an integrated to a receiver.. Affordable upgrade or not?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adding an integrated to a receiver.. Affordable upgrade or not? - Page 2

post #31 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Why "integrated"? You'd want a power amp, not an integrated amp.
(Did I miss something?)

You're right, of course. A dedicated power amp, not an integrated amp (which is a power amp plus preamp), is what the OP should be asking about. But the answers are generally the same either way.
post #32 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martycool007 View Post

I just don't under stand why you bought those expensive bluray and CD players when all you need is a Bluray player as CD's will sound the same in either one! Plus, any marginal benefit that you might get from any equipment upgrades will likely be unnoticeable on those Entergy speakers. I don't care how highly reguarded you say they are, the reality is that they are not transparent enough to notice any marginal improvements you might (or most likely might not) get by upgrading your gear! It is foolish to buy all of that expensive gear when your speaker and room are the major limiting factors. This is madness! I am not trying to be a jerk, but someone needs to talk some sense into you before you blow any more money on a system upgrade that will never benefit you! I have plenty of experience with Entergy speakers, so don't tell me how high end you think they are!

FWIW, I too like to have a dedicated CD player in addition to a Blu-Ray player or DVD player - and the reason has nothing to do with sound quality. I simply find Blu-Ray players and DVD players maddeningly slow when playing CDs. In my experience, dedicated CD players read the discs much quicker, find tracks much quicker, have easier to use remotes, etc.
post #33 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

You're right, of course. A dedicated power amp, not an integrated amp (which is a power amp plus preamp), is what the OP should be asking about. But the answers are generally the same either way.
I assumed he was interested in an Integrated amp with a "HT-Bypass", so that in Home Theater mode, the integrated acts like a power amp, with the A/V receiver acting as pre-amp. When in 2-channel mode, the source component (CD Player) would go direct to the Integrated, so that you would be using the preamp in the Integrated, rather than the A/V Receiver.
FWIW, I do this with my Cambridge Audio Azur 740A Integrated, and my Pioneer VSX-1018 Receiver.
I do not know if it sounds better, but I really dont like MCACC with 2-channel material very much.
post #34 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdcrox View Post

I do not know if it sounds better, but I really dont like MCACC with 2-channel material very much.

I think this is why AVRs have gained a reputation for some people as being not so good for music. A bad configuration/setup could be worse than a straight 2ch preamp.

I have never liked the auto configuration my Yamaha comes up with and don't even bother with it now and I just do everything manually. Speaker distances I can measure and set myself. Trim levels I can measure and set myself. Sub distance and level and crossover point and phase I can adjust and measure with a real time analyser myself. Any EQ or PEQ I can apply myself knowing exactly what has been done.

I have never owned an AVR with Audyssey and while some people swear by it, there are others that aren't overly impressed with it... so I don't think an automated Audyssey configuration is the be-all and end-all either.

So if someone has been listening to an AVR with a bad configuration... then understandably a straight 2ch amp could sound better for them. However once I learn more about audio and room acoustics and the subtleties of configuring my AVR myself, I started to achieve the sound quality gains and a greater enjoyment of music than with my 2ch amps.
post #35 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdcrox View Post

I do not know if it sounds better, but I really dont like MCACC with 2-channel material very much.

I think this is why AVRs have gained a reputation for some people as being not so good for music.

Ignores a lot of influences that are probably far stronger.

Around here I've seen a strong bias against AVRs among people who come out of the 2 channel tradition. Not that long ago I was repeatedly reamed in public for even mentioning AVRs on a 2-channel forum. Secondly, it is not obvious that an AVR knows what to do in a 2-channel environment. Thirdly AVRs used to put a lot of questionable (for 2-channel) circuitry and controls into their signal path. Fourthly, it is counter-intuitive that you can buy an AVR with all those facilities, features, bells and whistles for substantially less than a far simpler 2-channel receiver. Finally, AVRs didn't used to have have unique features like automated system tuning facilities (Audyssey, MCACC, YPAO) to offer.
Quote:
A bad configuration/setup could be worse than a straight 2ch preamp.

One big reason for that is with power comes responsibility and since AVRs are far more functionally powerful than 2-channel amps, preamps, and receivers there are more ways to shoot yourself in the foot.
Quote:
I have never liked the auto configuration my Yamaha comes up with and don't even bother with it now and I just do everything manually. Speaker distances I can measure and set myself. Trim levels I can measure and set myself. Sub distance and level and crossover point and phase I can adjust and measure with a real time analyser myself. Any EQ or PEQ I can apply myself knowing exactly what has been done.

I'm not sure if the above is technical fact or a statement of your personal state of mind. Many AVRs provide similar manual facilities, and here you are reaming AVRs, seemingly as if they didn't.


I have never owned an AVR with Audyssey and while some people swear by it, there are others that aren't overly impressed with it... so I don't think an automated Audyssey configuration is the be-all and end-all either.
Quote:
So if someone has been listening to an AVR with a bad configuration... then understandably a straight 2ch amp could sound better for them.

So what corrective action do we recommend? Do take steps to get a better configuration of the AVR or do we dump the thing and step back into the 1980s with seperates?
Quote:
However once I learn more about audio and room acoustics and the subtleties of configuring my AVR myself, I started to achieve the sound quality gains and a greater enjoyment of music than with my 2ch amps.

That sounds positive for AVRs, I think it is a truism that the better we understand how to configure our systems, the better results we will in general obtain.
post #36 of 65
Thread Starter 
This conversation is getting more and more interesting... Reaping more info than I could hope for!

@ Sivadselim, you did miss something . Like Jdcrox assumed, I was indeed looking for an integrated precisely for bypass or unity gain, whatever the name of the technology the maker stamps it. I'd really hate to fiddle with volume controls every once in a while because I switch from music to movies... But knowing what i've learned here now, I won't get an integrated at all.
Quote:
[More ways to shoot yourself in the foot../QUOTE] I shouldn't be able to stand up correctly then, wink.gif I think I've encountered all the possible problems , from abusive toe-in to the total lack of absorbing surfaces with very little room correction (used the auto mcacc until a little while ago) !... Thinking about it, it would have plagued a nice power amp / integrated too, though
Quote:
However once I learn more about audio and room acoustics and the subtleties of configuring my AVR myself, I started to achieve the sound quality gains and a greater enjoyment of music than with my 2ch amps.

The smell of hope flourishes every f'n where now!


Also standing reassured from the fact a good avr does seem to be able to deliver pretty good performance overall! I'm almost happy to have all those corrections to make on my system, The brain is happy to get some new learning, but the wallet suffers from goodsound craving !

Still doing research about which subwoofer I shall choose... By seeing the limited info available on subs VS speakers, I think that a lot of people do the same mistake than me.. Underestimating the importance of a better subwoofer!

About room treatments.. I have a big window covered by "semi-heavy" cloth drapes. on a side wall.. Should I get say... Heavy leather drapes, or , does a special variety of neat acoustic drapery exists?
post #37 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I'm not sure if the above is technical fact or a statement of your personal state of mind.

In the next few days I'll do a new YPAO run and post a frequency response measurement of what it gives verses my own manual adjustment results and also a description of how the two different results sound to me.

Quote:
So what corrective action do we recommend? Do take steps to get a better configuration of the AVR or do we dump the thing and step back into the 1980s with seperates?

Obviously I won't be going back to my old 2ch preamps as they don't even offer any of those adjustable parameters. I would however consider a more basic pre that only had manually adjustable parameters without any form of automated room correction.
post #38 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Obviously I won't be going back to my old 2ch preamps as they don't even offer any of those adjustable parameters. I would however consider a more basic pre that only had manually adjustable parameters without any form of automated room correction.

 

Not being argumentative or anything (just interested in your view), but why would you not want automated room correction?  Even in a heavily treated room (like my own), I find that Audyssey XT32 is the 'icing on the cake' and it helps with the final frequency response anomalies that acoustic treatments and speaker placement can't help with (for reasons of practicality, aesthetics etc). The only other way would be to use some form of PEQ and measuring software such as REW I guess. The Emotiva UMC-200 pre-pro is a more 'basic' unit which has a form of automated EQ but also has a very nice PEQ as well. HST, I find that if you get the room as good as possible, an automated EQ system like XT32 works very well.

 

When using manual PEQ of course, it can't be done without REW (or similar) and a good calibrated mic and the knowledge of how to use it properly. But certainly, good results can be obtained that way. I was just wondering why you would deliberately want a unit without automated EQ?

post #39 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Not that long ago I was repeatedly reamed in public....................

Got any pics? eek.gif
post #40 of 65
Uhm, I sure hope not, and if he does, let's hope he's not as willing to share as Anthony Weiner seems to be! tongue.gif
post #41 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Not being argumentative or anything (just interested in your view), but why would you not want automated room correction?

Just saying I could live without it providing I had manual adjustments. I subscribe to the school of thought that EQ or PEQ shouldn't be applied above the room's transition frequency.
post #42 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Not being argumentative or anything (just interested in your view), but why would you not want automated room correction?

Just saying I could live without it providing I had manual adjustments. I subscribe to the school of thought that EQ or PEQ shouldn't be applied above the room's transition frequency.

 

Thanks. Yes, I tend to agree with you. Audyssey XT32 was such an improvement over other versions of Audyssey because, among other things, they really reigned in any correction of the higher frequencies. IMO and based on experience, the 'lower' versions of Audyssey are not really all that amazing - but XT32 is terrific. Even with the ability to measure and to use subsequent PEQ in a well-treated room, I don't think I would want to be without XT32.

post #43 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

If you can look beyond the writing style, he makes some very worthwhile points. The main point about the speakers is, really, that you haven’t actually heard them yet. You have heard the room a lot, but the speakers less so, if you follow me. The room is by far the most significant component in your system and the one that most influences what you hear. $20,000 speakers in a bad room will likely sound a lot worse than $1,000 speakers in a good room. It is perhaps significant that those who have made a lot of effort to make a really good room will often use speakers that some would consider 'cheap' or 'unworthy'. Why is that?  Now I am not advocating crappy speakers by any means (and low coast does not invariably mean low quality) - the speakers and sub are right there in line with the room in terms of where to spend money to get better sound. Put low cost (but good) speakers in a great room and the sound will be terrific. Use better quality speakers with better FR performance, on/off-axis performance etc, in a good room, and they will really, really shine. 

As far as electronics are concerned - they make very little difference in these digital days. Did you know that the DACs in your high-end CD player cost probably less than $10?  Did you know that even these low-cost DACs have a FR from 15Hz to 40,000Hz that deviates by only a tiny fraction of a dB?  DACs cannot be differentiated in properly conducted ABX tests, so why worry about them?  Nowadays, any decently designed and made (read: inexpensive) Bluray or CD player will perform as well as any other, so there's a great place to save money and put it where there really is a difference: the speakers and room.  I am not trying to disrespect you or your choices so far - there is absolutely nothing wrong with what you have bought - but your money will be better spent in the future if you use the knowledge you are now acquiring, that's all. So electronics - buy any you like, but remember they make very little difference to what you hear. Cables - buy Monoprice or Blue Jeans and forget about them. And don't even consider rubbish like special AC power cords and so on!

Agree with all of this, but want to point out one thing: If high-end CD players sold in high quantities, like millions per year, then the price of the DAC chips in them could be well under $10. Quantity purchased from the DAC chip company plays a huge role in how much they cost.

Example 1: Oh, you're going to buy 1000 units from us? Ok, they're $10 each. Thanks for your business, high-end audio company.
Example 2: Oh, your'e going to buy 500,000 units from us? Ok, they're $1.80 each. Thanks for your business, mass-market audio/video company.

It's worse than that. Building a music player requires licensing firmware, which can involve a hefty initial payment as well as per-piece payments.

We've recently seen evidence that some high end players are just mass market players that have been either rebadged or reboxed. Obviously, they are going to cost more as a result of the added costs, since the player is probably be initially purchased at wholesale prices to retailers, at best.
post #44 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

If you can look beyond the writing style, he makes some very worthwhile points. The main point about the speakers is, really, that you haven’t actually heard them yet. You have heard the room a lot, but the speakers less so, if you follow me. The room is by far the most significant component in your system and the one that most influences what you hear. $20,000 speakers in a bad room will likely sound a lot worse than $1,000 speakers in a good room. It is perhaps significant that those who have made a lot of effort to make a really good room will often use speakers that some would consider 'cheap' or 'unworthy'. Why is that?  Now I am not advocating crappy speakers by any means (and low coast does not invariably mean low quality) - the speakers and sub are right there in line with the room in terms of where to spend money to get better sound. Put low cost (but good) speakers in a great room and the sound will be terrific. Use better quality speakers with better FR performance, on/off-axis performance etc, in a good room, and they will really, really shine. 

As far as electronics are concerned - they make very little difference in these digital days. Did you know that the DACs in your high-end CD player cost probably less than $10?  Did you know that even these low-cost DACs have a FR from 15Hz to 40,000Hz that deviates by only a tiny fraction of a dB?  DACs cannot be differentiated in properly conducted ABX tests, so why worry about them?  Nowadays, any decently designed and made (read: inexpensive) Bluray or CD player will perform as well as any other, so there's a great place to save money and put it where there really is a difference: the speakers and room.  I am not trying to disrespect you or your choices so far - there is absolutely nothing wrong with what you have bought - but your money will be better spent in the future if you use the knowledge you are now acquiring, that's all. So electronics - buy any you like, but remember they make very little difference to what you hear. Cables - buy Monoprice or Blue Jeans and forget about them. And don't even consider rubbish like special AC power cords and so on!

Agree with all of this, but want to point out one thing: If high-end CD players sold in high quantities, like millions per year, then the price of the DAC chips in them could be well under $10. Quantity purchased from the DAC chip company plays a huge role in how much they cost.

Example 1: Oh, you're going to buy 1000 units from us? Ok, they're $10 each. Thanks for your business, high-end audio company.
Example 2: Oh, your'e going to buy 500,000 units from us? Ok, they're $1.80 each. Thanks for your business, mass-market audio/video company.

 

It doesn’t really make much difference wrt to DACs. There is no benefit to using a DAC that is any better than one where its main parameters exceeds by a mile the ability of humans to hear any differences. When you see people spending hundreds of dollars on a 'magic' DAC, you know they have wasted their money because the differences between them cannot be heard by human beings. Blind test after blind test has proved this beyond any reasonable doubt. The point I was trying to get across is that DACs are now cheap, commodity components. We can just forget about them - the DACs in any equipm,ent you are likely to buy are more than good enough for the job.

 

The whole issue is a distraction. You see people swearing they can hear a difference between DAC A and DAC B and then you take a look at their listening rooms and you see no acoustic treatments, speakers placed in the wrong place, subs placed in unimagineably bad positions etc etc. They are trying to convince you they can hear, with their golden ears, differences that cannot possibly exist, but they apparently can't even hear the 20-30dB swings in frequency response that are common in untreated rooms! 

post #45 of 65
^Yep, you'll get no disagreement from me there. I was simply pointing out how cheap parts can be when a company has the purchasing power orders of magnitude greater than another company.
post #46 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

^Yep, you'll get no disagreement from me there. I was simply pointing out how cheap parts can be when a company has the purchasing power orders of magnitude greater than another company.

 

+1.

post #47 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

^Yep, you'll get no disagreement from me there. I was simply pointing out how cheap parts can be when a company has the purchasing power orders of magnitude greater than another company.

+1.

And this helps explain why a $269 AVR can be a superior replacement for a $450 2-channel receiver or $800 collection of separates.
post #48 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

And this helps explain why a $269 AVR can be a superior replacement for a $450 2-channel receiver or $800 collection of separates.

Or even a $15,000 collection of separates in some cases. biggrin.gif

--Ethan
post #49 of 65
Thread Starter 
I'm amazed to see that the avr seems to get a lot more praise than I ever thought it could...

So, would you go as far as saying that separates are now overpriced things from the past?!
post #50 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aarghon View Post

I'm amazed to see that the avr seems to get a lot more praise than I ever thought it could...

So, would you go as far as saying that separates are now overpriced things from the past?!

 

It depends. Certainly the modern AVR is a formidable piece of kit and we could never have dreamed of such a device back in the days of our stereo systems. You can also choose an AVR from the major manufacturers that has more power than you will likely ever need, complete with automated room correction, at an astonishingly good price. Not to mention the usually excellent video processing, the various DSPs and all the other bells and whistles.

 

OTOH, the use of a separate prepro and power amps is also a valid choice in some circumstances. For anyone with speakers that are especially difficult to drive, or have very low impedance, or are extremely inefficient, separate power amps can play a useful role in bringing the power and headroom that is needed for effortless reproduction to movie Reference levels.  And some purists would say that separating the pre and power amps is a good thing - keeping the small, delicate preamp signals away from the big, brutish power amp signals. Not to mention the possible benefits of separate power supplies.

 

What I do think is an overpriced thing from the past, these days, is the conventional 'stereo' integrated amplifier/receiver. Seems to me, even for a two channel system, better value is obtained by buying an AVR. It opens up the possibility of using Audyssey etc, and gives the chance of adding a subwoofer for a decent 2.1 system. Not to mention the expandability later, if desired, to a true multichannel system.

post #51 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

IMO and based on experience, the 'lower' versions of Audyssey are not really all that amazing - but XT32 is terrific. Even with the ability to measure and to use subsequent PEQ in a well-treated room, I don't think I would want to be without XT32.

I would certainly like to try a Denon receiver with XT32 but the particular models over here in New Zealand with it are quite expensive and would be a lot of money for me to drop on one just to 'try'. I could get two SVS SB13-Ultras for the same money and would probably return me more of an improvement. So many people have recommended that XT32 is so much better than the other versions that I don't want to waste my money on a lower model Denon that doesn't have XT32.

I did try another YPAO calibration the other day. It must have seen a bit of a dip my room has at 140hz and gave a crossover of 160hz to my speakers! Its EQ also tried to pull the higher frequencies down a bit, but just destroyed some of the finer details and made things sound a bit flat. And it left a nasty big 85hz peak that caused a lot of boom and smearing in the bass.

So far I have turned its EQ off, dropped the crossover to 80hz, and applied my own PEQ in JRiver of -4 dB at 85hz Q5 and things sound much better.
post #52 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

IMO and based on experience, the 'lower' versions of Audyssey are not really all that amazing - but XT32 is terrific. Even with the ability to measure and to use subsequent PEQ in a well-treated room, I don't think I would want to be without XT32.

I would certainly like to try a Denon receiver with XT32 but the particular models over here in New Zealand with it are quite expensive and would be a lot of money for me to drop on one just to 'try'. I could get two SVS SB13-Ultras for the same money and would probably return me more of an improvement. So many people have recommended that XT32 is so much better than the other versions that I don't want to waste my money on a lower model Denon that doesn't have XT32.

I did try another YPAO calibration the other day. It must have seen a bit of a dip my room has at 140hz and gave a crossover of 160hz to my speakers! Its EQ also tried to pull the higher frequencies down a bit, but just destroyed some of the finer details and made things sound a bit flat. And it left a nasty big 85hz peak that caused a lot of boom and smearing in the bass.

So far I have turned its EQ off, dropped the crossover to 80hz, and applied my own PEQ in JRiver of -4 dB at 85hz Q5 and things sound much better.

 

Point taken about the cost of the gear. Onkyo have the excellent 818 which has XT32 and preouts if you later want to run separate amps for any reason - it is an amazing bargain IMO at less than $1,000 if you shop around. No idea what they sell for in NZ though. I also believe Denon have recently introduced a lower-cost AVR that has XT32, BICBW as I my Denon knowledge is scant. 

 

I agree that the dual SVS subs would bring you substantial benefits. But XT32 is amazingly good with the correction to the bass frequencies, so you would really benefit from XT32 if you had those subs. Which you went for first is a difficult call. If you have a good room and you can optimise the placement of the subs, I'd probably go for the subs first. If your room is untreated or otherwise less than ideal and you perhaps struggle with optimised sub placement, then I'd probably go for XT32 first. I would not buy a unit that had less than XT32 on it whichever way I went. 

 

I used to be a big fan of Yamaha and have owned one of their AVRs (forget now which one). IME, YPAO is not as good as Audyssey and certainly not as good as XT32. I don't want to offend any Yamaha enthusiasts out there, as Yamaha make great gear, but in this one regard of auto room correction, I believe that Audyssey have eclipsed them.

post #53 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

I would certainly like to try a Denon receiver with XT32 but the particular models over here in New Zealand with it are quite expensive and would be a lot of money for me to drop on one just to 'try'. I could get two SVS SB13-Ultras for the same money and would probably return me more of an improvement. So many people have recommended that XT32 is so much better than the other versions that I don't want to waste my money on a lower model Denon that doesn't have XT32.
.

XT32 bearing AVRs isn't exactly cheap over here. I can remember when I could scout one up for maybe $600 but last time I tried the price was more like $1K.

When I had to spend my cash the last time I sprung for for a new AVR that had Audyssey it had Multieq, and it did a nice job on my new speakers. They didn't take a lot of eq, but the perception of naturalness seemed to improve.

I wonder what would happen if someone used the various levels of Audyssey (or YPAO or MCACC or whatever) and used good testing procedures to compare them. I suspect that the law of diminishing returns would be at least a little apparent.

BTW the AVR I replaced with my Denon 1913 was a Yamaha, from just before they started putting YPAO into their AVRs.
post #54 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk@pcavtech View Post

I wonder what would happen if someone used the various levels of Audyssey (or YPAO or MCACC or whatever) and used good testing procedures to compare them. I suspect that the law of diminishing returns would be at least a little apparent.
 

 

I can't speak for anything other than Audyssey, but I do have extensive experience with XT and XT32. I have also taken measurements using REW and these basically confirm what my ears hear when XT32 is switched on and off.

 

You are right that diminishing returns will always be a factor in the 'upgrade' process, but there are also substantial technical differences between XT and XT32.

 

As the chart below shows, the filter resolution for XT32 is substantially better than for XT, both for the satellites and also the sub. I think it is this which produces the demonstrable superiority in the bass correction abilities of XT32 as compared with XT. Also, with XT32, Audyssey changed the way the correction works above Schroeder and for those frequencies they operate on a 'less is more' basis with XT32. One of the complaints about XT is the way it corrects the upper frequencies, but this is seldom heard wrt to XT32.

 

Of course, as with any form of automated room EQ, the better the room is to start with, the better the corrected results will be, so in no way is auto-EQ any sort of direct substitute for acoustic treatments and proper speaker and sub placement. Ideally IMO, the room should be treated, speaker/sub placement optimised and then electronic EQ applied as the 'icing on the cake' to deal with things which were compromised wrt to treatments and speaker placement (due, eg, to WAF or practicalities of room topography). For those who, for whatever reason, cannot treat their rooms or optimise their speaker placements, XT32 does an impressive job - but it is always better when the room is better to start with, as one would expect.

 

 

I have little knowledge of YPAO but wrt to MCACC, this, IMO, is fairly useless as AFAIK it does not correct the bass frequencies at all, which of course is precisely where correction is most needed.

post #55 of 65
An integrated amplifier will give you no benefit over your AVR. That's the crux of the matter.

Meanwhile, the CD player gives you no benefit for CD playback over your Blu-ray player (all talk about DACs and video circuitry notwithstanding), and the Kimber cables are worthless relative to anything else, but those items are water over the dam. (Personally, I'd still ditch the CD player just because it takes up space and introduces unnecessary power and interconnect cables into the system, which I don't like.)

As others have suggested, if you want to hear something different (not necessarily better, but definitely different), experiment with speakers.
post #56 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Onkyo have the excellent 818 which has XT32 and preouts if you later want to run separate amps for any reason - it is an amazing bargain IMO at less than $1,000 if you shop around. No idea what they sell for in NZ though.

Most retailers seem to be dropping Onkyo and Integras from their lineups over here. They used to be quite common in most of the big brand name stores but not any more.
post #57 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Onkyo have the excellent 818 which has XT32 and preouts if you later want to run separate amps for any reason - it is an amazing bargain IMO at less than $1,000 if you shop around. No idea what they sell for in NZ though.

Most retailers seem to be dropping Onkyo and Integras from their lineups over here. They used to be quite common in most of the big brand name stores but not any more.

 

That's odd - dropping the world's best-selling AV brand. I wonder if there is a problem with their distributor in NZ?

post #58 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk@pcavtech View Post

 
I wonder what would happen if someone used the various levels of Audyssey (or YPAO or MCACC or whatever) and used good testing procedures to compare them. I suspect that the law of diminishing returns would be at least a little apparent.
 

 

An addendum to my earlier reply.

 

By coincidence, someone reminded me yesterday that this has been done in the Official Audyssey Thread. The graph below shows dramatically the difference between Audyssey XT32 and XT, measured from the preouts.

 

 

 

"Red and green traces are XT32, blue is XT. Keep in mind that these are electrical measurements from the receiver's pre-out, not acoustical measurements with a microphone. Since the graph shows you what the filters are doing, you can think of it as the inverse of the frequency response (a dip on this graph is Audyssey pulling down a peak in the frequency response). Like looking at a negative of a photograph.

"Look at the blue trace (XT) and compare how little correction is being done in the low frequencies and how much is being done in the high frequencies. By comparison, the red & green traces (XT32) show lots of correction in the critical bass range, with the high frequencies being very generally shaped tonally (filter is smooth, broad shape) rather than correcting individual peaks & dips (looks like grass or hair)."

 

The above is a quote from the original post, which is here


Edited by kbarnes701 - 8/12/13 at 4:32am
post #59 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk@pcavtech View Post

 
I wonder what would happen if someone used the various levels of Audyssey (or YPAO or MCACC or whatever) and used good testing procedures to compare them. I suspect that the law of diminishing returns would be at least a little apparent.

 

An addendum to my earlier reply.

By coincidence, someone reminded me yesterday that this has been done in the Official Audyssey Thread. The graph below shows dramatically the difference between Audyssey XT32 and XT, measured from the preouts.





"Red and green traces are XT32, blue is XT. Keep in mind that these are electrical measurements from the receiver's pre-out, not acoustical measurements with a microphone. Since the graph shows you what the filters are doing, you can think of it as the inverse of the frequency response (a dip on this graph is Audyssey pulling down a peak in the frequency response). Like looking at a negative of a photograph.




"Look at the blue trace (XT) and compare how little correction is being done in the low frequencies and how much is being done in the high frequencies. By comparison, the red & green traces (XT32) show lots of correction in the critical bass range, with the high frequencies being very generally shaped tonally (filter is smooth, broad shape) rather than correcting individual peaks & dips (looks like grass or hair)."


The above is a quote from the original post, which is here

I tried, but couldn't find it.

Could you provide some boilerplate about what speakers, AVR, etc?
post #60 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk@pcavtech View Post

 
I wonder what would happen if someone used the various levels of Audyssey (or YPAO or MCACC or whatever) and used good testing procedures to compare them. I suspect that the law of diminishing returns would be at least a little apparent.

 

An addendum to my earlier reply.

By coincidence, someone reminded me yesterday that this has been done in the Official Audyssey Thread. The graph below shows dramatically the difference between Audyssey XT32 and XT, measured from the preouts.





"Red and green traces are XT32, blue is XT. Keep in mind that these are electrical measurements from the receiver's pre-out, not acoustical measurements with a microphone. Since the graph shows you what the filters are doing, you can think of it as the inverse of the frequency response (a dip on this graph is Audyssey pulling down a peak in the frequency response). Like looking at a negative of a photograph.




"Look at the blue trace (XT) and compare how little correction is being done in the low frequencies and how much is being done in the high frequencies. By comparison, the red & green traces (XT32) show lots of correction in the critical bass range, with the high frequencies being very generally shaped tonally (filter is smooth, broad shape) rather than correcting individual peaks & dips (looks like grass or hair)."


The above is a quote from the original post, which is here

I tried, but couldn't find it.

Could you provide some boilerplate about what speakers, AVR, etc?

 

The measurement was direct from the AVR preouts so the speakers aren't relevant. I can’t be 100% sure what AVR rickardl (the OP) uses offhand but I believe from memory that it is one of the higher end Onkyos with XT32. I have asked in the Audyssey Thread for a link to rickardl's original post with the graph, as I cannot locate it using the search function. If someone responds with the link I'll post it here.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 2 Channel Audio
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › Adding an integrated to a receiver.. Affordable upgrade or not?