or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Question on bi-amping
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Question on bi-amping - Page 29

post #841 of 1039
Yes, speakers set to small on an AVR won't need as much power as speakers set to large.

Quote:
BTW Audyessy sets my L & R to "large" and "full range"... yes, I tried increasing the crossover to take some pressure off the L&R but the sound was way too boomy.

If the speakers are set to large then changing the crossover point won't have any effect on them. All you will be doing is increasing the frequencies that are being doubled up by what is being played by both the speakers and sub at the same time. It's not surprising that you ran into boomy bass by doing that. You should try the L/R set to small and then see what results you get by changing the crossover point.
post #842 of 1039
Here is a screen cap of the channel content for "The Matrix". (L,R,C,SUB,SL,SR)



And a direct link: http://i.imgur.com/RuTO3Ib.png

FWIW, this is what I typically see in movies. Significantly more content in the center channel, with most of that content having a higher amplitude.
The center channel is by far the most important speaker in movie reproduction, and the fact that typical consumer systems have a smaller center speaker is beside the point.

Big bad ass tower LR speakers are more appealing. Big bad ass center speaker can't be mounted easily in typical mum/dad living arrangements.



Speaker sensitivity is the sole measure for how much power is needed (all other things being equal (AOTBE)), doesn't matter if their big, small, medium, $10, $1,000,000, brand name or not.

2 speakers, 1 rated at 85dB/1w/1m and another rated at 88dB/1w/1m. Guess which one needs twice as much power to reach 88dB/1w/1m!

edit: When I used to look at speaker testing many years ago, one thing became apparent, typical marketing ********. If it says 90dB/1w/1m, subtract 2 dB and you'll have a closer representation of the actual rating. I don't imagine marketing departments have become any more truthful in recent years!
Edited by Audionut11 - 11/30/13 at 7:20pm
post #843 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoforsale View Post


So the question is: with respect to speakers within the same series, do smaller ones (which are set to "small") need more or less power than larger speakers (which are set to "large")?

Not really enough detail to give a simple answer.

All other things being equal, speakers set to large take more power for a given system SPL because they cover a wider frequency range.

But the large speakers may be and even are more likely to be more efficient than the small speakers, in which case there is an obvious influence that tends to decrease the amount of power they take.
Quote:
I thought the bigger ones would need more power, which is what I thought Don was also saying.

Good case of where the intuitively clear answer can easily be wrong.

Not true, all other things being equal. But all other things may not be equal.
post #844 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

That is why the channel is often called (dialog) but content producers long ago discovered that its use goes far past that Specifically, anything that is supposed to be in the middle of the screen needs to come out of center channel predominantly. If a car blows up there, you want the center channel to play that explosion the loudest. Having it come out of left and right will give you a fantom channel that has screwed up frequency response (due to comb filtering between the two channels). And the whole point of discrete multichannel is to not have to rely on phantom center.

This is a very little known fact to be sure. But it is a fact smile.gif. Here is a quick quote from Chris Kyriakakis of the Audyssey fame on this topic: https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/231579-center-speaker

"I don't consider the center speaker as an optional improvement. If your goal is to listen to the content the way it was created then it is an absolute necessity. Stereo was invented at Bell Labs in the 1930s with three channels! Left, Center, Right. It was because there was no medium to deliver proper stereo to consumers that it was limited to two channels on LPs. There is nothing perceptually correct about two-channel stereo because there is really no correspondence between the two speakers and our two ears. In fact, there are frequency response problems that are caused by phantom images. Sound from the left speaker reaching the right ear interferes with sound from the right speaker reaching the right ear because they arrive at different times. The same happens on the other side. This interference causes response problems in the midrange that are solved by a real center speaker. For movies, the majority of the content is in the center channel. It requires the most dynamic range and proper directivity. It is unfortunate that the industry in the early days tried to diminish the importance of the center speaker. "

Maybe I should have kept that secret tip to myself smile.gif.

amir,
The short quip on the Audyssey site is hardly compelling. And given that Dolby long ago provided information to the general public clarifying that LFE's could be as high as 120Hz and included in any channel, it would be hard to consider the information little known.

Clearly the center channel in movies contains the majority of the content since almost all of the dialogue is delivered by the channel, and a healthy portion from other audio sources. Stating that it requires the most dynamic range is a probably a pretty gross generalization given the use of L/R channels to deliver music scores, as well as the full range of effects.

There is nothing in those statements that indicate a typcial multi-channel receiver or amp can't handle the center channel duties with aplomb because of a "massive" demand. But for your efforts, I'll share a few of my secrets:

1. other important changes have occurred since movie making began in the 1930's, such as.... surround sound, LFE, and subwoofers
2. A famous audio technology company recommends using the same speakers in a surround setup with equal portions of power to each, and a subwoofer delivering low frequency effects below 80Hz
3. Movie effects can be rendered from any channel
4. The proper amount of amp power can be determined by a calculation using variables such as size of the listening room, efficiency of the speakers, and desired SPL
5. the ill effects of comb filtering on the listener is over-debated and the Haas Effect probably nullifies the worse
post #845 of 1039
Wow, a lot of confusion by a seemingly simple question. Let me rephrase yet again. Imagine 2 pairs of identical speakers - forget how BIG they are. One pair is set to "large", the other set to "small". Which pair requires more power? I think most people agree, the one set to large will require more power. My references to towers vs. bookshelf speakers was meant to distinguish between the 2 pairs receiving different ranges of frequency, since towers are often (not always) set to "large" and bookshelves are often (not always) set to "small".

Sheesh, I haven't had to spoon feed this much since feeding a newborn smile.gif (kidding!!)
post #846 of 1039
It's not a "seemingly simple question" when you reference all manner of other variables! tongue.gif
post #847 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoforsale View Post

Wow, a lot of confusion by a seemingly simple question. Let me rephrase yet again. Imagine 2 pairs of identical speakers - forget how BIG they are. One pair is set to "large", the other set to "small". Which pair requires more power? I think most people agree, the one set to large will require more power. My references to towers vs. bookshelf speakers was meant to distinguish between the 2 pairs receiving different ranges of frequency, since towers are often (not always) set to "large" and bookshelves are often (not always) set to "small".

Sheesh, I haven't had to spoon feed this much since feeding a newborn smile.gif (kidding!!)

Since more amplifier power is required to reproduce bass frequencies that mids and highs, not sending bass content to the speakers will cause the amplifiers feeding those speakers to have less to do. Hence, setting bass management to large will work the main speaker amplifiers harder but, of course, reproduce more sound.
post #848 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post


Since more amplifier power is required to reproduce bass frequencies that mids and highs, not sending bass content to the speakers will cause the amplifiers feeding those speakers to have less to do. Hence, setting bass management to large will work the main speaker amplifiers harder but, of course, reproduce more sound.

Below 200 Hz even mediocre subwoofers often vastly outperform even allegedly high performance highly regarded, highly expensive speakers when it comes to low distortion and extended response.

In another thread I recently posted the results of technical tests on a $300 subwoofer and highly regarded $11,000 floor standers to make this point. The $300 would vastly improve the distortion in the floor stander. This is not a cherry picked test, its what you can expect at all sorts of different price points.
post #849 of 1039
Quote:
Wow, a lot of confusion by a seemingly simple question.
You seem to be the only one who's confused, however.
Quote:
Let me rephrase yet again.
What follows is not a rephrasing. It's a different question. You seem confused even by your own questions.
Quote:
Imagine 2 pairs of identical speakers - forget how BIG they are. One pair is set to "large", the other set to "small". Which pair requires more power? I think most people agree, the one set to large will require more power.
Of course. That's what everyone has said here.
Quote:
My references to towers vs. bookshelf speakers was meant to distinguish between the 2 pairs receiving different ranges of frequency, since towers are often (not always) set to "large" and bookshelves are often (not always) set to "small".
But that's a different question, with a different answer. We know that a large speaker set to large will need more power than a large speaker set to small, because it has more work to do. But we cannot say for sure whether a large speaker set to large will need more power than a small speaker set to small. The larger speaker has more work to do (so needs more power), but it is also more efficient (so needs less power). We don't know which of those two factors will predominate. It depends on both the specific speakers and the program material.
Quote:
Sheesh, I haven't had to spoon feed this much since feeding a newborn (kidding!!)
Funny. Please stop acting so infantile. smile.gif
post #850 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

@Speed Daemon: AVRs typically offer more features such as more/different/"better" decoders and more advanced room correction as you go up the line. Also, higher-end units offer more channels (5-7-9-11 channels). Power increases, natch, but IMO that is mostly marketing. Last time I bought an AVR I had a sales guy trying to extol the benefits of upgrading from 115 W/ch to 125 W/ch; he did not like my attempt to explain to him why that was a foolish reason to upgrade. smile.gif I am not sure clipping indicators are all that beneficial in the consumer world. What happens to the guy who saves all his money and buys a new AVR, and first thing sees the clipping lights flicker? Most people are probably better off not knowing, even if they are clipping briefly now and then.
So to sum it up, ignorance is bliss, eh? rolleyes.gif

I'm guessing that you're in the "this is how it's done; there is no other way" school of rampant consumerism. I'm also guessing that you honestly don't realize how ridiculous what you said above really is. The idea that people have to settle for less than the right decoding algorithm, that a receiver can magically "correct" allegedly broken rooms...that fractions of a decibel in power is worth spending big money on...it's all smoke and mirrors. All of that is for suckers. You did get it right when you said "that is mostly marketing". Previously someone joked about ceiling and floor speakers, but I have little doubt that the marketeers will do it in real life to keep the featureitis rolling.

Going back to the car analogy, I know that plenty of people who don't know how to drive get cars and go out onto public roads anyway. (How they get a license is another thing.) I'd think that in the spirit of "those who can't still buy", I'd think that a receiver with even more blinkenlights would be a win-win. The compulsive consumer who doesn't bother to read manuals or learn how the system works (or why it's there) will be thrilled to count more lights, and the educated user would have their toolset.

Or is the whole idea to cultivate a consumer base that doesn't have a clue?
post #851 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by UndersAVS View Post

Clearly the center channel in movies contains the majority of the content since almost all of the dialogue is delivered by the channel, and a healthy portion from other audio sources. Stating that it requires the most dynamic range is a probably a pretty gross generalization given the use of L/R channels to deliver music scores, as well as the full range of effects.
Yes. Based on what you were quoting, I'd think that the center channel, being constantly loud, would have less dynamic range, not more.

After taking a grain of salt, I wonder if the author and/or target audience might not know what dynamic range is, other than "it's desirable; I want more of it". Clearly those sudden, loud booms and crashes that waken the neighbors and startle the kids is far more dynamic than the spoken word.
post #852 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by UndersAVS View Post

amir,
The short quip on the Audyssey site is hardly compelling.
Oh I think it is darn compelling in response to your comment that what I said about the center channel dynamics requirement is "bizarre." Let's agree that Chris as the CTO and founder of Audyssey, who partnered with Tomlinson Holman of the THX fame wouldn't say something bizarre. Indeed what he said word for word matched what I said: "For movies, the majority of the content is in the center channel. It requires the most dynamic range..."

But there is more. Here is Steve Guttenberg:http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10288323-47.html

"Since more home theater speaker buyers watch movies than listen to music, I'll start there.

It's hardly an overstatement to claim movie-oriented home theater systems succeed or fail based on their center channel's performance and sound quality. The center speaker delivers virtually all the dialog and it can, depending on the mix, convey upward of 80 percent of a movie's soundtrack. The center speaker has a big job.

So invest 30 percent of your 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1 system budget on the center speaker, the Center Centric HT approach. As always, when it comes to sound quality, size matters. Bigger centers tend to sound better than small ones.

The subwoofer is the next most important player in a home theater sound system. [/b] "


He puts it even ahead of the subwoofer! Is it compelling enough now?
Quote:
And given that Dolby long ago provided information to the general public clarifying that LFE's could be as high as 120Hz and included in any channel, it would be hard to consider the information little known.
So now it is not little known and you still thought it was bizarre?
Quote:
Clearly the center channel in movies contains the majority of the content since almost all of the dialogue is delivered by the channel, and a healthy portion from other audio sources. Stating that it requires the most dynamic range is a probably a pretty gross generalization given the use of L/R channels to deliver music scores, as well as the full range of effects.
Who says Left and Right are used to deliver musical scores? You are confusing the CD soundtrack with that of what is presented in multichannel in the movie. Fact that you don't like the answer doesn't make it a gross generalization especially when coupled with incorrect assumptions such as this not backed by any references or data.
Quote:
There is nothing in those statements that indicate a typcial multi-channel receiver or amp can't handle the center channel duties with aplomb because of a "massive" demand.
These are two different topics: first you have to accept the fact that center channel has huge dynamics above and beyond the other channels in movies. If you thought otherwise, then all the experiences and knowledge you share as to what is enough is faulty. You thought people on the Autobahn drive no faster than 80 mph. I just got done explaining they can go far faster. Once you accept that, then we can talk about what car you need to go faster than 150 mph. biggrin.gif
Quote:
But for your efforts, I'll share a few of my secrets:

1. other important changes have occurred since movie making began in the 1930's, such as.... surround sound, LFE, and subwoofers
Wow. I had no idea. I am sure there are a lot of people who just spit out their breakfast learning about LFE, subs and surround sound! biggrin.gif
Quote:
2. A famous audio technology company recommends using the same speakers in a surround setup with equal portions of power to each, and a subwoofer delivering low frequency effects below 80Hz
A lot of people make that recommendation. A lot also tell you to buy fancy cables. You want to have a scientific argument, you need to say more than some nameless company telling you some such thing. We had Anthem telling you the benefits of passive bi-amping. How come you don't believe that company but choose to believe another?

BTW, don't make the common mistake of thinking 80 Hz means it is a brick wall cut off. Your mains speakers will be fed content below that frequency as will your amp.
Quote:
3. Movie effects can be rendered from any channel
It is not "from" any channel. It can be any combination that the content producer wishes. And what they wish is to create a realistic experience. If the action is in the middle of the screen, they are not going to put that in the rear channel.
Quote:
4. The proper amount of amp power can be determined by a calculation using variables such as size of the listening room, efficiency of the speakers, and desired SPL
Only a gross approximation can be done that way. You better have tons of real life experience with multiple deployments of a specific speaker and amplification to know the real truth. Otherwise you are just fooling yourself. Before you disagree, start by telling us at what frequency sensitivity is measured and show that multiple companies use the same.
Quote:
5. the ill effects of comb filtering on the listener is over-debated and the Haas Effect probably nullifies the worse
Haas effect has nothing to do with the topic of phantom center created by left and right and poor frequency response created as a result.
post #853 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

And what they wish is to create a realistic experience.
:spit-take: Pray tell, precisely what is "realistic" in a Hollywood movie soundtrack?

Isn't that a bit like looking at Photoshopped pictures of models with silicone breast implants in Playboy, and calling that a "realistic" image of a woman?
post #854 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

:spit-take: Pray tell, precisely what is "realistic" in a Hollywood movie soundtrack?

Isn't that a bit like looking at Photoshopped pictures of models with silicone breast implants in Playboy, and calling that a "realistic" image of a woman?
We call this type of realism, "suspension of disbelief." When a home theater is done right, you will actually believe that you are watching that spaceship attack the enterprise as you stand next to captain Kirk. Or that you are in the middle of that wheat field as you hear the softest sound of wind or crickets around you. Yes, they are all synthetic and not "real" in any sense. After all, even if the sound was real, these are actors and fictional stories. But it is the job of the creative talent, post engineers and theater designers to make you think they are real if it is just for 90 minutes. This is a very hard thing to pull off as many factors need to be perfected. So I am not surprised you don't believe it, pun intended smile.gif.

When we do demos of our reference theater, I literally have to pause the movie or the customer will want to keep watching and not pay attention to me! It is that engaging to be in a well executed room. In our case, it takes a 17 foot wide acoustically transparent screen that hides all the speakers. There is not one bit of electronics or acoustic material visible in the room. Just you, a dark room and that giant screen. The room is absolutely quiet. As soon as you close the door, you know you are in some place special. The color scheme is neutral and not some gaudy red decor as many who know more about decor than audio/video experience use. When the movie starts, your entire field of view is covered. When bright scenes come on and light up the whole room, there is nothing distracting to pull you out of the movie.

In some of the high-end theaters we use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to even model the temperature and humidity gradients in the room before it is built! To keep the room quiet, you need to have very slow air movement from HVAC system. When you do that, there is not sufficient air circulation around your face to take away the humidity that you exhale. Put a few people in there and this becomes a real problem. By modeling this situation in advance, we can design the air movement such that there is air flow in front of your face without making it cold or noticeable. Otherwise, halfway through the movie you may become uncomfortable and lose that suspension of disbelief. Of course the acoustics of the room is also modeled the same way with CFD including taking into account the material characteristics of the room, its furnishing, etc. This is how for example we determine the number and position of subwoofers.

What many people build -- DIY or custom built by an AV company -- is not this type of experience. Anyone can build a "loud television." That had value in 1970s and 1980s. Just having surround and LFE was enough to get people excited and awed. Today's standard is different. It is not sufficient to throw a few speakers around the room and blast the sound. This might seem impressive to you but I bet many ordinary people who are not into this hobby will find the sound annoying and "loud." You have to see the females of the families who have blocked the male from building a theater in their new house after such poor past experiences, sit in our reference theater. We sit them in a super comfortable chair and play some content for them and in just a minute or two, the husband gets the green light to build the theater! Even the smallest detail here matters like the blu-ray movie starting in just a few seconds with no FBI warnings, no trailers, etc. You are in the experience almost instantly.

Now granted, we are talking about very high performance theaters here. And something most people can't afford. So the purpose here is not to tell you to rush out and run CFD analysis of the temps in your room (although I highly recommend that you consider CFD analysis for your subs if you can at all afford it). But rather, understand the quality bar that can be achieved and use that as our measurement bar. Not some made up math based on silly sensitivity numbers and such thinking the rest is just slapping an AVR there with some lousy speakers made to look convincing by the marketing department of manufacturer is going to do the job. As you rightly say, what you wind up with is anything but real.

So search in your area and find a high performance theater like what I am describing. Once you sit in one, it will forever change your outlook on how real and rewarding the experience can be. If you can't find one in your area, make a trip in summer to the beautiful pacific northwest of US and I will be happy to demo ours smile.gif.
post #855 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


Today's standard is different. It is not sufficient to throw a few speakers around the room and blast the sound. This might seem impressive to you but I bet many ordinary people who are not into this hobby will find the sound annoying and "loud

I like the statement - agree completely.
post #856 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoforsale View Post

Not to go off on a tangent, but when I asked "why do larger speakers need more power", I was assuming the AVR/pre-pro set the smaller speakers to "small" so all the bass was going to a subwoofer, which I think was akin to Don's comments about the C vs. L&R. So I don't think I misunderstood Don's comments. Perhaps I didn't ask the question properly.

So the question is: with respect to speakers within the same series, do smaller ones (which are set to "small") need more or less power than larger speakers (which are set to "large")? I thought the bigger ones would need more power, which is what I thought Don was also saying. Regarding the sensitivity issue (which I did not bring up, but others did to explain why I was wrong), I'm not sure it is relevant once you set the smaller speakers to "small" and are using a subwoofer.

BTW Audyessy sets my L & R to "large" and "full range"... yes, I tried increasing the crossover to take some pressure off the L&R but the sound was way too boomy. So my point/question was I assumed my L&R speaker needed more power than my other smaller speakers that are set to "small", notwithstanding the larger speakers have a higher sensitivity.

Wow, backpedal much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoforsale View Post

Wow, a lot of confusion by a seemingly simple question. Let me rephrase yet again. Imagine 2 pairs of identical speakers - forget how BIG they are. One pair is set to "large", the other set to "small". Which pair requires more power? I think most people agree, the one set to large will require more power. My references to towers vs. bookshelf speakers was meant to distinguish between the 2 pairs receiving different ranges of frequency, since towers are often (not always) set to "large" and bookshelves are often (not always) set to "small".

That is NOT what you asked. We know that. And you do, too.
post #857 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

@Speed Daemon: AVRs typically offer more features such as more/different/"better" decoders and more advanced room correction as you go up the line. Also, higher-end units offer more channels (5-7-9-11 channels). Power increases, natch, but IMO that is mostly marketing. Last time I bought an AVR I had a sales guy trying to extol the benefits of upgrading from 115 W/ch to 125 W/ch; he did not like my attempt to explain to him why that was a foolish reason to upgrade. smile.gif I am not sure clipping indicators are all that beneficial in the consumer world. What happens to the guy who saves all his money and buys a new AVR, and first thing sees the clipping lights flicker? Most people are probably better off not knowing, even if they are clipping briefly now and then.
So to sum it up, ignorance is bliss, eh? rolleyes.gif

I'm guessing that you're in the "this is how it's done; there is no other way" school of rampant consumerism. I'm also guessing that you honestly don't realize how ridiculous what you said above really is. The idea that people have to settle for less than the right decoding algorithm, that a receiver can magically "correct" allegedly broken rooms...that fractions of a decibel in power is worth spending big money on...it's all smoke and mirrors. All of that is for suckers. You did get it right when you said "that is mostly marketing". Previously someone joked about ceiling and floor speakers, but I have little doubt that the marketeers will do it in real life to keep the featureitis rolling.

Going back to the car analogy, I know that plenty of people who don't know how to drive get cars and go out onto public roads anyway. (How they get a license is another thing.) I'd think that in the spirit of "those who can't still buy", I'd think that a receiver with even more blinkenlights would be a win-win. The compulsive consumer who doesn't bother to read manuals or learn how the system works (or why it's there) will be thrilled to count more lights, and the educated user would have their toolset.

Or is the whole idea to cultivate a consumer base that doesn't have a clue?

You implied no changes as you go up the AVR lines. I provided examples of what changes.

Ignorance and rampant consumerism, yup, describes me to to "T". BTW, not the "right" vs. "wrong" decoding algorithm, those are set by the various standards, just additional ones, different modes, etc. You may have missed the quotes I put around "better". I made no inference about the benefit (or not) of room correction, nor did my post imply I feel spending more to gain insignificant power increases is worthwhile (the opposite, in fact).

Have a nice day, unless you've already made other plans - Don
post #858 of 1039
A couple of posts have mentioned what Audyssey sets speakers to (large/small, crossover frequency), but isn't this rather the avr's manufacturer's choices rather than Audyssey? Pretty sure I've read Chris K of Audyssey say as much in that he would have Audyssey set your speakers to small and cross at 80hz.....picking nits I know, but....
post #859 of 1039
Yes. I wish they had called it "Bass Management ON/OFF" instead of "small/large". Everybody feels theirs must be "large". smile.gif
post #860 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

But that's a different question, with a different answer. We know that a large speaker set to large will need more power than a large speaker set to small, because it has more work to do. But we cannot say for sure whether a large speaker set to large will need more power than a small speaker set to small. The larger speaker has more work to do (so needs more power), but it is also more efficient (so needs less power). We don't know which of those two factors will predominate. It depends on both the specific speakers and the program material.

Ok, got it. Good summary, thank you.
post #861 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Wow, backpedal much?
That is NOT what you asked. We know that. And you do, too.

Ummm, I'm not an expert (obviously) and I'm learning, so I made some wrong assumptions and stated my questions incorrectly, and tried to revise them.
Edited by stereoforsale - 12/1/13 at 12:04pm
post #862 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

A couple of posts have mentioned what Audyssey sets speakers to (large/small, crossover frequency), but isn't this rather the avr's manufacturer's choices rather than Audyssey? Pretty sure I've read Chris K of Audyssey say as much in that he would have Audyssey set your speakers to small and cross at 80hz.....picking nits I know, but....

Maybe you're right. I only said Audyssey because the settings were established when I ran the Audyseey configuration. I did not select "large" or "small" - it was chosen for me. If I have the time I'll try setting it to small and see how it sounds.
Edited by stereoforsale - 12/1/13 at 12:02pm
post #863 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoforsale View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

A couple of posts have mentioned what Audyssey sets speakers to (large/small, crossover frequency), but isn't this rather the avr's manufacturer's choices rather than Audyssey? Pretty sure I've read Chris K of Audyssey say as much in that he would have Audyssey set your speakers to small and cross at 80hz.....picking nits I know, but....

Maybe you're right. I only said Audyssey because the settings were established when I ran the Audyseey configuration. I did not select "large" or "small" - it was chosen for me. If I have the time I'll try setting it to small and see how it sounds.

Definitely change to small if you have a sub. You're not the only one who calls it Audyssey setting the speakers, but apparently not what Audyssey would have done if they had their way, but guess they didn't license it that way....
post #864 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

Yes. I wish they had called it "Bass Management ON/OFF" instead of "small/large". Everybody feels theirs must be "large". smile.gif

Agreed. Guys do like their things to be thought of as "large" indeed cool.gif Or more watts than the next guy.....
post #865 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Definitely change to small if you have a sub. You're not the only one who calls it Audyssey setting the speakers, but apparently not what Audyssey would have done if they had their way, but guess they didn't license it that way....

Ok. But if I do that, will I lose Audy's MultiEQ adjustments??

I'd rather not lose that feature. It has had the biggest impact on my sound since moving to the new AVR (especially reducing the muffled dialogue I used to have on my centre channel)
post #866 of 1039
No, you're fine. I think you'll be even more impressed by Audyssey with proper bass management...
post #867 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoforsale View Post

Ok. But if I do that, will I lose Audy's MultiEQ adjustments??

Set the speakers to small yourself manual then rerun Audyssey and afterwards and see if Audyssey has kept them on small.
post #868 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

We call this type of realism, "suspension of disbelief." When a home theater is done right, you will actually believe that you are watching that spaceship attack the enterprise as you stand next to captain Kirk.
Oh, don't even get me started on how depicting loud noises traveling through the vacuum of space wrecks the suspension of disbelief for me!

Let me cut to the chase: Hollywood does everything possible to wreck the suspension of disbelief. Continuity errors, factual errors, disruptive sound effects...more ways than I can count. That's why I rarely go to the movies (or watch them at home) any more. The number of films that are just tolerable to watch is so small. Kudos for making viewing rooms that try to take those hideously overblown soundtracks tolerable, but that's just one symptom of many. And I suspect that more than a few AVS readers actually like the gratuitous sound effects. I'm just not one of them.

If my upcoming west coast trip takes me that far north, I'd be happy to visit your shop. Although I'm not really the HT type, I'm intrigued by your attention to air handling systems. That I'm interested in! Rock-solid climate control is something of a holy grail for me.
post #869 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Oh I think it is darn compelling in response to your comment that what I said about the center channel dynamics requirement is "bizarre."

I'll bet you do (big cheezy smiling emoticon).

...
Quote:
Let's agree that Chris as the CTO and founder of Audyssey, who partnered with Tomlinson Holman of the THX fame wouldn't say something bizarre. Indeed what he said word for word matched what I said: "For movies, the majority of the content is in the center channel. It requires the most dynamic range..."

Let's see, amirm wrote: "In movies, the center channel is dominant. It puts out massive amount of soundtrack energy. Ideally one would have 2X more power for the center channel. AVRs as such, need not apply."

Doesn't seem to match. Same topic, but I don't see anything in the former's statement indicating that the amp used to power the center speaker should have double the power due to a "massive amount of soundtrack energy," or that an AV Receiver isn't capable of getting the job done.

So if we apply your suggestion, double the power to the center channel, we arrive at what: a three decibel increase from the center channel. I'm sorry, but apparently I can't grasp the profoundness. If we're short of hitting the desired room SPL, then adding more power is one solution. Getting a more sensitive speaker would be the other (annoying emoticon with cocky smirk and black sunglasses).

...
Quote:
But there is more. Here is Steve Guttenberg:http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10288323-47.html

"Since more home theater speaker buyers watch movies than listen to music, I'll start there.

It's hardly an overstatement to claim movie-oriented home theater systems succeed or fail based on their center channel's performance and sound quality. The center speaker delivers virtually all the dialog and it can, depending on the mix, convey upward of 80 percent of a movie's soundtrack. The center speaker has a big job.

So invest 30 percent of your 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1 system budget on the center speaker, the Center Centric HT approach. As always, when it comes to sound quality, size matters. Bigger centers tend to sound better than small ones.

The subwoofer is the next most important player in a home theater sound system. [/b] "


He puts it even ahead of the subwoofer! Is it compelling enough now?

The argument follows: "the center channel is very busy during movies, therefore give the center channel more respect/money". Hardly a groundbreaking observation. I wouldn't rate Guttenberg's comment any higher than other vague generalizations concerning speaker systems, and most likely lower than any given advice on any given day.

You're very unlikely to improve dynamics by spending more money on a center channel speaker, whether staying within a speaker product line or moving to the next higher. So Guttenberg's advice isn't very pragmatic. In fact, center channel speakers aren't much, if at all, inferior to other speakers in the same product line when movie watching, with a subwoofer employed and speaker level adjustments made.

No, biamping or mono-block amping the center speaker for this guy. Keep working on those sales skills.
post #870 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

You implied no changes as you go up the AVR lines. I provided examples of what changes.
No, I had no hidden meanings. As others have confirmed, the overall power delivery across the AVR line doesn't vary significantly, within a decibel or two. The main difference is features. You can come up with other words, but that's what it boils down to. A "better" Dolby decoder, more bells and whistles...all features, and not overall power output.

If I stated some inconvenient truths that affect your income, I'm sorry for you. But I don't have any apologies for telling the truth.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Question on bi-amping