Energy Owners Thread - Page 1509

No, now it's the extremely speculative "why does Marantz sound better to Loss than Denon" thread.

that is what i thought too. maybe we are on a wrong thread mate.

It's all related to how we can make the most out of our Energy investments. Believe me, we're all gonna look back on these times when the main question turns to "So what's better, an Energy sound bar or a Bose system"?

If the amp is flat and has no cooling fins on the outside it is very likely class D.

I am thinking about which receiver to buy for a bedroom setup using my two cf-70's and a samsung plasma tv. I listen to more music and than watch tv but unless anyone has a better idea, am thinking the marantz 1402 for $250 is the best bet. I would get a two channel receiver but I don't see any with a digital optical input that would connect with a tv that only has optical output. I am not using a cable box, only over the air antenna on this tv.

Onkyo TX-8050 for $259 shipped via Amazon has optical.

The HK3490 also has a optical in and is a 2 channel receiver. 125 watts per channel to boot. Very good receiver for music.

Why would you want to spend $250 for a stereo receiver when you can get a 5.1 at that price?
http://www.amazon.com/Yamaha-RX-V471BL-5-1-Channel-Receiver-VERSION/dp/B004QR56R0/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1362187966&sr=1-7&keywords=yamaha+receiver
This AVR has 2 digital optical inputs.

The HK 3490 has an optical input but it cannot decode Dolby Digital so if you happen to be using your over the air tuner on your TV, it wouldn't be able to handle a DD 5.1 signal.

It is also way more than $250.

But, isnt that how anyone would determine it, in their uncontrolled environment, if an amp would improve their sound? If theres a lot of people out there having amps in their setups, because they noticed improvement in sound, isnt that something to think about, that maybe, just maybe an amp does really improve the sound.
I mean if you think about it, what really is a receiver. It has an amp section, power supply, some digital processing, filters and other circuitry. And every receiver has a sound signature, some being warm, some brighter, some neutral. Each of which have their sound signature being influenced by its amp section (in pure mode). So if the sound is being colored differently by each receiver, how is it difficult to not believe that an external amp would do the same thing to the sound if it were to be passed thru it.
Iam in no way advocating that an amp should be used to improve the sound quality. It would definitely make sense to have one when powering less sensitive speakers, but using them as a means to improve sound quality is something that would be upto the individual willing to explore that option, and I wouldnt personally discourage anyone from trying so. It might not make a difference after all, but I would think that is for oneself to determine that.
Aaand... Iam gonna shutup now, if anyone wants to talk about Energy, Iam all ears

Not difficult at all to believe; in fact it is guaranteed that the frequency response of the receiver + external amps setup will be different from the receiver's alone. So yes, it is entirely possible to seek a receiver or amp that has pleasing characteristics. In fact, it's a large part of the appeal, for example, of enjoying legacy amps and speakers.

However, suppose a sufficiently advanced receiver whose DSP functions doesn't induce distortion, and an Audyssey-like algorithm that would be in essence perfect, and able to achieve not only a flat FR in your room but any *target* FR as well. You could measure the FR of your beloved legacy amp, and then feed that as a target to your advanced DSP receiver, and in essence enjoy the exact same sound signature.

Unless, for some reason, there is something more to it than the frequency response, but since the FR encompasses all linear effects, it would have to be nonlinear effects, which may very well be present in legacy gear, but would simply be peculiar distortion that we happen to find enjoyable.

I for one, not knowing much about legacy audio gear, would prefer a receiver / amp section that is just as neutral / uncolored / flat as possible, so that I can listen to the source with as much precision as possible.

Well, first and foremost...yes, everyone should buy what's pleasing to them. And I don't think anyone here is trying to discourage people from buying what they think sounds best to them.

That said, the ears are generally considered a horrible tool for judging differences in sound:
1. Our detailed aural memory is only a few seconds.
2. Our ears are inputs to our brains which are very suspectible to bias. Whether it be perception, mood, influence, or whatever, think about how many times your brain has deceived you. Placebos come to mind as a prime example.
3. Small changes in volume (hence the level matching that batpig brings up) significantly effect our perception of sound quality (SQ). Generally we perceive louder as better.
4. How long does it take you to swap from one receiver to another? Are you playing the exact same clip of movie, music, etc? Are you sitting in the exact same spot, with your head at the exact same angle? Do you think one device is more visually appealing than the other?
5. Etc, etc.

There are guys that can go on in a lot more detail. These are just a few things off the top of my head that I've picked up from reading and looking at from a logical/scientific perspective. Anyway, I'm not trying to come down on one side or the other. These are just some things to think about when people trying to compare human perception to scientific principles.

Absolutely. The human ear really is not very sensitive in terms of nature. But its our brain that gives us pleasure. Perception is everything. I dont need a computer to tell me what sounds good.

That is how people decide on a speaker , right? Based on what they hear. They dont look at frequency response curves(there might be a few who use them to aid in narrowing down choices), they dont use an spl meter to make sure they are hearing all speakers at the same level. You listen to a few speakers, and when you decide on one, it is with exactly all the fallacies of the ear you mentioned above. And I think you have to go by the same ear when listening to an amp.

Most valuable? imo No. Helpful, yes.

True.
Is there such a receiver that can do that?
Yeah, maybe FR is not all that effects the sound.
I personally like a tad bit of coloration. Not too much, just enough.Too analytical a speaker, or too flat an amp wouldnt make me want to listen to it.

Of course you should be what you like. Your own ears and brain are the best tool to determine what YOU like.

But the human ear and brain is a terrible tool for objectively determining certain things, because it is easily fooled and subject to biases. Many "differences" that are heard will melt away when the tests are properly controlled (blind, level matched). I don't have to link you to articles where "audiophiles" couldn't tell a coat hanger from fancy speaker wire, or where wine connoisseurs are suddenly unable to identify fancy wines when they can't see the label or price tag.

You should always buy what you like. It's your money, your brain, your ears. All that matters is that you are happy. But it's important to understand the failings of human sensory perception (not just hearing) and not overextend your subjective impressions to make claims about broader, objective truths. Science is a much better tool for the latter.

Stop inventing straw men. Those are the lamest arguments. Nobody is saying you should look at charts instead of listening, or that you shouldn't use your ear to judge what you like. The human ear/brain is excellent at certain tasks but terrible at others. Acknowledging one doesn't invalidate the other.

I'm going to pitch in my two cents.

As someone born with a hearing loss (rarer than you think; most hearing loss and deafness caused by sickness as a child or from birth defect in skull/ear, etc.), my hearing loss gets worse every year. The ear is definitely important in selecting a speaker, but in the end it is totally personal preference.

I have never used an SPL meter or found out the frequency curve on ANY speakers I have. Sure that is something interesting for me to check when I'm bored and usually on speakers I already own, BUT as each room is different, tests online won't help at all (or won't be 100% true at least).

Treasure those ears of yours. I can't remember the doctor's estimate on my hearing being completely gone, but I believe it is late 30's. I guess by then they'll either have some crazy fix or I'll just load up on subs I'll have a 0.9 system

What you are talking about has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

No. But even music mixing is art. There are certainly going to be some people better at it than others.

And that's one of the other problems here. Forget science for a moment and think about what you have been trying to claim. Even as a subjective experience, your claims about one Marantz receiver being better than one Denon are ultimately only valid for you because there is no way for you to prove that your experience is transferable to others. Yes. Your ear can tell, but it can only tell YOU with certainty.

Evaluations of SQ performance are not just subjective, they are an aesthetic experience. And even when listener bias due to poor audio memory is eliminated--which it hasn't been here with your testing. And if we can ignore the influence of your room on the experience (which might privilege one receiver over another, even though the other is a better performer overall)--there's no way to be certain that what sounds better to you will sound better to another when you are talking about the subtle differences between two receivers.

So science can help us out, because it sometimes can help us make claims that are valid across experiences with others. Aesthetic experiences are much more difficult to make generalizable claims about. Otherwise, we'd all like the exact same food prepared the same way, the same music genres, the same art--all to the same degree.

Very fun stuff to read about...while I'm excited for everyone on here who are cashing in on the RC-70 deals at Fry's, I can't help but get more excited about the rich Energy history that can be found on the used market.
And the accompanying prices.

It was also fun to see the pic of Hank's speaker 'family'. I actually might have to drag all my speakers into one room, one day, to take a 'family' picture as well. I definitely don't have as rich of a line (no flagship 'vintage' veritas), but I've definitely acquired quite a number over the years! :O
Crazy to see how beautiful those 22 Reference Connoisseurs look after so much time!!!! :O :O

Interestingly, I almost had a buyer for my C-8's just this last week, actually, but he ended up not pulling the trigger. He drove 60 miles one way to check them out, liked them...but sounds like he already has speakers overflowing in his garage, and a wife that's none-to-happy about it! He might get back to me though...so we'll see.

I did have a question or two, as well.

The only thing I haven't completely adored about the 2.2i's is [understandably] they can't go as low as the full-tower speakers. The bass they put out is clean and punchy, but they obviously aren't going to go low like the C-8's or the APS 5+2's.
I DO now have them (2.2i's) plugged in as my front speakers on my 4311, so once I re-calibrate, 2ch stereo (with the sub) might seamlessly fill in the gap, but thus far [without calibration] they bass actually sounds punchier in Pure Direct mode on the denon (no sub included), despite not going as low.

Anyway, aside from XT32 maybe working things out for me, I do have a couple options:
The seller of my 2.2i's also has his brother's 2.4i's up on craigslist ... for $1,200 (I think it was). When I purchased his v2.0ci and v2.0Ri's, I had inquired about a possible "upgrade path", to where he might let me swap back the 2.2i's & pay the difference for the 2.4i upgrade. Obviously this'd be pretty costly, but I would at that point be pretty much hitting the pinnacle of what I could upgrade to.
He said he'd consider it, but neither of us have really followed up since then...about a month ago, I'd say.

Also, the gentleman who checked out the C-8's the other night said he'd "buy my 2.2i's" if I wanted to buy the 2.4i's...so either way, I may be able to get about "half way" towards the 2.4i's; I bought my 2.2i's (with stands) for $650.

Either way, I wouldn't jump at this right away...the reason I could purchase the center & surrounds is because there was a number of months in between purchases for me to save a bit...it'd likely be the same here.

I'm just curious, though, as to whether the upgrade would be significant enough to warrant the cost involved? I suppose I should run the XT32 calibration first before deciding on anything. But, aside from bass...would I be gaining much? I do like the idea (and thus far, sound) of 2.0ch stereo for music...but if the sub gets me there & blends seamlessly...then more power to "them"!
The manuals state the 2.2i's go down to 35hz, the 2.4i's down to 25hz.
By comparison, the C-8's I had running [for the audition] the other day go down to 28hz, which was a pretty significant difference bass-wise; loved their bass (and still love the finish on them!!!).
Would the 2.4i's be adequately powered with my 4311, if I were to go that route?

The v2.0ci has been working wonderfully, and I'm planning on hanging the 2.0Ri's this weekend...should be fun times ahead! Will be fun to see how a 7.1 setup sounds (2.2i L/R, 2.0Ci, 2.0Ri surrounds, C-6's for surround backs), especially for games!
Edited by johnb4467 - 3/2/13 at 4:26am

The 2.4 will, of course, go lower than the 2.2. If you want punchy bass though, positioning them away from the back and side walls is going to be important. Otherwise you will need to stuff the ports, and it seems to me that you love getting maximum bass from your speakers.

Maybe you have plenty of room. I grabbed the 2.3 towers specifically because they are front ported. The 2.4's have ports in front and back.

So I can get the Veritas V-mini-C two way center speaker for $99. I currently have the CF-70 L and R. The center for those never goes on sale and I can't bring myself to pay 200-300 for it.

Will the Veritas match "enough" with the CF-70? Will it sound really out of place?

It'll match enough for your CF-70's. I think they may be out of black though, just rosenut left. I could be wrong though.
Edited by afrogt - 3/2/13 at 7:54am

What are you currently using for a center, if at all? What're the rest of your speakers and what are you working toward? 3.x, 5.x,...?

It seems like several people have mixed speaker lines lately and been happy with the result. But that's not generally recommended as an ideal solution.

Macstatic, I know it wasn't your intention, but I was touched by your statement! I REALLY do hope they have a 'fix' or at least the most awesome assistive devices available by that time! Having said that, your sub comment made me laugh out loud. You have a great attitude.

JP

Currently I have no center and I am just running a 2.0 solution.