or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › SVS AS-EQ1 Thoughts...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SVS AS-EQ1 Thoughts... - Page 208

post #6211 of 6280
Wow - nice clean response in sub B !

Sorry if I missed it - did you post a diagram showing placements?
post #6212 of 6280
The subs are both in the back two opposite corners of the room next to my listening position. They are about 4 feet each from my ears and the Golden Ears are about 5 feet equidistant away.
post #6213 of 6280
I'm thinking about buying another aseq1 for my 4 ultras for ht.
post #6214 of 6280
Don't see many for sale.
post #6215 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_m1010 View Post

I'm thinking about buying another aseq1 for my 4 ultras for ht.

 

Why not buy an AVR with XT32?

post #6216 of 6280
I'm using a rotel rsp1570 as a pre pro that would then go to waste.
post #6217 of 6280
What pre/pro would you all recommend with room correction? I don't need internal amps as I have a ton of Emotiva power.
post #6218 of 6280

The Onkyo PR SC 5509 is probably one of the best available, or the Marantz AV8003 is also a good one.  However, some AVR's have a preamp mode that bypasses the internal amps (like the Denon 4520).  The SC 5509 and AV8003 are a bit pricey, so you may be able to chose an AVR with similar features for less money, if budget is an issue. 

 

If you go this route, you should consider a unit with Audyssey MultEQ XT32, the latest RC technology, which equalizes two separate sub channels, making the AS-EQ1 not necessary.  I used to have the AS-EQ1, and sold it as soon as I got a Denon 4311 with XT32.

post #6219 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

The Onkyo PR SC 5509 is probably one of the best available, or the Marantz AV8003 is also a good one.  However, some AVR's have a preamp mode that bypasses the internal amps (like the Denon 4520).  The SC 5509 and AV8003 are a bit pricey, so you may be able to chose an AVR with similar features for less money, if budget is an issue. 

 

If you go this route, you should consider a unit with Audyssey MultEQ XT32, the latest RC technology, which equalizes two separate sub channels, making the AS-EQ1 not necessary.  I used to have the AS-EQ1, and sold it as soon as I got a Denon 4311 with XT32.

8801, I think, with XT32.  The 8003 is kinda long in the tooth.

post #6220 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

8801, I think, with XT32.  The 8003 is kinda long in the tooth.

Of course, Kal, thanks. I guess I am getting a little long in the tooth as well.
post #6221 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_m1010 View Post

What pre/pro would you all recommend with room correction? I don't need internal amps as I have a ton of Emotiva power.

There are some 5508s on eBay that seem fairly priced, and one seller says he has three new ones. There are two 5509s but only one seems fairly priced.

Jeff
post #6222 of 6280
Thanks fellas.

Kal, I subscribe to Stereophile and I always enjoy your articles.
post #6223 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_m1010 View Post

Thanks fellas.

Kal, I subscribe to Stereophile and I always enjoy your articles.

Thanks.  

post #6224 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

The Onkyo PR SC 5509 is probably one of the best available, or the Marantz AV8003 is also a good one.  However, some AVR's have a preamp mode that bypasses the internal amps (like the Denon 4520).  The SC 5509 and AV8003 are a bit pricey, so you may be able to chose an AVR with similar features for less money, if budget is an issue. 

 

If you go this route, you should consider a unit with Audyssey MultEQ XT32, the latest RC technology, which equalizes two separate sub channels, making the AS-EQ1 not necessary.  I used to have the AS-EQ1, and sold it as soon as I got a Denon 4311 with XT32.

 

Agreed. I'd add this: as you know I have the Onkyo 5509 and I am thoroughly delighted with it. But.. if I was buying again today, I think I would go with an AVR with XT32 and preouts. My reasoning is that while the prepro + separate amps has distinct benefits (eg the separation of the power supplies, the physical separation of delicate low-level preamp signals from big fat power amp signals etc) I have come to the conclusion that these benefits are very small, possibly non-existent sonically when using the AVR as a prepro only, and do not warrant the huge price premium that a prepro commands over an equivalent AVR. You also have the benefit of up to 9 power amps that might, one day, be useful.

 

So if ever I need to swap out my 5509, a good spec AVR with XT32 would be in my future I believe. The sole fly in the ointment would be Audyssey Pro. Not many AVRs are Pro-ready and I would have to decide if Pro delivered sufficient value to me for me to want to keep it, now that my room is so well treated, my speakers so well positioned etc etc.

post #6225 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Agreed. I'd add this: as you know I have the Onkyo 5509 and I am thoroughly delighted with it. But.. if I was buying again today, I think I would go with an AVR with XT32 and preouts. My reasoning is that while the prepro + separate amps has distinct benefits (eg the separation of the power supplies, the physical separation of delicate low-level preamp signals from big fat power amp signals etc) I have come to the conclusion that these benefits are very small, possibly non-existent sonically when using the AVR as a prepro only, and do not warrant the huge price premium that a prepro commands over an equivalent AVR. You also have the benefit of up to 9 power amps that might, one day, be useful.

So if ever I need to swap out my 5509, a good spec AVR with XT32 would be in my future I believe. The sole fly in the ointment would be Audyssey Pro. Not many AVRs are Pro-ready and I would have to decide if Pro delivered sufficient value to me for me to want to keep it, now that my room is so well treated, my speakers so well positioned etc etc.

Hi Keith,

Do we know that any AVRs are the 5508/5509/80.2/80.3 with power amps glommed on? *Is* there an "equivalent" AVR? If so, how could it cost less?

Jeff
post #6226 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Agreed. I'd add this: as you know I have the Onkyo 5509 and I am thoroughly delighted with it. But.. if I was buying again today, I think I would go with an AVR with XT32 and preouts. My reasoning is that while the prepro + separate amps has distinct benefits (eg the separation of the power supplies, the physical separation of delicate low-level preamp signals from big fat power amp signals etc) I have come to the conclusion that these benefits are very small, possibly non-existent sonically when using the AVR as a prepro only, and do not warrant the huge price premium that a prepro commands over an equivalent AVR. You also have the benefit of up to 9 power amps that might, one day, be useful.

So if ever I need to swap out my 5509, a good spec AVR with XT32 would be in my future I believe. The sole fly in the ointment would be Audyssey Pro. Not many AVRs are Pro-ready and I would have to decide if Pro delivered sufficient value to me for me to want to keep it, now that my room is so well treated, my speakers so well positioned etc etc.

Hi Keith,

Do we know that any AVRs are the 5508/5509/80.2/80.3 with power amps glommed on? *Is* there an "equivalent" AVR? If so, how could it cost less?

Jeff

 

Hey Jeff. Various people over the years have posted test results showing that the prepro versions of the equivalent AVR are functionally and audibly identical - but I don't have links I am afraid. Given that modern electronics make the least contribution to sound quality it is a 'risk' I am prepared to take. Also, visual examination of the internals of the AVR and equivalent prepro show no significant differences (other than the obvious lack of power amps) and no obvious differences in components.

 

I am guessing the reason the AVRs cost less is simply sales volume. For every prepro sold there must be xx AVRs sold. I don't know the value of xx, but common sense and observation would suggest it is a fairly high figure.  

 

There is also 'marketing' of course - prepros are bought by well-heeled enthusiasts, so maybe they are priced to reflect that?  You know, a bit like the car manufacturers make a really big killing on their top of the line models... and the way airlines get away with charging first class passengers 5 to 10 times the price of an economy ticket for a seat that is a few inches wider and legroom that is 12 inches or so better (plus the dubious value of free alcoholic drinks). 

 

When I swapped my 5007 for my 5509, it was also a change from XT to XT32 so it was hard to evaluate any difference in SQ that would not be accounted for by the move to XT32.  But if I swapped the 5509 for an XT32-equipped AVR, I am betting I would neither hear nor measure any significant differences in SQ. 

 

One real advantage that separate preamps and power amps have is that they do not share a power supply - this could be significant theoretically. But of course, if the AVR is used as a 'prepro', with separate external power amps, this isn't really going to matter.

 

If anyone has evidence that contradicts my view, I am more than happy to take it on board of course.

post #6227 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Hey Jeff. Various people over the years have posted test results showing that the prepro versions of the equivalent AVR are functionally and audibly identical - but I don't have links I am afraid. Given that modern electronics make the least contribution to sound quality it is a 'risk' I am prepared to take. Also, visual examination of the internals of the AVR and equivalent prepro show no significant differences (other than the obvious lack of power amps) and no obvious differences in components.

I am guessing the reason the AVRs cost less is simply sales volume. For every prepro sold there must be xx AVRs sold. I don't know the value of xx, but common sense and observation would suggest it is a fairly high figure.  

There is also 'marketing' of course - prepros are bought by well-heeled enthusiasts, so maybe they are priced to reflect that?  You know, a bit like the car manufacturers make a really big killing on their top of the line models... and the way airlines get away with charging first class passengers 5 to 10 times the price of an economy ticket for a seat that is a few inches wider and legroom that is 12 inches or so better (plus the dubious value of free alcoholic drinks). 

When I swapped my 5007 for my 5509, it was also a change from XT to XT32 so it was hard to evaluate any difference in SQ that would not be accounted for by the move to XT32.  But if I swapped the 5509 for an XT32-equipped AVR, I am betting I would neither hear nor measure any significant differences in SQ. 

One real advantage that separate preamps and power amps have is that they do not share a power supply - this could be significant theoretically. But of course, if the AVR is used as a 'prepro', with separate external power amps, this isn't really going to matter.

If anyone has evidence that contradicts my view, I am more than happy to take it on board of course.

It's more or less an academic exercise, I'd guess.

I originally went separates because I wanted to be able to upgrade the components ... separately. I suppose there could be validity to the sound quality reasons cited by audiophiles on why separates are superior, but it was pretty basic for me.

Jeff
post #6228 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Hey Jeff. Various people over the years have posted test results showing that the prepro versions of the equivalent AVR are functionally and audibly identical - but I don't have links I am afraid. Given that modern electronics make the least contribution to sound quality it is a 'risk' I am prepared to take. Also, visual examination of the internals of the AVR and equivalent prepro show no significant differences (other than the obvious lack of power amps) and no obvious differences in components.

I am guessing the reason the AVRs cost less is simply sales volume. For every prepro sold there must be xx AVRs sold. I don't know the value of xx, but common sense and observation would suggest it is a fairly high figure.  

There is also 'marketing' of course - prepros are bought by well-heeled enthusiasts, so maybe they are priced to reflect that?  You know, a bit like the car manufacturers make a really big killing on their top of the line models... and the way airlines get away with charging first class passengers 5 to 10 times the price of an economy ticket for a seat that is a few inches wider and legroom that is 12 inches or so better (plus the dubious value of free alcoholic drinks). 

When I swapped my 5007 for my 5509, it was also a change from XT to XT32 so it was hard to evaluate any difference in SQ that would not be accounted for by the move to XT32.  But if I swapped the 5509 for an XT32-equipped AVR, I am betting I would neither hear nor measure any significant differences in SQ. 

One real advantage that separate preamps and power amps have is that they do not share a power supply - this could be significant theoretically. But of course, if the AVR is used as a 'prepro', with separate external power amps, this isn't really going to matter.

If anyone has evidence that contradicts my view, I am more than happy to take it on board of course.

It's more or less an academic exercise, I'd guess.

I originally went separates because I wanted to be able to upgrade the components ... separately. I suppose there could be validity to the sound quality reasons cited by audiophiles on why separates are superior, but it was pretty basic for me.

Jeff

 

Yes, the ability to upgrade the processing bit while retaining the existing amps is good. But it also applies if you use an AVR as a prepro. There's no doubt that theoretically separates could have performance metrics that exceed those of integrated units - the question is, are the differences audible or not?

 

One good argument, I think, if money isn't an issue, is to just buy the best. AFAIAC the 5509 is one of the very best prepros, so really it's another thing I can forget about and not worry about.  I feel the same about my speakers and my subs and my amps these days so upgradeitis has been effectively cured. Wahey!  All recent improvements in my HT have come from a better understanding of acoustics, combined with measuring with REW and better speaker/sub placement and room treatments. I believe you were ahead of me in this journey (and indeed were partly the inspiration for my own journey) so I am sure YKWIM. :) 

post #6229 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yes, the ability to upgrade the processing bit while retaining the existing amps is good. But it also applies if you use an AVR as a prepro. There's no doubt that theoretically separates could have performance metrics that exceed those of integrated units - the question is, are the differences audible or not?

Just like most other areas of this pastime, if you think you can hear it, you can hear it. wink.gif

I have heard AVR-based systems where the amps ran out of snot at high SPLs. The AVRs were, more or less, top of the line. So, max clean output power ... which at least partly goes to the power supply ... tips the hat toward separates.

Jeff
post #6230 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yes, the ability to upgrade the processing bit while retaining the existing amps is good. But it also applies if you use an AVR as a prepro. There's no doubt that theoretically separates could have performance metrics that exceed those of integrated units - the question is, are the differences audible or not?

Just like most other areas of this pastime, if you think you can hear it, you can hear it. wink.gif
 

 

That is, ipso facto, true. But I go by objective measures. If someone, for example, tells me I can hear a difference when I use this cable, as opposed to that cable, I know this is not the case. So even if my confused brain tells me there is a difference, I know there is not. This enables me to regain control of the wayward gray cells :)

 

Quote:
I have heard AVR-based systems where the amps ran out of snot at high SPLs. The AVRs were, more or less, top of the line. So, max clean output power ... which at least partly goes to the power supply ... tips the hat toward separates.

Jeff

 

Oh for sure - if amp A lacks power compared with amp B, then clearly that is going to be significant. But since most systems, with average efficiency speakers (say 89dB) lope along using just a few watts, and since most decent AVRs have amps sufficient for that, with sufficient headroom for Reference level peaks, then there's no clear benefit from using separates. Amp power left on the table is, well, left on the table. 

 

But we weren't discussing the relative merits of AVR amps - we were talking about the use of the AVR preamp section in conjunction with separate amps. Well I was, LOL...

post #6231 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

That is, ipso facto, true. But I go by objective measures. If someone, for example, tells me I can hear a difference when I use this cable, as opposed to that cable, I know this is not the case. So even if my confused brain tells me there is a difference, I know there is not. This enables me to regain control of the wayward gray cells smile.gif


Oh for sure - if amp A lacks power compared with amp B, then clearly that is going to be significant. But since most systems, with average efficiency speakers (say 89dB) lope along using just a few watts, and since most decent AVRs have amps sufficient for that, with sufficient headroom for Reference level peaks, then there's no clear benefit from using separates. Amp power left on the table is, well, left on the table. 

But we weren't discussing the relative merits of AVR amps - we were talking about the use of the AVR preamp section in conjunction with separate amps. Well I was, LOL...

Everything is connected to everything. wink.gif
post #6232 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

That is, ipso facto, true. But I go by objective measures. If someone, for example, tells me I can hear a difference when I use this cable, as opposed to that cable, I know this is not the case. So even if my confused brain tells me there is a difference, I know there is not. This enables me to regain control of the wayward gray cells smile.gif


Oh for sure - if amp A lacks power compared with amp B, then clearly that is going to be significant. But since most systems, with average efficiency speakers (say 89dB) lope along using just a few watts, and since most decent AVRs have amps sufficient for that, with sufficient headroom for Reference level peaks, then there's no clear benefit from using separates. Amp power left on the table is, well, left on the table. 

But we weren't discussing the relative merits of AVR amps - we were talking about the use of the AVR preamp section in conjunction with separate amps. Well I was, LOL...

Everything is connected to everything. wink.gif

 

This is also true. But when it's connected with HDMI.... :)

post #6233 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Hi Keith,

Do we know that any AVRs are the 5508/5509/80.2/80.3 with power amps glommed on? *Is* there an "equivalent" AVR? If so, how could it cost less?

Jeff
What AVR would you guys recommend then that would be cheaper than a pre pro with xt32? Thanks
post #6234 of 6280
What about the denon x4000?
post #6235 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_m1010 View Post

What about the denon x4000?

If you own the AS-EQ1, then you are somewhat "freed" of needing XT32, but the way to go might be to buy an AVR and use it as a pre/pro. I think (some?) Denons have a feature than turns the power amp section off.

Jeff
post #6236 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_m1010 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Hi Keith,

Do we know that any AVRs are the 5508/5509/80.2/80.3 with power amps glommed on? *Is* there an "equivalent" AVR? If so, how could it cost less?

Jeff
What AVR would you guys recommend then that would be cheaper than a pre pro with xt32? Thanks

 

One of the XT32-equipped Denons or Onkyos would be my choice. I have always been in the Onkyo camp personally, but Denon units are equally well regarded. The cheapest entry into the world of XT32 is the Onkyo 818 which offers remarkable value IMO.

 

As Jeff says, as you have the AS-EQ1, you already have the benefit of XT32 for the bass frequencies, which is where correction is needed most. But the XT-equipped units are now generally acknowledged to do 'too much' to the upper frequencies, so a fully-XT32-Equipped AVR would take care of that: XT32 concentrates its efforts on the bass and tends to do rather less for the upper frequencies. This would make a move to an XT32-equipped unit worthwhile I think. (I went that way myself and sold my AS-EQ1 fairly easily for a good price.)

 

It is also worth pointing out that almost every XT32-equipped unit also features SubEQ HT as well, which allows for the independent setting of levels and distance (delay) for two subs, which are then calibrated by Audyssey together (as one). This takes account of their mutual in-room interaction when playing, but sets levels and delays correctly for each sub. However, the Onkyo 818, although featuring XT32, does NOT feature SubEQ HT. So unless your dual subs are co-located or equal distance from the MLP, and essentially identical, the 818 may not be for you. If you only have one sub and never intend getting another, then this will be irrelevant to you and the 818 will be the lowest cost route to XT32. It will also be irrelevant if you have two essentially identical subs but they are co-located or equidistant from the MLP.

post #6237 of 6280
I'm using the aseq1 for my 2 channel system with dual SVS pb12 pluses. The ht has the rotel pre pro with4 SVS pb13 ultras and no sub eq. I thought I might sell the rotel and replace it withthat denon x4000 for sub eq and overall room correction.
post #6238 of 6280
There are 2 ultras in each front corner of the room stacked I might add.
post #6239 of 6280
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_m1010 View Post

There are 2 ultras in each front corner of the room stacked I might add.
That means the same front to rear of room modes are being excited by all four subs. I'd put two of them in the rear room corners.
post #6240 of 6280
SQ is the most important 'feature' for me. The denon is favourably reviewed in that department so it looks like a viable option.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › SVS AS-EQ1 Thoughts...