AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 66 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Athough I have been listening to high end equipment since the early 70's this is the first time I have bought a receiver (Yamaha RX V3800). Denon Calls it Audessy Yamaha and Pioneer something else. How much of a difference does it really make to sound quality. I am mostly referring to music playback (2.1) movies etc are secondary.


The rest of my system is

Creek EVO CD

Monitor Audio RX1 fronts

Paradigm DSP 3400 Sub


Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,119 Posts
^^^


for the great majority of people, penicillin...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
I never noticed a big difference when using Yamaha's YAPO Room EQ, but I would never call it snake oil.


Unlike so much junk in audio, room correction is logical. Room's color the sound due to frequency response issues, and addressing that issue holds the promise of higher fidelity sound.


In fact, EQ is where sound issues SHOULD be addressed. People mixing albums most certainly apply EQ to make the mix better. PA pros in venues most certainly apply EQ to try to make sound better. EQ is a tool which has the benefit of improving sound.


I would go as far as to say that the audio ideal of a flat response is flawed. Our hearing is not linear. Room response is not linear. Speaker response is not linear. The mix was damn sure altered to someone's taste. So applying EQ (for all sorts of potential reasons) is in no way some horrid sin, IMO.


To go off topic (sorry,) I feel the need to relate an anecdote. During a recent listening session I realized 70s classic rock often has unpleasant mid bass. On some songs bass was boomy, and unpleasant. What would be wrong with using EQ to tame that a bit?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,030 Posts
I like it a lot. I don't listen to music at reference volume. So I like the notion of dynamic EQ to adjust the curve as the volume is changed for the appropriate frequency response. I use it exclusively on my Denon AVR-3311 in a 2 channel mode.


I wasn't sold at first and almost ditched an older denon for a 2 channel integrated amp. I was convinced (by the usual denon suspects!
) to give audyssey a spin. I did and really liked it. I thought it took a rough edge off what I had been hearing. So instead of upgrading to a 2 channel integrated, I went with the 3311ci.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman
I never noticed a big difference when using Yamaha's YAPO Room EQ, but I would never call it snake oil.


Unlike so much junk in audio, room correction is logical. Room's color the sound due to frequency response issues, and addressing that issue holds the promise of higher fidelity sound.


In fact, EQ is where sound issues SHOULD be addressed. People mixing albums most certainly apply EQ to make the mix better. PA pros in venues most certainly apply EQ to try to make sound better. EQ is a tool which has the benefit of improving sound.


I would go as far as to say that the audio ideal of a flat response is flawed. Our hearing is not linear. Room response is not linear. Speaker response is not linear. The mix was damn sure altered to someone's taste. So applying EQ (for all sorts of potential reasons) is in no way some horrid sin, IMO.


To go off topic (sorry,) I feel the need to relate an anecdote. During a recent listening session I realized 70s classic rock often has unpleasant mid bass. On some songs bass was boomy, and unpleasant. What would be wrong with using EQ to tame that a bit?
Would room treatment not be a better way to go
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,030 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughalot
Would room treatment not be a better way to go
It can be good and is recommended by many. But my listening area is also my living room and the wife won't put up with room treatments!!


In addition, I have a somewhat asymmetric room (different length walls, open to the kitchen/breakfast area) and a cathedral ceiling. All the room treatments in the world wouldn't totally help.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughalot
Athough I have been listening to high end equipment since the early 70's this is the first time I have bought a receiver (Yamaha RX V3800). Denon Calls it Audessy Yamaha and Pioneer something else. How much of a difference does it really make to sound quality. I am mostly referring to music playback (2.1) movies etc are secondary.


The rest of my system is

Creek EVO CD

Monitor Audio RX1 fronts

Paradigm DSP 3400 Sub


Cheers
Do you know how to calibrate your system? If so, I (personally) would not bother with YPAO, (the Yamaha version of Audyssey.) The largest need for room correction is in the bass range, and YPAO doesn't correct below 63 Hz. Above 63 Hz it uses 1/3 octave filters... not nearly enough resolution to get the job done properly. Also, YPAO only corrects in the frequency domain and does nothing to actively correct the time domain, which is where the bigger problems lie.


If you have no other method of calibrating your system, then run YPAO and afterward shut off the room EQ portion. Keep the calibration portion.


Next time you buy a receiver, get one with Audyssey MultEQ XT or MultEQ XT32. Those systems correct the bass with hundreds of filter points. They also correct in the time domain. No snake oil there... just better sound.


Craig
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Attached pictures of my room can anyone advise room treatments I only have to please the blonde on the sofa




 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,119 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughalot
Would room treatment not be a better way to go
sure, but even with room treatments, eq helps...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,938 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughalot
Would room treatment not be a better way to go
Using one doesn't exclude using the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john
Next time you buy a receiver, get one with Audyssey MultEQ XT or MultEQ XT32. Those systems correct the bass with hundreds of filter points. They also correct in the time domain. No snake oil there... just better sound.


Craig
I wont be buying another receiver in a hurry unless this one gets nicked or struck by lightning. Even then I would probably go for a very good Hybrid Amp something like the Vincent 236 MK11 or similiar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,188 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughalot
Would room treatment not be a better way to go
I think that it would.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj
sure, but even with room treatments, eq helps...
I also agree; but, eq should be the very last step. It's the icing on the cake. And the less eq used, the better. However, I think it should only be used to deal with peaks. Significant nulls should be dealt with by experimenting with different locations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,187 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughalot
I wont be buying another receiver in a hurry unless this one gets nicked or struck by lightning. Even then I would probably go for a very good Hybrid Amp something like the Vincent 236 MK11 or similiar.
Seems kind of weird to ask about something like audyssey and once you are told that the effect of these types of system can be real to say that you are not interested. Without making any claim on how good/bad a hybried amp/vincent is the value of a adding a modern eq system can do wonders for a room like yours.


Daniel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielo
Seems kind of weird to ask about something like audyssey and once you are told that the effect of these types of system can be real to say that you are not interested. Without making any claim on how good/bad a hybried amp/vincent is the value of a adding a modern eq system can do wonders for a room like yours.


Daniel.
I am certainly not saying I am not interested I was only stating that I wont be buying another receiver in a hurry. I see no need to change what I have now..(unless something catastrophic happens) I will certainly try the Yamaha room equilization and if it works wonderful if not than I will live with what I have. My sound quality is not terrrible actually the bass is tight and very deep. I do believe however that room treatments especially in my room will make a huge improvement I just dont know the best way to go about it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,119 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja12
I

I also agree; but, eq should be the very last step. It's the icing on the cake. And the less eq used, the better. However, I think it should only be used to deal with peaks. Significant nulls should be dealt with by experimenting with different locations.
while i agree on "significant nulls", the first part doesn't make sense to me... whether you "fix" something with treatments or eq, it's "fixed"...


if it proves "easier" for the user to use eq than treatments, there's no "real big reason" why they shouldn't... why do things the "hard way" simply to do them the hard way?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj
while i agree on "significant nulls", the first part doesn't make sense to me... whether you "fix" something with treatments or eq, it's "fixed"...


if it proves "easier" for the user to use eq than treatments, there's no "real big reason" why they shouldn't... why do things the "hard way" simply to do them the hard way?
I truly appreciate all the feedback. If someone could advise on room treatments what and where that would help a great deal


Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,119 Posts
^^^


post up some pics... let's see what we are working with...


but to start, corner bass traps very rarely hurt...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj
^^^


post up some pics... let's see what we are working with...


but to start, corner bass traps very rarely hurt...
Pics posteed earlier in the thread .Bass is not a problem its tight and deep my problem is rather with the upper mids to tops, in some recordings they are a litttle harsh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,188 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj
while i agree on "significant nulls", the first part doesn't make sense to me... whether you "fix" something with treatments or eq, it's "fixed"...


if it proves "easier" for the user to use eq than treatments, there's no "real big reason" why they shouldn't... why do things the "hard way" simply to do them the hard way?
No eq and/or electronics in the world is going to fix a reflective room. If they did, then there would not ever be a need to have acoustic treatments in any type of room; but, that is surely not the case. If the room is very lively, it's going to continue to be very lively even after you apply eq. I definitely have first hand experience on that. I removed all of the acoustic treatments in my room, and I really couldn't stand the sound and that's with the eq on. I was hearing the room echo from just having a normal conversation in the room. That's why I suggest acoustic treatment first to tame the room as much as possible; but, don't over do it with acoustic treatments because you don't want a dead room. The acoustic treatments, if placed in the right places, will take care of a lot of nulls and peaks for you which means little to no eq is really needed. Once I added the acoustic treatments, the echo, from just a normal conversation, was removed.
 
1 - 20 of 66 Posts
Top