Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Complete Audio Noob

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
June 20, 2011 9:05:16 PM

Hey Techies!

Last year I built my very first computer (woohoo!) and I have a question about sound.
Right now I'm using some PC speakers: Altec Lansing '5.1' setup, into the audio jack in the back of the mobo. I have an Asus P7P55D-E Pro http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

These speakers are an old setup I had kicking around the house from my other store-bought PC setup. I've noticed my little brother's sound system which includes a receiver of some kind, dvd player, blue ray player, and some sweet speakers. He's got a center channel, a couple front speakers, some rear speakers and a sub. This setup sounds a million times better than mine and I'm wanting to upgrade myself.

I'm assuming I can get something of the same setup, a decent receiver with good speakers. My question is connections. For good sound, would my best bet be to purchase a system with a receiver and speakers and connect via optical? Sorry for the noob question, I really know next to nothing of sound, just that I like it loud. So far all the rear channel computer speakers I've heard barely have any sound output at all, which is why I tend to stick with my in ear canalphones.

This would be something I'd want to have the versatility of connecting to not only my PC, but perhaps in a different room entirely, to a big screen tv (via HDMI connection).

I'd probably want to spend under $500 or so..

Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance,
Tac

More about : complete audio noob

June 21, 2011 1:40:15 PM

a receiver will connect to a computer.
and
a receiver has an A/B switch for the front speakers, so you could run some speakers in another room.
but
the source is assumed to be close to the receiver.

the receiver isnt going to do you any good in the other room for the television without running cables back and forth.
this means extenders and probably a wireless transmitter repeater so you can control the radio from the other room.

receivers dont have the option to switch all of the speakers over to another room.. only the front speakers.
if you wanted all of them in another room, you would have to use an A/B switch for each speaker.
the output from the receiver goes into the switch.. the computer speakers go on A or B .. and the speakers for the television room go on the other letter.
whenever you leave the PC room to watch television, you would have to switch the dial for each speaker.

if you use HDMI to connect the video to the television.. you might not get a chance to send the audio to the receiver.
it depends on the source box.. whether it is a dvd player or bluray or cable/satellite box.
sometimes these boxes have the option to turn off HDMI audio and use the optical/coax audio option.
and
sometimes you are only allowed to use one or the other.

it would be a real pain to run an hdmi cord from the television room all the way to the PC room.. and then another hdmi cord from the PC room to the television room.
that is like $50 - $75 in cords.. plus you would need TWO extenders for the hdmi cord.
would be like $250 - $300 to run the cords back and forth.

easier to use the three rca jacks for video to the television, and then the digital audio cord to the receiver.
even then, you might need a booster or extender for the digital audio cord.

maybe it would be easier for you to buy two different home theater's in a box.. at $250 each, i wouldnt expect the quality to be very good.
but
there are other options.
a used receiver for like $50 - $75 off ebay for the PC room.
some used speakers to go with it (but you might not ever know if the speakers you are buying sound any better than what you already have)

the same used option for the television room would keep you under $500 .. but it would be a real guess as to what the sound quality is you are getting.


maybe your altec lansing speakers sound bad because of the soundcard they are connected to.
a different DAC can make a world of difference, because real trash can make anything look better.
are the speakers connected to the analog outputs .. or are they connected with a digital connection?
the analog outputs could prove to be a chance for you to upgrade the sound from the speakers you already have.. but how much better is usually a situation like this:
1. you get an improvement from any mid-range or high-end soundcard that goes on and on about sound quality.
2. you spend a large amount on a standalone DAC (but these are usually only stereo anyways, and it is better to find a home theater receiver for surround sound capabilities)


with a $500 spending limit.. you would be lucky to find a SINGLE home theater in a box setup that really shows a lot of improvement over what you already have.
and if you do..
it might have everything to do with the digital to analog convertor (and sometimes the amps are made to produce sound better)

the american dollar has gone down in value.. $500 today is like $250
and back then $250 really didnt get you much at all.
usually some generic sounding amp with speakers that had sound quality that matches the effort you put into the project.
and that can be an annoying thing when you worked hard for the money.


consider what i said about the difficulty making the receiver work from the other room.
and also consider how much it is going to cost for new speakers for each room.
m
0
l
June 21, 2011 2:25:36 PM

Thanks for the reply anwaypasible,

I think I worded my original post incorrectly..

Quote:
a receiver will connect to a computer.
- This is what I was getting at. Knowing this, what is the best quality signal -or- connection method to do just this. I assume it's going to be optical? Sorry, I know next to nothing about audio.

Also, I think I was misunderstood. I'm not looking to connect my PC and a TV up to 1 system in 2 separate rooms. All I'm after is 1 system that I can move from room to room if/when needed. I.E. A receiver + speakers setup.

But it sounds like
Quote:
it is better to find a home theater receiver for surround sound capabilities)

this is what I'd be after. So any suggestions on where to start looking for these? I don't need some flagship receiver. Just something entry level that would give me clear digital sound and strong 5.1 sound. When I say strong I'm just after some LOUD sound, more than what my Altec setup is capable of.

Again, thanks for the assistance!
Tac

m
0
l
Related resources
June 21, 2011 5:13:35 PM

moving the setup from room to room was on my list of recommendations.. but for most people, it isnt worthwhile to be doing this two or three times a week (or month).

optical or analog has nothing to do with the quality of the audio.
it is which digital to analog convertor is being used.
if you use analog from the soundcard, you will be using the DAC on the soundcard.
if you use digital from the soundcard, you will be using the DAC in the home theater receiver.

it is simply a matter of which one has the higher quality.
most of the newer home theater receivers have equal or better sound quality when compared to the soundcards.
onboard soundcards that are integrated onto the motherboard are as low as it gets.
and if you go back a generation or two, those pci soundcards are not all that worthwhile either.
but
there are options.
and it goes pretty much like this:
1. the home theater receiver has a higher signal to noise ratio with less distortion, but the slew rate isnt very high.
this means there is no noise audible, but the amount of audio that pours out of the digital to analog chip is less.
2. the soundcard has a lower signal to noise ratio, and maybe even more harmonic distortion, but the slew rate is higher and more sound comes out (along with some 'background' noise)

there are some other things, like stereo crosstalk that can be less or more.. so you really have to listen and decide which one you like more.
to say that everybody wears pants.. people must choose for themselves what color the pants are and what material they are made out of.


you should be going to your local store to listen to the home theater in a box setups.
maybe there is something there that gets loud and sounds better than what you already have.
no sense asking the store clerk which one is the right choice.. because they have no idea what your altec lansing speakers and soundcard sound like.
if nothing sounds like the improvement is big enough, dont waste your money.
see where the next store is, how far away and how much it would cost to take a trip to go there to listen to the displays.

kmart and walmart have some home theater in a box setups still?
i wouldnt believe they are really good.. and i dont expect them to cost anywhere close to your $500 limit.
best buy is one store that is popular.. circuit city closed down, so i dont know what else is available in your area.
tigerdirect.com has stores you can go to, and maybe you can take some exotic trip on a train for like $40 to go shopping through what they have at the store.
there are stores in six states.. so maybe it is too far away.
but
there has got to be something else close by.
we have smaller stores, and really.. i can only think of one.
i know there used to be two, but i dont know if the one is still open.


so.. places for you to go and look.
walmart
kmart
target
best buy
radioshack
maybe even a pawn shop
and whatever other electronics stores are nearby

obviously..
if nothing good comes from any of those, you are going to have to build your own piece by piece (receiver and speakers seperately)
m
0
l
June 21, 2011 7:18:49 PM

Again, thanks for taking the time Anwaypasible!

Really, anything is an upgrade to what I have. From just doing a couple days worth of research I want to steer away from a 5.1-in-a-box setup. Little satellite speakers won't give me the sound I'm after. So far, all of those setups leave the rear channels lacking, I can barely hear anything coming out of them.

I'm leaning towards building a piece by piece system, looking for a receiver + bookshelf speakers / sub / center channel setup.



I suppose my next question would be whether or not to invest in a sound card. For some reason I was under the impression that the onboard sound wouldn't matter with an optical connection to a separate receiver.. Again I'm no pro, and was only able to build a computer based on reviews and how-to's from this website.

Again, this is my Mobo: Asus P7P55D-E Pro



m
0
l
June 22, 2011 2:59:49 AM

i would not want to pass by on all of the home theater systems in a box.
because if i did,
that means all of the people who buy them are really really suffering and it shows clearly that the audio industry doesnt give a care for those people.

i would much rather think there are some home theater in a box systems that do actually sound good, but there is always something else that should be a 'no-no' for the person to buy it.
when somebody makes a choice, that says something about the person.
so if the speakers and amp sound good.. maybe the cost is too high for the lack of features on the receiver.

a lot of getting confused with the sound presets.. and none of the real tools that people need to make their system sound better.
kinda like hiring some person to do some work for you, and the person shows up with all of their tools in ONE plastic case.
i really havent ever seen a tool set that has everything.

i thought i would work on my car with the tools i have, and as it turns out.. i needed some torx sockets that were bigger than what i had.. needed some deep dish sockets that were smaller than the ones i had.. needed a giant allen wrench that was bigger than what i had.
also needed to drop the ratchet and use a wrench sometimes.
i was not as prepared as i thought i was.

a real equalizer that can be adjusted.. not some punk parametric eq.
some real time alignment for each speaker.. not some nonsense that is for both speakers at once.
the ability to adjust each speakers loudness individually.
these are real tools for serious construction of tweaking the sound for the room.
without these, it is like the person is a child with a toy.. because you cant fix a car with a screwdriver and some tape.

about your issue with wanting loud.. you probably only need 100 watts per channel.
and yes, home theater in a box receivers sometimes have less watts for the rear channel.
but
i would say, for an upgrade.. it is worth looking at the products for sale, and maybe expect to pay an extra $75
i remember back in the day, you couldnt find a home theater in a box system for $300 or more.
they usually stopped at $250
so a system for $300 - $400 (or even $500) doesnt seem like such a thing, since the value of the dollar went down.

i would tell you to grab a used 5.1 receiver that doesnt have the bluray support.. people are selling these as they buy new receivers.
but
the problem here is.. you dont know if the receiver sounds average or above-average.
and if you had the choice to spend $150 - $175 for two different receivers.. the price might be the same, but getting the above-average sound quality would obviously be better for your listening room, as well as your wallet.
as another person might simply want 5.1 functionality and not be as concerned about the sound quality.. one goes to you and one goes to the other person, it would work out well.
time will bring change and the receiver's will sound better and better when you buy 'em used.
but
maybe i am pushing on an industry that doesnt have the same plans to go forward.
the new surround sound formats are supposed to be an improvement, but they were recently released and there is no word of when the industry will improve again.

you could try to read reviews on the older receivers for sale.. i suppose some of the better receivers will have reviews that hint towards the receiver being above average.. but that doesnt mean what is for sale is going to have those reviews.
kinda like going to a garage sale and expecting something to be there, you really cant do it because the distance between what you want/need and what the person is selling for 'old junk' is way too far apart.
it is a matter of chance and luck.
and it would be the same chance and luck when you try some of those home theater in a box systems.
i am in a situation like that myself.. but for headphones.
i would be willing to try anything with my ears, no matter what price or brand name.. simply looking if something that makes me happy is out there some where.
and when the stores keep the headphones in the package, it gets real hard trying them out and bringing them back.
people get embarassed.. people waste gas going back and forth.. and some stores refuse to give a refund, only store credit.
but
if i ever did find a pair of headphones for a lower price than i expected.. or from a brand name i didnt expect to satisfy me, i would take those headphones and treat them like my pet.


it isnt easy when you are buying new and dont have the money to make a quick grab for something expensive.
there are products out there that punish people who DO have the money to make a quick grab for something expensive.
a person does no research and thinks to themselves 'you get what you pay for'
and with the internet, it is supposed to be 'you get what you research for'
but
i have browsed the internet for information myself, and i have learned first-hand.. the information isnt really there.
only a bunch of articles that dont really teach you anything except a brand name or a model number.
otherwise they use generalized terms without going into detail about why they are important, sometimes leaving out some of the most important details that must be learned before you can make an informed choice.


do yourself a favor and listen to those home theater in a box systems.. because you might be embarassed if you pay for each piece seperately and the home theater in a box sounds about the same, but for $200 less.

wouldnt it be odd if the home theater in a box sounded about the same as the seperate pieces you bought for $200 more.. and the sound didnt really get any better until you spent like $300 - $400 more?
one would think you are supposed to look and find out for yourself before that happens.

just like a vehicle.
you change the oil and put all 5 quarts inside of it.
later that day or the next day you see the oil light blink.
you have the choice to say 'i just put oil in it and it cant be all gone'
or
you could look under the vehicle and on the ground for oil that has been dripping out.

the person who looks is going to know if the oil light was a liar, or if the car has a leak and needs more oil.
as the person who didnt look is going to take a chance driving the engine with no (or little) oil, causing damage to the engine.


people cannot stop doing things for themselves and expect somebody to do it for them.
some people dont know.. some people dont care, and that is why they dont know.. and some people will buy something expensive and demand they get something of high quality for their money.
maybe the person who spent a whole lot of money gets a receiver with a bunch of extra features they dont need or use.
if they would have done the research and looked at the feature list, they would know about the features and what they do.
cant just go into a store and shove the most expensive box into your shopping cart.
the rich get punished for being dumb and lazy.. and the poor get rewarded for all of their research (well they are supposed to get rewarded, but i dont feel they do)
maybe if they research and dig deep for long enough, they might find something that they have to save up for.. but at least it is supposed to be worth it.
but
if the product they save up for is ment to punish rich people.. then the whole thing goes foul, as all that research and effort and saving money went down the drain.
people would stop being interested with the product.. or really angry/depressed for a while.


to say those home theater in a box systems arent very good.. the same thing can be said about all of the speakers they sell at the stores too.
maybe they are a little bit better.. but a whole lot more expensive.
and when the chance of finding something good for less money is like 1 in 30 ... people start asking other people for advice as to which one is the best out of the 30.
obviously we didnt find it yet.. otherwise we would be giving you a model number to go buy.
this has proven to fail in the past.. people recommend something that isnt very good.
my mother and i went through this back in the early 1990's before i was 10 years old.
she was messing around with cleaning products and asked other people what they thought was better than most.
sometimes the person would come back with a product that my mother hadnt tried yet.. and when my mother did try it, she quickly found out that the product recommended wasnt as good as what she already knew.
then she would contact the person and say 'this product is better than what you suggested to me'
and sometimes people would be skeptical or argue.
cant help people who dont want to be helped unless you force the help onto them.
so when i see people asking for 'which product is the best' .. i am thinking they want the help forced onto them.
m
0
l
June 23, 2011 1:52:41 PM

OP:

hdmi or spdif optical are your best choices in terms of quality.

if you plan on running your monitor (or using a tv as a monitor) with the following setup:
PC->AV/R->SCREEN
then you could carry the audio over the hdmi line directly if: your pc using hdmi out ports, or if you have dvi ports but your video card supports sound out over dvi.

if you plan on hooking up your monitor to the pc seperately and having just an audio out with the following setup:
PC->SCREEN , PC->AV/R
then if you have spdif optical out that would be best.

---

technically you could connect all the equipment in both rooms to the receiver, but as A.P. stated with your low budget its not worth the cost. keep in mind that you could always set up your pc room now, and upgrade (buy cables, etc) to connect the other room in the future (on a seperate budget). that would probably give you the best solution.

---

you have to watch out for some home theatre in a box solutions. the ones that come with a dvd/br player often will have less ports and options available than one that comes with no dvd/br player.

htib solutions also typically come with pretty cheesy plastic speakers which you feel like you're just going to snap in half. for $300-400 i certainly expect more than most give. not saying they will not work, just saying to be careful of what you buy.

buying a seperate receiver, and either seperate speakers or a speaker set is probably the best as far as quality is concerned. though, things tend to cost more (but you get more too!)

when choosing a receiver look for the amount and types of inputs you want. avoid sony at under $500, i've heard decent things about onkyo but i've never had one.

for speakers, its best to listen to them in a home theatre room at local stores (best buy or something) if you can help it. there is always the option of going small (3.1) and adding 2 speakers (for 5.1) in the future if you want to buy quality.

if you want a cheap speaker recommendation i know sears.com used to sell a sony tower speaker, black, that was about 3.5 feet tall for about $120. they have like 3-4 speakers under the mesh screen if i remember right. i bought the same speakers from circuit city and two came in one box for the price. at such a cheap price you'd expect crap but even unamplified these things are beast. it was a present for my parents one year.

---

the reason you're hearing more 3.1 on a 5.1 system is because most computer audio is not surround sound. the only things that are surround are typically games and whatever movies you may play. you can change the settings on your pc (or receiver) to duplicate the front audio to the back for times when you wont be using surround. its a simple switch to get it back to surround. i use this when playing audio over the pc speakers from itunes.
m
0
l
June 24, 2011 12:44:26 PM

a punk parametirc qualizer???

what are you talking about... parametric is the best out of the 2, its the only one that can control specific frquency as well as a band of frequencies at YOUR choice. graphics are fixed... if u want to change a certain freqency, the choice might not be there, because the variables are fixed...

there is no cons or pros to balance the 2, parametric is always been the best... unless you like to put the price as con, but who does that, u pay for what you get...

"the ability to adjust each speakers loudness individually. " msot receivers are fine at doing this.
m
0
l
June 24, 2011 2:00:19 PM

yep.. giving me three or five choices of bands isnt enough.
and some receivers have preset bands too that you can scroll through.
i've had better luck with a 10 band equalizer than i ever did with a 3 band parametric.
using them together helped more.

it is a feeling of 'punk' when i have this annoying peak that i cant trim because i am out of equalizer bands.
right now, i am using only a parametric eq.. there are some peaks i cant get rid of, and some dips i cant boost.
my receiver only gives me 3 to choose from.
to say that the three are quick and easy.. the results are also sounding 'simple' and 'quick'
i'd always reach for a parametric on the receiver first, then flatten those results with a 32 band eq.
and if i had to choose one or the other, it would be the 32 band eq.
speakers dont always have smooth frequency response curves that can be flatten rather easily and nicely.
mine looked horrible before any eq.. but maybe it is because i have three ways that are expected to get down into the 20hz area.
if i had some two ways that stopped at like 80hz.. i might have been able to flatten the frequency response some more with the third band.

if parametric was the best.. i wouldnt have had better sound with the 10 band eq on top of the parametric.

i know i am not being totally fair to parametric eq's.. because some of them have a large number of bands that can be used.
but these are not found in home theater receivers as the average 'gift'
i've seen software parametric eq's that allow for much more bands.. but when you are stuck with three, its not enough to get the satisfied feeling of flattness.

perhaps i would be totally willing to say that a parametric eq on the receiver is the 'bust' since it starts the beginning of tweaking the frequency response.
and i could see how 'bust' and 'best' could be pronounced the same.

what i really want to get my hands on is an equalizer that changes the phase of whatever frequency i want.
i would keep some of the amplitude exactly the same as it was before trying to tweak the frequency response, and adjust some of the frequencies phase.
this would prove to make some amplifiers better than others.

when you see your speakers individual frequency response, and you see the line is already pretty flat.. your amp should also be pretty flat.. meaning there is no need to adjust amplitude for different frequencys.
the frequency response recorded with the microphone would show different than what the frequency response graph of the speaker shows.. and those are phase problems/differences because of the room.
i would expect the speaker to be under stress with the phase changes way before the amplitude changes.
and when you adjust the amplitude because of the room.. when you trim it, that is simply asking the room to play the frequency.. hardly the speaker doing all of the work.
the sound is potentially better either way.. depends on the speaker and its design to work with the room.

for example..
the other night i was at an automotive shop until about 1am
they were using the klipsch promedia 2.1 speaker system in the office.
i pointed the satellites out the door and propped the door open.. the sound was much better in the other room than it was if you stood in the office listening to the speakers closely.
some of the sounds will be bloated from the speaker to sound better when you are listening to the wall reflections only.
nobody really needs to be mixing wall reflections with sounds coming directly from the speaker.. the choice should be one or the other to get the higher uniformity, and thus perfection.
dolby and dts also has to make the choice of using only the speaker or only the wall reflections.
technically.. those two technologies are all about using the wall reflections to create their effects.
and somebody needs to aim for a room that doesnt allow the speakers to bloom from the wall reflections to keep the frequency response flat.
sometimes a sound will come and go faster than it takes for the sound to be reflected off the wall.. and that means your frequency response is going to be wrong, as well as the amplitude of the sound.
you might get lucky to 'extend' the duration of the sound with some attack or sustain (or both) .. if it is enough to add the duration needed to get the soundwave to touch the wall.
maybe you touch one wall, but need to touch another wall to get the real 'bloom' effect needed for the frequency response and amplitude to stop having any dips or voids.
real systems would use a limiter of the time domain setup custom for their wall reflections.
that way you could run everything into the walls and stop the time after the last wall has been touched by the sound wave.
the final custom part is when the duration of the sound is longer than the time threshold given by the walls.. and instead of allowing the time to go beyond, you would want some amplitude added.

you can point a speaker to a corner and ask your preamp to play sounds faster or slower in the time domain so that when the soundwave hits the corner.. it takes perfect shape.
you could stand 5ft - 8ft away from the corner and be amazed.
it is all about the size of the soundwave, and how it doesnt fit into the corner as well as other soundwaves.
so when you need to compress it, you would play the wave faster in the time domain.
if you played it slower, the soundwave would go way behind you like a violent richochet.
and when you adjust the speed.. you also need some time-pitch correction.
the time-pitch correction should be everything you need to keep the audio at the perfect (normal) playback rate.

so with that said.. you would point the speaker at the corner and find the frequency that fits into the corner 'naturally' by size.. then anything higher would need to be stretched out, and anything lower would need to be stretched.
when you are done.. the sound will be emitted from the corner without any bleeding out (or bleeding in).
it sounds like $30,000
and if you dont agree, then consider that price being paid to the person who setup the speaker and programmed it.
i dont have the programming knowledge to do it myself.. otherwise i would be sitting here trying to perfect it.
to get the 'natural' sound from the corner.. you need to play a frequency response sweep with a speaker that has perfect linear phase (at least for the frequencies that fit in the corner) ... because the microphone would pick up the area of frequency response as being perfectly the same without deviations.
that is how you pick what frequency bands is the neutral middle.
you will probably find that most of the cheaper generic tweeters are already bloated.. so using them in the corner would help expand the treble.


have you ever seen an audio project setup as a museum display to sound perfect within the constraints of the object used to create the reflections?
they use all sorts of odd objects to put speakers inside of.
otherwise they use the speaker rather openly with some simple forms of reflection and no box for the speaker.
pretty much.. you could go through some pictures of speakers that look like they are trying to sell the speaker.. some of those have been made into such a museum display.
you plug in the preamp into the amplifier and plug the speaker in a press play exactly how the speaker is setup in the photo.
the bass might be light and perhaps non-existant to people who like room shaking bass.. but you can still hear it.
supposed to be a thing of beauty and art.. not maximum functionality in any room.
these are best displayed in rooms that are large with high ceilings, so the audio isnt ruined by other reflections heard.

it is pretty cool.. because when you look at it.. for example the corner.. it sounds like there is gas in the corner and the audio is coming from the gas.
when there is an object on the floor or table.. it sounds like there is gas covering the object and the sound is coming from the gas.
you cant always walk all the way around it and get the same output.. but if you stand in the right spot, it is impossible to point where the sound is coming from (as long as the speaker is hidden from view).
m
0
l
June 24, 2011 10:05:49 PM



"yep.. giving me three or five choices of bands isnt enough."

i hope ur not talkin about BLUECAT digital para. equalizer...

you get three additional bands (this is including the cnetrral freuqnecy) for each frequency you can assign, so that is pretty much any number of bands the model allows... some are digital, and can allow how ever many frequency bands you want, depending on the size of tis memory. you will see most PRO decks, always have PARA. EQs sitting under their compressors and limiters, and its amazing how much bands you can assign.

in other words (using the avg eq.) you can get more then 30 bands... with ONE. and i know you... the person with many equalizers lol...
m
0
l
June 25, 2011 3:08:56 AM

it is true that a parametric eq. can boost as many bands as the Q allows, and you can overlap the Q enough to stretch the boost, thus being like as many bands as you want to call it by saying each frequency (100hz 101hz 102hz) is a band included.

but
people dont always get the pleasure of zooming into their frequency response and seeing that all of the frequencies are flat within 1 or 2dB
they usually range between 3dB and 5dB
the difference is huge.

parametric and graphic equalizers are inferior to digital room correction anyways.
because the digital room correction is literally solving the problem for every single frequency.
if you have 20khz top end frequency and start at 10hz .. the digital room correction is the same as 19,990 bands.

a preference is really misunderstood by the situation.
if i had the choice of six parametric eq's with 3 bands each.. that is 18 bands of guaranteed correction.
i would choose that over a 10 band equalizer, as long as the quality of the boost and cut was the same for both.
the situation i brought up was the choice of one parametric eq. with three bands, compared to one graphic eq with 10 bands.

what the receivers offer for an equalizer is the downright truth, usually only a small number of bands that isnt enough.
giving reason to why i said the parametric eq. is 'punk'
because who is going to be happy with an eq. that only adjusts the treble only?
it isnt pointless when you use it correctly, it leaves much to be desired without doing the rest of the frequency response.

if you can get your system to sound flat within 1dB using a parametric eq. .. i will be satisfied that you are satisfied.
i believe people wont get their frequency response that flat.
if you had the choice of a graphic eq. with more ability to grab ahold of the frequency response compared to the parametric.. choose that one.
i do doubt the home theater receiver industry gives graphic equalizers as a feature, i havent looked through them all.. but i am thinking there are usually only these three options:
1. a parametric equalizer with at least 2 bands short
2. a simple bass/midrange/treble eq.
3. the digital room correction

a lot to be had from the simple bass/treble eq. from the radios of the 1990's ??
people from the 1960's and 1970's will tell you that those two knobs are teasing and abusing the real tools.
so then they added a midrange slider to the eq. as 'normal' .. found in many of the stock radios for vehicles.
this gave new light to vehicle drivers.. and a lot of blown speakers.
to say that the speakers were blown all of the time is to say the people used the eq. given to them.
the only step forward is to add more bands or have it preset at the factory already.
and this was also done on some of the stock radios for vehicles.
but
just like all of the home radios that came with a 6 or 8 or 10 band graphic equalizer, people never ever used them.
it would be like 1 out of 20 people who adjusted the equalizer to make the sound different.
they didnt use a microphone to get real results, they left the knobs at what they thought was 'good enough'


only a matter of seeing what it could be and seeing what people dont care to realize.
imagine you having a calibrated microphone and a laptop (with high quality usb soundcard) sitting around.
you see somebody with an equalizer that isnt using it at all.
doesnt that tempt you to show the person what they are missing?
chances are, they will say something like 'well i no longer see any reason to get rid of these speakers'
or
'i guess i will be keeping these speakers for a while'


if we could hold an experiment to see how many people who are looking to buy new speakers would change their mind if when we put an equalizer onto their old radio and calibrate the equalizer, would the person still want to buy new speakers?
i think there are some people who have junk speakers that wont do the entire frequency response.. and these people are probably looking at subwoofers and such, meaning they shouldnt count towards the experiment.
but
anybody with a three-way system would probably say something like 'maybe i will wait a little longer before i buy some new speakers'
and yes, maybe they realize the speakers are old and sound like old technology.. and maybe later on they would buy new speakers.
but
the chance that the person stops and pauses is going to be there.
it isnt fair to talk about some sound design 3-way tower speakers from the 1980's
any of the cerwin vega or jbl or sony or something like that from the 1990's would provide a start.
i really didnt catch what they were selling around the beginning of 2000.
probably more polk and infinity speakers then.. along with some more sony speakers.
i remember back in the 1990's .. lots of people had some fisher 3-ways with 15 inch woofers.
these types of people who havent heard their speakers on the newer radios with an equalizer would be amazed that those speakers could sound cleaner than they did for all of those years.


if i was selling speakers.. i would hookup and equalizer to their old system and let them hear what they could have had for all of that time.
at least then, the person would feel like they got their money's worth from the old system.
and i would probably give the option to let them keep the calibration and return the new system they just bought .. because some people might have a 'love' for their old system because of memories and stuff.
of course, it would be wise to setup the new system and calibrate the eq. again to show them how good the new system sounds.
then charge them for the speakers, and charge them again for the calibration (new equalizer too).


equalizers and room optimization tools to me are like a vehicle that has a block under the gas pedal.
if people drive around with a block under their gas pedal.. they never really know what it is like to press the gas to the floor and go.
:lol: 
m
0
l
June 25, 2011 2:52:16 PM

eh? most receives im sure have at least 5-band equalizer. my denon 1910 amp, has a 9band eq, assuming my speakers dont have horrible response, i think 9 band is pretty much covered.

anyway i dont think most people aim for a flat frequency, but try to aim for a house curve, like in theatres and cinemas.
m
0
l
June 26, 2011 12:27:45 AM

parametric equalizers have higher priority over graphic equalizers because there are many frequencies to choose from when selecting which one to boost or cut.
and that means the chances are higher that the person gets their frequency response 'fixed' and closer to flat.
if i handed everyone the same 6 band graphic equalizer, people would be complaining that they dont need any of those bands.. and the bands that they do need are not there.

it is an 'everybody is happy' type of thing.
but a graphic equalizer can get you within 1dB if you use a parametric to start the process first.
there will still be chunks of dips and peaks, and you could use either type.

and here is the kicker..
if you get another graphic equalizer, you are stuck with those bands.. even if you dont need them.
with the parametric eq. you could put the center frequency exactly where you need it and then adjust the Q to as wide or narrow as you need it.

a graphic equalizer would be a waste if you had 10 bands and only used 3 or 4 bands out of all 10.
but
usually a parametric equalizer to get you started, and then a graphic equalizer to get it as flat as you can.. it results in all of the bands of the equalizer being used.
but again,
you should be looking at the frequency response on a display to see if a graphic equalizer or another parametric equalizer is the 'perfect' solution to the problem.

MEgamer is right.. and above and beyond the fact that some parametric equalizers dont give you the chance to center the frequency where you need it.
if you use up all of the 'bass' bands.. you might not get the 'midrange' band to center on another 'bass' frequency.

and i am equally wrong to say that a graphic equalizer is going to be better when you dont need all of the bands available.
m
0
l
June 28, 2011 12:05:19 PM

tac339 said:
Again, thanks for taking the time Anwaypasible!

Really, anything is an upgrade to what I have. From just doing a couple days worth of research I want to steer away from a 5.1-in-a-box setup. Little satellite speakers won't give me the sound I'm after. So far, all of those setups leave the rear channels lacking, I can barely hear anything coming out of them.

I'm leaning towards building a piece by piece system, looking for a receiver + bookshelf speakers / sub / center channel setup.



I suppose my next question would be whether or not to invest in a sound card. For some reason I was under the impression that the onboard sound wouldn't matter with an optical connection to a separate receiver.. Again I'm no pro, and was only able to build a computer based on reviews and how-to's from this website.

Again, this is my Mobo: Asus P7P55D-E Pro


Yes, a high end audio setup should have a soundcard.

Also, you are too concerned about rear channel speakers, remember they really don't get any low frequency signals...not really due to the amp but mostly the source. Modern blu-ray movies are specially designed for 5.1/7.1 setups where all the bass goes to the subwoofer, and the mids/highs go to the center, fronts, and surrounds. I don't care how large or how powerful your front towers are or if your rears are the size of the empire state building, a regular movie will still send all low-frequency sound to the subwoofer and there really is nothing you can do the change that, most people have a sub with tiny satellite speakers so if a movie sent bass signals to those tiny speakers, they would sound like farts and would ruin sound quality.

And also, from the setups you heard and say the rear was lacking, was the rear positioned correctly?...if not positioned properly it can ruin sound, the high frequency sound heading towards rears is extremely directional for your hearing, the surrounds should be almost directly to the sides of your at ear level in height, otherwise it will lack a lot.

If you listen to music, thats a whole different story, for movies all your bass will be handled by the sub for the most part, in music, you want good fronts.
m
0
l
June 28, 2011 1:30:55 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
Yes, a high end audio setup should have a soundcard.

Also, you are too concerned about rear channel speakers, remember they really don't get any low frequency signals...not really due to the amp but mostly the source. Modern blu-ray movies are specially designed for 5.1/7.1 setups where all the bass goes to the subwoofer, and the mids/highs go to the center, fronts, and surrounds. I don't care how large or how powerful your front towers are or if your rears are the size of the empire state building, a regular movie will still send all low-frequency sound to the subwoofer and there really is nothing you can do the change that, most people have a sub with tiny satellite speakers so if a movie sent bass signals to those tiny speakers, they would sound like farts and would ruin sound quality.

And also, from the setups you heard and say the rear was lacking, was the rear positioned correctly?...if not positioned properly it can ruin sound, the high frequency sound heading towards rears is extremely directional for your hearing, the surrounds should be almost directly to the sides of your at ear level in height, otherwise it will lack a lot.

If you listen to music, thats a whole different story, for movies all your bass will be handled by the sub for the most part, in music, you want good fronts.



no its not the movie taht sends a low signal, to the sub, its the amplifier crossover settings that does that, the rear speakers recievers full range signals, and it dose have a lot of bass. if you set your speakers on the amp, to large, so taht it receivers full signals, and the sub receives true .1 signals, (and no crossovered 80hz-full range crap) then u will notice that the rears to get a farily large amount of bass, ESPECIALLY in action movies, such as explosions or even helicopters flying past behind you.

if your amp, doesnt have the setting for large speakers so that the speakers must always be crossed over, then you can set your cross over to a very low frequency and hear it then.
m
0
l
June 28, 2011 2:51:45 PM

^Yes, large speakers can be used to make loud bass at "not so low" frequencies, but subs go below the frequency range of regular tower speakers which usually cap out at 35-40hz (I haven't seen/heard many that can go lower and be able to keep it at a "feelable" volume)...below that, down to 25hz and lower is handled by the sub.
m
0
l
June 28, 2011 11:55:55 PM

Well thanks much for all the opinions, I kind of just went with home theater instead of anything to do with my comp, for now.

I saw some Polk Audio's on sale recently and read good enough reviews about them and just went for it.
So it'll be Monitor 70 series II for fronts, 50 series II for surrounds, the CS2 series II for center and I'll be using my brother's paradigm ps-1000 for the rumbles. I guess it's receiver time now :) 
I was going to just do their bookshelf sets for the rears / surrounds but for the price of those + decent stands, I got the 50's for the same cost.
We'll see..


m
0
l
June 29, 2011 12:27:19 AM

If you have a good budget, I recommend getting your equipment as separates (amp, preamp). As you might find better deals for each that are more specific to your requirements and end up saving money as well as getting better equipment for yourself in the end.

And Polks are amazing, you won't be disappointed (I hope). <<<Proud owner of polks.
m
0
l
June 29, 2011 1:58:43 AM

full range goes to the rear speakers, no different than the full range that goes to the front left/right.
the center also gets full range.

no sense punishing people who have 12 inch woofers for each speaker (including the center channel).

LFE is not bass..!
it is pressure.
the LFE channel can have the same bass as any of the 7 speakers in a surround sound set.
the sound producer might decide to add specific unique sounds to the LFE channel because many people have a subwoofer.
but
the politically correct agenda is to provide vacuum and pressure for the room.

this is audiophile territory where standing in the doorway can knock a drunk person over.
the pressure isnt the same tickling effect that you get with lots of in's and out's from the cone.
it is mastered to be solid rise and fall of positive and negative pressure.
the reverb of the room doesnt allow any in/out movement.. and that means your ears can take it a lot more.
and when the pressure gets violent enough, you will need some ear studs.
meaning, if you have to temporarily glue some heros into your ears so they dont fall out.. that is simply what it is going to be.
and that also means more power to the speakers to be loud enough to be heard over the ear plugs.
and it also means a custom microphone with the same designed ear plug in the way to capture the frequency response.



anyways..
receivers have the option to mix the LFE output with the main speakers.
obviously not all of the receivers have this 'feature' .. but some do.
it is important to have when your speakers can play the role of a pressure pump AND a subwoofer at the same time.
but
this should be where the filthy rich are having a problem.

it is all a matter of what the sound producer does with the LFE channel.
you might setup the room and realize that there is nothing but normal subwoofer bass pouring out of the LFE channel.
and this would be like saying.. 'the movie audio soundtrack simply does not have a true LFE channel'
it should prove to be annoying and expensive to see your equipment go to waste.

and if the audio producer doesnt know any better.. they might be fooled into mixing the true LFE output with the LFE channel and the surround sound speakers.
that means more mixing and mastering at the house to try and discover what is what, and then send that audio to the appropriate speaker.
might be worthwhile for your favorite movie, but i wouldnt want to do it.
simply trying to guess what is an explosion and what is ment to pressurize the room appears to me as a long battle of struggle.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 4:35:24 AM

So if anyone is interested, which receiver would you pick with above posted speaker setup?
pioneer vsx-921-k or yamaha rx-v571BL?

Honestly I'd rather spend about $100 less but I'd be up for spending more than budget if it'll be much more worth it.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 5:26:59 AM

you should probably ask yourself one serious question..
will you be listening to music more often
or
will you be watching movies with dolby or dts more often?


looking at the design characteristics of the advertisement pages from the websites..
it appears that the YPAO technology is specifically tailored to speakers of a different distance.
see the article here:
http://www.yamaha.co.jp/english/product/av/guide/techno...

the emphasis put on the time alignment is crucial, and the above article goes on and on about the time alignment.
secondary comes the flat frequency response.
since the technology age is so inheritantly structured to upgrade.. i wouldnt be suprised if the yamaha raises the frequency response.. swelling the room more, and then trimming peaks off to keep the sound loud and coherent.
as i said in another thread, if you are listening to the reflections of the walls too much.. it can make the sound muddy.
picture a glass of water and you add a dash of salt.
i dont really want to say a dash of salt.. i want to say how many little grains to put into the glass to begin changing the flavor.
because that is what the walls do to the soundwaves.


pioneer's MCACC goes straight into the talk of frequency response.
but
perhaps i have been mislead.
since the wording goes like this 'Pioneer's exclusive Multi-Channel Acoustic Calibration system (MCACC) provides a near studio-quality'

and to break that down into sub-text says this 'grade-A *near* .. to that of studio quality'
i cannot be said to decipher such misleading coded context.
the next list of words is 'multi-channel'
putting emphasis that it does not say multi-channelS .. with the S being important.
when all of the speakers are time aligned really good.. there is sound coming from all of the speakers, but they form together and create a solid 'one'


yamaha on the other hand goes into great detail about how the frequency response is adjusted.
it was said that there is a 7 band parametric equalizer.

both of them must have the higher audio quality.. one for the price tag, and two because of the audio demands of blu-ray audio.

since you asked me..
you take on the same confusion i am faced with.

some word of advice..
i wouldnt go to the store and ask them to use the calibration feature to try it out.
their ceilings are way too high to promise the same results at home.

truth be told..
either way you do it, time-alignment or frequency calibration, they both provide 'new' results for people that have gone without either one.
most important?
very very hard to say.
the experts would tell you to use your own ears and make the decision.

i would probably go with frequency response first, and then time alignment second.
but
i have had the pleasure of using both, and i have lost the capability of using either one.
with that said, i wouldnt want to lose either one of them.

a calibrated frequency response is only as strong as the person who enjoys the new sound.
i would say go with the time alignment first.. but if you havent heard a calibrated frequency response ever, it might be exactly the thing you are thirsty for.
sometimes the time alignment is much better since people have never heard a frequency response that is much flatter.
and the improvement is astounding.
some people might say.. 'is a calibrated frequency response really that good?'
maybe somebody would say no, but that is generally from people who havent heard full range audio.
REAL full range audio.. stuff that goes down to like 10hz and up to like 30-50khz

as i said, both of them have the power to create a very serious sensation of 'new' technology, and a new love for audio.
which one is like asking a person what their favorite color is.


the true point is this..
if the frequency response is dependant on the blooming and swelling of the amplitude to then later trim the peaks to keep all things coherent.. it really isnt going to work superbly with dolby and dts.
maybe dts works with the blooming effect.. i really havent had enough examples to make a decision about it.
but
dolby is certainly the one to use the walls for enhanced 3d sound.
you dont want to break that if you watch movies more than listen to music.

some might say 'HEY.. blooming the room will make those 3d effects louder!'
and to that i say..
you will never ever get the same soft ambient effects that appear like water pouring into the middle of the room as all of the water runs out equally in all directions, and continues to go after it hits the wall.
all of that pumping up of the room is one thing, and the sidenote requires some extensive re-designing of today's speaker assortment.


the blooming method can make music sound better than stock.
but the results are windy and air-y sounding.
if you enjoy leaving your volume up high to overcome some background noise.. fine.
but
it isnt the same as listening to audio with much more silence.
blooming can allow the superb stop and go effect, and this is what makes the music sound better.
but
losing the soft subtle touches can also be a very big loss.. especially when transients are involved, the loss is even bigger.
cant get realism with windy air-y sound.. not with todays current speaker selections.
because when it is all said and done, when things are supposed to drop to silence.. it simply wont happen with the room blooming.
meaning we need more impulse response correction to appreciate the audio industry to its full extent.
there will then be choice A and choice B
each letter giving grade to the results.


**edit**

another thing..
a calibrated frequency response will make your speakers appear to be more expensive.
and
a calibrated time alignment will make your receiver appear to be more 'technologically advanced'

if you are having trouble deciding which one to aim for, consider the above summerization to make it easier.
for what it is worth..
when your receiver makes your speakers sound more expensive, you kinda get the feeling that your receiver is also more 'technologically advanced'
so maybe you get both feelings of satisfaction from one choice.
time alignment doesnt make the speakers sound more expensive, it is only good to show that the person doesnt realize how amplifiers work.
stereo crosstalk doesnt always get the attention it deserves.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 1:50:12 PM

Quote:
you should probably ask yourself one serious question..
will you be listening to music more often
or
will you be watching movies with dolby or dts more often?



As far as use is concerned, I'll be watching movies most often, followed up by gaming (PC), then music.
Man you go deep into explanations, and although I absolutely thank you for, I have a hard time understanding most of it. You have to understand although I know a little bit about computing, when it comes to home audio I know next to nothing.

I just want to make sure I'm powering my speakers efficiently and have the features / technology to enjoy what I'm watching / playing with full, rich sound.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 5:43:39 PM

Update:

It's between these models:

Denon AVR 1712

Yamaha RXV571BL

Pioneer VSX-921-K

Pioneer Elite VSX-40

I guess I'm leaning towards the Elite based on what I read about the Elite lineup. Any thoughts?
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 8:12:46 PM

Don't be so fast to jump to the pioneer, don't get me wrong, they are great. I'd actually pick Denon and a few others over any other brand just in general for a variety of reasons. Out of the ones you listed, I think the Denon will be the best one. Reason being is that its between a personal favorite brand and a brand that makes receivers and amps of the absolute highest quality and highest standards.

However, again, it depends on what features you require and whats most important for you. Yamaha is also great so don't jump on denon either. Im just your average denon fanboy.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 8:45:28 PM

tac339 said:
Quote:
you should probably ask yourself one serious question..
will you be listening to music more often
or
will you be watching movies with dolby or dts more often?



As far as use is concerned, I'll be watching movies most often, followed up by gaming (PC), then music.
Man you go deep into explanations, and although I absolutely thank you for, I have a hard time understanding most of it. You have to understand although I know a little bit about computing, when it comes to home audio I know next to nothing.

I just want to make sure I'm powering my speakers efficiently and have the features / technology to enjoy what I'm watching / playing with full, rich sound.



some would say 'to understand is to disagree'
and others would say 'to understand is to agree with clear and concise focus'

i really dont know which one to talk about.
i would be interested in trying all of them to do my own personal comparison.
since each of the receivers is ment for blu-ray audio.. it should be safe to assume the audio is going to be better than previous designs.
i would suppose some of the worst of the big name brand offerings is going to be about the same as some of the older generations mid-range (or high-end) products.. not to be confused with top tier things that cost more than $1,000.


personally.. i think dolby and dts have their requirements before the audio quality is allowed to be stamped with their logo.
without meeting those specifications, it should prove to be quickly known once you get the receiver home and hook it up.
to say that one has met the lowest requirements, compared to another one that has met all of the suggested requirements.

video games and music are two of the same, unless your video games output dolby surround sound specifically.
very few of them do, so i would say that.

the room optimization is fairly new to a lot of people.. and only some of the experienced ones will want to pick and choose between them for the best choice.
perhaps you are new to them too.. but i tried to give you the opportunity to select one over the other for a reason.
i dont know what reason to tack onto what receiver.
i havent tried ANY of those auto calibration setups.
and i know better than to try and do it at a store with really tall ceilings.
10ft ceiling could prove to be enough to throw off the results when the auto calibration is done with a 7.5ft ceiling.
maybe it isnt, and those two heights (and anything inbetween) are already compensated for.
but
most stores have a ceiling that is like three times that height.
i dont think they are 30ft .. more like 50ft

you should be blessed with knowledge if you find a store that has lower ceilings that are something like a house.
these usually are not the 'name brand' stores.. but the smaller locally owned stores.
and if you have some speakers on a shelf.. that isnt always the best opportunity either, because there arent any walls to create the room.
when the distance from one wall to another is like 50ft - 100ft .. that is going to ruin the results of the auto calibration.
you shouldnt use those results and think they will work the same at home.
what you need is a real room built inside the store.. use the same speakers for each auto calibration.. and then compare the different receivers to see which one does something your ears like the most.
and dont forget to listen to the speakers without the auto calibration, since that will really help you get an idea of what is going on.
you really shouldnt have to listen very hard.. maybe closely for a moment to take a mental image to compare two of them together.. but if you are listening that close, it doesnt always matter that much.
truth be told.. if you stand there listening closely for 5 - 10 minutes .. you are okay.
if you are listening there closely for 10 - 20 minutes .. you are trying too hard and are wasting your time, as the results you get arent going to be loud and clear when you bring the receiver home.

now..
you should be prepared for the listening experience.
that means being stress free, no different than the same stress you might think about at home.
some people say clear their heads, and i dont always agree with that.. because if you completely clear your head.. you might have some stress at the house.
when your head is too clear, you can hear things that you dont normally hear because you are not normally that clear minded.
it is rotating around to the same point.. if you try too hard you will make a mistake.
and it is absolutely true, if you get yourself into this 'super human listening mode' things can sound louder than they normally would.
you can also turn off your hearing quite a bit to prevent pain or annoyance.
take a person with a saw.. the person doing the cutting might not think the saw is very loud, because they are in control of the saw and they expect the noise to happen 'when'
and
the person watching the cutter from the side, that person isnt always prepared and in control to 'flush out' the sound.
it can lead to the person closest to the saw not complaining about harmful sounds.. and the person 4ft away is saying something about not wanting to listen to the saw because the noise went up into a harmful zone.


anyways..
i wish people the best.
not everybody can get the excitement of lifting a rock to see what bugs are under the rock.
and not everybody is going to know ahead of time that there can be a lot of disappointment when you lift the rock and find nothing but some dirt stuck on the bottom of the rock.


people are always talking about the improvements.. but they dont talk about how they get there.
to say each person has a vehicle with an engine..
one person simply adds a turbo.
the other person does bigger fuel injectors and bigger coils.. and gets a performance chip for the computer.
the turbo might make the engine run a lot hotter, and it might be something you want to avoid.
but
when each person hands you a receipt for the drag racing times.. both results look better than the stock engine.


maybe you dont need the persuasion.. maybe you do.
if you do get lucky enough to find a store with a listening room, and the store has the receivers you are looking at.. make sure you listen to each one in the same position with the same decibel level.
i am at the point of making myself giggle.. because i wonder if people are this crazed when they buy a new vehicle with like 10 miles on the odometer.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 8:56:49 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
Don't be so fast to jump to the pioneer, don't get me wrong, they are great. I'd actually pick Denon and a few others over any other brand just in general for a variety of reasons. Out of the ones you listed, I think the Denon will be the best one. Reason being is that its between a personal favorite brand and a brand that makes receivers and amps of the absolute highest quality and highest standards.

However, again, it depends on what features you require and whats most important for you. Yamaha is also great so don't jump on denon either. Im just your average denon fanboy.


looking at the words and doing some subcontext here..

you say denon perhaps might mean to you 'justified in general for a variety of reasons'
and to that i say..
what if it really goes like this 'justified in general for a variety of reasons non-existant' ?

perhaps you said yamaha means to you 'the circuit sparkle is all so great'
and to that i say..
what if it really goes like this 'the circuit sparkle is confusing.. but the rest of it is easy' ?

i call the electricity within the circuit *is* .. kinda like the sound lower amounts of electricity can make.

so umm..
if we have one for denon and one for yamaha.. what does pioneer get?
simply the word 'elite' ?
and what if it is actually 'everything light'
kinda like e-lite is to e-light.. and the 'e' stands for everything?


i am not ready to be a fanboy for any name brand.
i know that each company is making money and because of that, they have the money to buy the more expensive parts to build the higher quality receivers.
and i feel like this.. whether or not you are looking to buy a receiver of their higher quality offerings, i dont know which level of quality is there in front of you.

when you go listen to those receivers to decide.. you are taking on the responsibility of one extremely important thing:
JUST BE YOURSELF
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 11:37:20 PM

I prefer denon because I've heard dozens of receivers from pioneer, yamaha, onkyo, harmon kardon, marantz and denon consistently to me seem like highest quality receivers. Marantz is also a favorite. With denon, if the amplifier says it provides a certain amount of power per channel...it truly does so, unlike other amps who simply cannot. When I look for a receiver if its a good brand, I just find a good deal, but generally, marantz, denon, HK, yamaha are all good. Onkyo's are "OK" and so are Pioneers. This is coming from measurements done with an oscill to see distortion levels of the amp under different circumstances. From the tests I've done/seen, denons seem the most stable when it comes to this, but this depends on individual amps and the difference is very slim between the high end receiver/amp makers, all are up to par mostly when it comes the power.

And let me remind you, if a cheaper receiver like from sony/onkyo says it can provide 80, 90, 120, 140..etc watts per channel...its BULLSHIT... a harmonkardon kicking 35watts per channel beats a sony or those other cheap brands that claim to output twice or more as much.

So wattage is something you must ignore when looking at specs. (This is to the OP).

But I do agree with you anywaypasible, as long as the music/movies sounds good to your personal ears then the equipment used doesn't really matter.
m
0
l
July 1, 2011 2:50:36 AM

does anybody else realize the 'trick' stated about *such and such amplifier at 35 watts will be a 100 watt 'other' brand name* ??
it isnt 35 watts with these conversations, it is 35 VOLTS.
and even then.. the voltage is very distorted (not clipping) at those highest voltages.

it is like there was an era where the tube amps would swap the word voltage for wattage.
and i am willing to bet it has everything to do with the fact that the distortion was way too high at the number given for bragging rights.
those amps worked really good at low volume levels.
50 volts in a vehicle is like 1,000 watts.
most receivers put out like less then 20 volts per channel.
maybe it is in the 30's .. i dont have a digital multimeter, and my analog wont say anything when i use it to ask.


i dont know why you are bashing sony receivers.. they willingfullly state their harmonic distortion levels.
when you buy a receiver with 10% harmonic distortion (and nowadays it is 1%) dont expect the manufacturer to show kindness with the audio results.
it is like there is a giant indicator saying JUNK .. but you ignore it.

i have two twelve inch subwoofers used as woofers.. they are rated at 150 watts @ 8 ohms.
my sony receiver can make those cones move in and out until the rubber surround no longer has any more room left to let the cone out.

my receiver has 0.09% total harmonic distortion.
the new receivers have 0.08%
onkyo's $1,400 receiver has 0.08%
pioneer doesnt list the percentage
denon's $5,500 receiver has 0.05% (their receivers have the option to do 0.08% or 0.05%)
sony's receivers show up at 0.09%

remember.. some receivers have shown to be a full 1%



dont get me wrong..
sometimes they say 100 watts per channel.. and they do it for 2 channel audio.
but
100 watts per channel x 5 is sometimes false.
the speakers shares the account of amplifier power.
and that means you can get a lot more burst from the front speakers when surround sound is on.
i really hate hearing about 'this receiver has a weak amp' when the person is too lazy to use an amplifier to see if the amp will keep up when the boost is REQUESTED.

so what if the default settings have a steep bass rolloff.
people jump to the conclusion that there simply isnt any power there.. and that is totally false.
i have my parametric equalizer set for my speakers since my soundcard broke.
the soundcard was providing lots of bass boost as well as flatting out the rest of the frequency response.
but
now i have had to reduce the midrange and treble all the way down to maximum to get the frequency response flatter.
maybe you cant mentally turn down the midrange and treble all the way down without freaking out and thinking there is some serious loss of midrange and bass.
that is exactly what a microphone is for.. so you can visually see what the frequency response looks like without freaking out about what the equalizer numbers say.

you buy a car without a turbo and call it slow.. fine.
but you see the honda cars with turbos and all decked out.. they are much quicker.
it doesnt mean the car is fast.. it means it isnt fast when you leave it at default.

what do these 'powerful' receivers do when you use an equalizer to boost frequencys?
can you actually boost without distortion?
or
do you have to cut frequencys to match the dips?


i havent heard any of the new receivers.
but
from the 1990's to early 2000 i heard receivers from many different companies.
denon had power.. the sound quality wasnt extra, the wattage was.
yamaha didnt have a flat frequency response, but the slew rate was higher.. and you could clearly hear the extra details.
pioneer was underpowered and severly colored with lots of dips and peaks in the frequency response.. i had literally heard lots of technics receivers that sounded much better.
the onkyo receiver i heard was straightforward and sounded like the harmonic distortion was low and competitive.
the slew rate was actually bumped up a bit.. but it sounded like there was dips and peaks with the slew rate.
marantz sounded like there was a failing effort at the slew rate.. with dirty harmonics and a slightly lower signal to noise ratio.

do these do the same thing.. only much better?
i havent gone to the stores to find out.
lets review the facts.. you dont get much without paying for it.
and if you try real hard to beat the industry leaders.. you will generally fail without spending more money than what the hardware you are competing against costs.

very high quality without having to do ANYTHING is going to cost an arm and a leg.
sometimes they still dont sound any better.. what you get is simply more.


i am interested in listening to what year the receivers were available for sale when you listened to them.
i havent been there for the years after 2000.
but i know car audio amplifiers do a lot of lieing about their voltage outputs.
no reason why home theater receivers should do the same.
not a whole lot of speakers that have rms ratings that are lies?
and if they are lies.. doesnt the damage only happen when you are listening at very loud levels?


amplifiers have different voltages for each frequency octave.
but
that doesnt mean the amplifier isnt capable of providing the same voltage for all of the frequency octaves.
many televisions are the same way.
they look like crap with the default color settings.
but
that doesnt mean they arent capable of looking better.

maybe we should keep our mouths shut so when people think what they have is junk.. they sell it to us for cheap, and we get it home and calibrate it.
get used to it.. because you wont normally get the chance to see your old electronics performing better because somebody took the extra effort.
m
0
l
July 1, 2011 4:15:30 AM

Quote:

it isnt 35 watts with these conversations, it is 35 VOLTS.


I personally, do not know if manufacturers switch their wattage with voltage ratings...I highly doubt that, since the two measurements are so different. However if you show me a receiver that provides specifications for total power consumption in wattage and how much current it uses (amps) then you can easily find out if the voltage specified is correct. However I do know that many amps say they can deliver 100+watts of power per channel simply cannot. If you use an equalizer to lower the midrange and high frequencies (which are quite easy to power) and then increase the volume so that more power goes to low frequencies to make bass, the amps crap out and die. I have used potentiometers or variable resistors for those who do not know, to kill my mids and highs and then I had to increase volume to max to achieve a reasonable bass...this was on an onkyo I used to have that claimed 600watts for 5 channels. 600/5=120. So that amp claimed to output 120watts per channel...and I can quite assure you, it was not even doing half of that at maximum volume, not to mention the quality absolutely sucked. Therefore the reason I respect denon so much is that when they claim to output a certain amount of power...the amp truly does output that power and it does so with quality and it provides those powers across all or at least much more frequencies. So what it comes down to is that denon amps deliver... whether it be tough or easy, lows or highs or loud...they deliver good solid ass sound. :) 

In the late 90's my father bought a 100watt kenwood amp for a little over 1grand. It did the old 4 channel surround I think, but was mostly a stereo amp. Its only 100 watts and outputs I think only 35watts per channel for the stereo speakers...the sound is absolutely phenomenal compared to the 100watt BS onkyo I used to have. That amp truly provides the power. If came anywhere near a speaker, a big speaker that was powered by a pure 35-45watts...you would be running away, and fast. It would extremely loud. And here there are amps claiming at 100watts per channel and its barely audible at max volume lol...whatever they say divided it by at least 3-4 times and thats what it is actually providing...unless its from a good brand like the ones I named...HK, marantz, denon, yamaha..etc.

Quote:

50 volts in a vehicle is like 1,000 watts.
most receivers put out like less then 20 volts per channel.


That all depends on the current provided...if your voltage is lower but your current is higher you can still achieve just as high of a power.

Quote:

i dont know why you are bashing sony receivers.. they willingfullly state their harmonic distortion levels.
when you buy a receiver with 10% harmonic distortion (and nowadays it is 1%) dont expect the manufacturer to show kindness with the audio results.
it is like there is a giant indicator saying JUNK .. but you ignore it.


I'm not bashing them, I'm simply stating that they are of a low quality.

Quote:

i have two twelve inch subwoofers used as woofers.. they are rated at 150 watts @ 8 ohms.
my sony receiver can make those cones move in and out until the rubber surround no longer has any more room left to let the cone out.


Are your subs passive or active/powered?...if they are powered your amp has nothing to do with the power they get, the receiver simply sends a signal and the built in amp of the sub powers it.
Also, assuming your subs are not powered, but passive, and powered by your actual receiver, just because your subs have a pair of high excursion drivers does not mean they are provided sufficient power, not just that but are you sure they aren't distorted. Also, if your subs are ported or bass reflex, the driver is going to generally have very high excursions compared to much higher quality sealed subs which sound 10000x better IMO.

Quote:

i really hate hearing about 'this receiver has a weak amp' when the person is too lazy to use an amplifier to see if the amp will keep up when the boost is REQUESTED.


What do you mean, I don't understand?

Quote:

so what if the default settings have a steep bass rolloff.
people jump to the conclusion that there simply isnt any power there.. and that is totally false.


Please explain, not following you.

Quote:


what do these 'powerful' receivers do when you use an equalizer to boost frequencys?
can you actually boost without distortion?
or
do you have to cut frequencys to match the dips?


When you use an equalizer for powerful recievers, it allows you to (assuming you have capable speakers of producing low frequencies) lower the mids and highs, and then increase the volume level while letting the lows increase, so there is more bass. The receiver would simply be able to power them, a lot of bad receivers fail at that.

Quote:

i havent heard any of the new receivers.
but
from the 1990's to early 2000 i heard receivers from many different companies.
denon had power.. the sound quality wasnt extra, the wattage was.
yamaha didnt have a flat frequency response, but the slew rate was higher.. and you could clearly hear the extra details.
pioneer was underpowered and severly colored with lots of dips and peaks in the frequency response.. i had literally heard lots of technics receivers that sounded much better.
the onkyo receiver i heard was straightforward and sounded like the harmonic distortion was low and competitive.
the slew rate was actually bumped up a bit.. but it sounded like there was dips and peaks with the slew rate.
marantz sounded like there was a failing effort at the slew rate.. with dirty harmonics and a slightly lower signal to noise ratio.


Well its been over a decade, and companies as well as receivers change. Denon, Yamaha are excellent. Marantz, as of now makes phenomenal amps, I might be getting a marantz for my next amp as a matter of fact. Pioneer also makes very decent amps as well as onkyo, but I don't think they are at the level of yamaha, denon, and marantz. And Harman Kardon makes phenomenal amps.

Quote:

i am interested in listening to what year the receivers were available for sale when you listened to them.


Are you asking for which amps and receivers I've heard and are basing my judgments on?

Quote:

maybe we should keep our mouths shut so when people think what they have is junk.. they sell it to us for cheap, and we get it home and calibrate it.
get used to it.. because you wont normally get the chance to see your old electronics performing better because somebody took the extra effort.


haha, I completely agree on that man. A lot of people buy some expensive ass equipment and then fail to properly set it and calibrate it and it ends up sounding like crap that you can get for 1/10th the price. I have seen many people who have done this.
m
0
l
July 1, 2011 8:40:31 AM

ah where to begin.
my subwoofers are from 1992.. they are not high excursion.
lol.. nothing was high excursion back then.
these are simply some denmark-type drivers.
they are run from the receiver because the frequency response is like 22hz - some high number into the khz area.
i've got 'em on a 12dB crossover at 300? 600? i dont remember.
i know the bass isnt distorted.. the rubber surrounds on these woofers are like soft velvet.
probably the softest surrounds from rubber.
they move effortlessly when pushed on, but they dont really move much at normal listening levels.
i havent heard these subs distort ever.
how clean and pure the distortion would be on an increasing plane.. i dont know.
but i do know it isnt mud and it isnt cardboard.
they arent infinite feathers.. as they have some weight/wait to them.

but
what i was saying about using an equalizer to request more bass from the amp..
first break it down like this..
would the boost from the equalizer overload the preamp input?
if not, would the boost overload the amplifer just the same?

nowadays.. marketing has proven to be a scheme still.
not generally with the well known brand names, but with the lesser known products.
say there is 50 volts from the power supply (generally that 50 volts would have to come from the power filter area and make their way to the transistor if there is one)
my amp is a discrete amp.. and that is supposed to not be confused with a solid state amp.
solid state amps are the ones that use nothing but capacitors and resistors to shape and swell the soundwaves as they make their way through the circuit.
discrete amps generally use transistors to excite the capacitors in the essence of time domain.
together they create the boost with all of the right timing.
since it made sense to use the transistors before the amp section, it boils down to a divided structure.
the actual power that provides the amping.. and the transistors on the side doing whatever it is they can to help.
some amps do use a transistor as the final output.
and some have grown to realize it is easier to shape the transistor output with a circuit after the transistor to form some equilateral symmetry as the final result.
but
some will come to realize, transients lost before the transistor will not allow the transistor to magically re-create the transients.
so if you could get some bulk capacitors and resistors that exaggerate the transients, then you could use the transistor to shrink the exaggeration.. and if there is peaks and dips within those results.. run the electricity through another small sub-set of caps to straighten things back out.


anyways..
doing that could bring more ways the amp circuit as a whole does not like to work friendly with equalizer boost from the input.
as you said.. the compenents can crap out and go into an accelerated end of life.
or
the components can hold on for dear life and if you bring them out of that state, they wont sound as good as they did when the pieces were new.

the denon amp back then clearly showed it had more power across the frequency range.
but it does no good when it comes at the cost of the sound quality.
transients are a thing of slew rate and ability to get a handle on those small sounds.
lots of people go without transients on a very wide and casual basis.
the industry does a mighty fine job of hiding the need for transients.. whether it be the microphone being junk or not close enough.
or the analog to digital convertor being junk and not picking up the sounds.
maybe even the analog recording devices are ignoring the small sounds.
probably a thing of the mic not being close enough, or the mic simply not having the ability to capture transients at all.
things get real ugly when transients are recorded for only a partial section of the frequency spectrum.
very ugly in fact, that the sound producer would be inclined to remove those transients.
the recording doesnt sound professional.. and it becomes a general normal that the recording MUST go through the mastering process.
the sample rate really really doesnt help things much.. but could be obtainable, especially with the lower frequencies.
but again,
transients in some places and not others really sounds stupid to those actually listening.
if there are ever any transients, they are usually mild and stretched out in length.. and then exaggerated - being put to use as some special effect rather than a constant useable medium.


when i say there is a default bass rolloff.. it isnt the circuit itself, it is the controlling of the circuit.
to say that the bass has software to control it, and the software is one section lower than what some other people would consider a safe margin.
so it doesnt come as a suprise to have to pump the bass eq up to the maximum.
one could get real paranoid looking at the software without listening to the results.
and very many have proven to get really stupid by looking at the software and not hearing the results.
thinking of the many blown car speakers.. and the person says 'well the bass wasnt all the way up.. why did it blow?'
and people like me get into a chapter about how the software wasnt programmed to be used safely.. and user ignorance led to abuse, and the abuse finally killed the speaker.
maybe some time later down the road the amplifier finally quits.

you could program your software to have flat voltage readings across the entire frequency response.
but
if your voltage levels are boosted for any octave and things become unsafe or distorted.. you would want to hide those problems, one reason would be to keep the distortion down and make the product look good.. and the other reason would be to prevent the user from destroying the amp section early.
with that said..
it would look really dumb to have a bass boost that has ten steps, and those steps dont do a whole lot of boosting.
but
then the midrange and treble has ten steps of their own, and those increments prove to be much louder adjustments.
right away the person is going to realize there is a problem with the bass, and right away they are going to think their purchase is worth less than what they paid for it because of a design flaw.
any revealing of cheap or generic or shortcomings isnt good for the ignorant public view.
they will start giving your brand name a bad reputation and people wont buy the products from fear or anger.


i really dont think the amps are going to mix voltage with watts like they did back in the 1980's
it seems like the new method of tricks is to take the voltage from the power transformer and use it in the marketing.
i am a bit curious how one could use a transformer that outputs 50 volts to the amp area.. and that those caps dont add more voltage, causing some serious peaks.
but
i suppose that is the generic ideology that one might run into when they think they have all of the knowledge to do it themselves the same way the industry leaders do it.

it really is all about current and not the voltage.
you stop dealing with voltage and their spikes and fluctuations.. if that means connecting pieces together that can share the abuse eachother gives.. and then put the attention onto the current, well.. currrent can be obnoxious when it is all one large chunk that isnt broken up into powder.
what is one way to break it up into powder?
lots and lots of capacitors with extremely low esr and low resistance.
the multitude of the capacitors provides extra hands and fingers to grab onto the soundwaves.
and that means, the more hands.. the more your chance there is going to be a capacitor that says 'hey.. everybody is busy but i'll do it'
and this is where the industry leaders laugh at the industry followers.
since there is a pattern that the hands must follow to prevent them from crashing into eachother.
generally.. that means you wont be able to use the same exact capacitor multiple times, unless you are a master of capacitor design to know when to go series and when to go parallel and when/where to halt .. when and where to give a going boost.

and that is why the many receivers share their amplifier power from the same account.
all of the details are 'calibrated' to function because the hands arent bumping into eachother.
and to do that with less pieces and for each speaker channel individually.. it costs more, it is harder to design, and it would probably cause the pieces to die faster because they are doing many things at a time (or a premium price tag).


i have a fantasy about capacitors really.
i would learn what is there input rate.. what is their output rate.
to also say..
what is your spike area.. and what is your dull but powerful area.. and again, what is your dull area with not a whole lot of anything going on but resistance of the piece.
see.. i know this is very simple trigonometry.. and trigonometry is hell on timing compared to a calculus layout.
and i also know that trigonometry is going to be like a puzzle of pieces that you hope you get connected together before the pieces are old and their values/characteristics are different.
but
this also means you will connect one piece to another and damage the second piece because the connection was too much.
you lose money on the part that is broken.. but you know that connection is a good place to start a new junction.
obviously.. you have two choices, make the junction higher resistance or lower resistance.
high resistance is terrible for time.. and although the timing is faster, the array might prove to accept some resistance increase.
no matter what anybody says.. if you take two wires and put them together, it is going to take more to fill those two wires up with electricity.
the current goes faster.. the voltage goes slower.
see..
if you have one wire that is 0.000012 ohms and add another identical one.. the resistance is going to be 0.000024 ohms.
the current will go through the load twice as fast, and the voltage will go through the load twice as slow.
nothing but current that hasnt been powdered is going to sound heavy and without realism.
it isnt until you have two opposing phased amp sections fighting eachother to create a middle.. and then it is nothing more than the ability to release the energy quickly (both large quantities and small quantities) and also be able to recharge quickly without getting itself in the way.

sometimes amps are long as hell because there are lots of capacitors.
voltage spikes is what gives transients.. but it can get a bit confusing when you come to the conclusion that those voltage spikes need enough energy to be transmitted out and down the wire to the speaker.
i think this is what yamaha was trying to do back in the 1990's.
more voltage sparkle than necessary.. and the only way to tame all of that sparkle was to run the wires very very long to hear the results 150 ft away.
then the amplifier would have sounded like any of the other receivers available at the time.
too much voltage sparkle shouldnt happen, by design of the piece.
and if it does happen with no place to go, it will clog up all of those hands as they start bumping into eachother again.
should be called 'bleed in' .. and you want it to 'bleed out'

it is aggravating for me to realize an amplifier can be made at home with results of such a high quality that the FTC would ban the sale of the amplifier to anybody.
that could also bring things like not allowing anybody to hear it, because it would throw off the entire industry and the things they have for sale to the consumers.
so how do they avoid all of this nonsense?
they mark up the price on the pieces.. so that way, if anybody does ever hear it and compare it to what is being sold at the stores.. the creator is gonna be like 'it sounds way better doesnt it!?' and then the creator is gonna be like 'well yeah.. but it cost me $4,000 to build it'
and then the other person is gonna be like 'yeah right.. nobody is going to pay that much for a two channel amplifier'
i dont know the prices.. so i shake and shrivel my head at that :lol: 


i think it all boils down to the fact that there could be DOZENS of different flavors of amplifiers.. and we only see about half a single dozen.
the number isnt the important part.. it is the quality sector those amps are coming from that is important.
i really need to get my butt to a store and have a good listen to the current round of offerings so i have some taste of comparison.
i see my 0.09% harmonic distortion from nine years ago .. and see 0.08% harmonic distortion from the receivers of 2011.
there have been a large number of 1% distortion in the specifications as the receivers came and went through the years.
you still see numbers as high as 10% distortion.. even from big brand names like klipsch.
cant talk about transients until the massive majority is cleaner.
it truly is amazing what some of those $14,000 - $22,000 pieces of audio amplifier hardware can do.
people who can afford it usually get some taste of what better there is to be had from the current round of component availability.
not saying those components dont exist at all.. but that they each have a market classification they are supposed to adhere to and be used for.
that is how the really good audio stuff gets hidden and used for something completely different without notice.
if that ever happens ever.


to get back on a solid gripe..
some people will receive something and simply stare at it.
and then some person comes along and says 'dont stare at it.. open it up and see what is inside'
i mean really.. has nobody else ever seen a person do this at christmas time with one of their gifts/presents?
they tuck it away into the couch as if the person handing out presents is really handing out trouble.. and as the person hides it, they are also trying to keep the flow rotating to somebody else.
kinda like spin the bottle and the person leans to the side so the bottle doesnt point at them.
i suppose this is all we have to do when we are not able to get our hands on something of such higher quality.
the not willing to pay for the trial and error to do it ourselves.. and the settling with what is already available, and then talking about the things that are worse than what we are settling on.
no wonder people come running for answers with questions like 'which one of these is the best?'
not many people build their own to really excel and create something superb.
they might give the quality a few bumps.. and they might simply do it because they know how, and it amounts to some money saved.
people dont go big anymore unless it is arguing with their mouth or performing some physical stunt.
unless you count the many people that try to break the world record for how many televisions you can fit inside one vehicle.
going big seems to be going to college and making more money.. and then relaxing in the bigger pool of insurance.
some people buy something and strip it down, and then put it back together how they want it to look.
but c'mon.. how many scooters are you going to see with the plastic removed and the frame painted custom?
very cute and fun to look at.. until you realize the scooter isnt made for 300lb fat people and the engine is going to push you down the road like an adult on a swing being pushed by an 8 year old.
and even then, you ask yourself how long is the engine going to run good like that until it pukes up its seals and dies.

somebody said i have way too much time on my hands and all i can do is complain, complain, complain.
but
i really cant see something and lie about what i seen.
that would make me more lunatic than what i already appear to be with my long replies.
but really.. dont get me started on 3 sentence responses.. there is no fun or personality or character in those.
you would sound like a robotic tool that is struggling to provide information within the three sentences allowed.
might as well start asking and answering questions with digital sounds if we are going to keep things that short.
m
0
l
July 1, 2011 4:39:22 PM

Quote:

ah where to begin.
my subwoofers are from 1992.. they are not high excursion.
lol.. nothing was high excursion back then.
these are simply some denmark-type drivers.
they are run from the receiver because the frequency response is like 22hz - some high number into the khz area.


I highly recommend getting separate amps for those subs or perhaps getting powered subs...it will take a lot of stress off the amp to power the other speakers. If you want my recommendation, check out a company called "Elemental Design", they make the highest quality subwoofers I've ever heard. And do not get the ported ones. I much prefer and standby the fact that sealed speaker always sound better than ported.

A larger driver in a sealed enclose is better than a smaller driver in a ported due to less excursion to provide the same base which makes response faster, more accurate, less distorted, and deeper and punchier.

Quote:

somebody said i have way too much time on my hands and all i can do is complain, complain, complain.
but
i really cant see something and lie about what i seen.
that would make me more lunatic than what i already appear to be with my long replies.
but really.. dont get me started on 3 sentence responses.. there is no fun or personality or character in those.
you would sound like a robotic tool that is struggling to provide information within the three sentences allowed.
might as well start asking and answering questions with digital sounds if we are going to keep things that short.


Well your replies are long, but are good worded and easy to read to through, and very informative. I don't mind :) 
m
0
l
July 5, 2011 3:16:42 PM

Well, I went with the Pioneer VSX-921-K. Quite the complicated receiver actually. I'm not fully understanding everything yet, but I got everything hooked up and after about 3 days of messing with settings and trying to understand the manual I got it running.

Music sounds amazing. But I was most impressed with the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan (the Omaha Beach scene). Played it in DTS. Just, wow... Knocked my socks off. I was completely immersed!
Best purchase ever..

I'll probably be in Pioneer forums now asking all sorts of questions about these setup / configurations / connections / signal questions that I don't understand. I never knew there was SO MUCH to a receiver, especially this one. I can't imagine what the high end receivers are like.
m
0
l
July 5, 2011 5:33:52 PM

High end receivers are "okay", the best is when you have a separate amp and pre-amplifier.

And you may "think" it sounds amazing, but listen to something even more high end you'll think your sound sucks. I spent a lot of money, and I mean a lot of money on my audio system, and then one day I went to a audio store and listened to some higher end speakers...then went home and listened to mine and it made me want to cry how bad mine sounded in comparison.

However, pioneer is a solid company, enjoy your purchase. And receivers are an all in one system, everything can get connected through them, they are a amp, a preamp, a AM/FM tuner...etc. So they can do a lot of stuff.

If you want it so sound its best, make sure to properly equalize the sound, calibrate the distance, levels, and most importantly, when listening to music, if you do, never ever listen via analog connection to your mp3, use only digital connection, or CD's. And use good quality, and insulated cables for your speakers.
m
0
l
July 6, 2011 3:54:40 AM

i want to hear all about the before and after comparison of using the mcacc calibration that the receiver has.

does the original poster care to give a review?

**edit**

ya know, i really dont believe most of us use all of the 'stuff' that comes with the new receivers.
a list of things that are either not needed, or frowned upon.
i think those extra features are there to bear down on a person until they finally get the nerve to try one of the features.
and for instance, the mp3 player features.. if you absolutely refuse to subject yourself to the quality of mp3 players.. the feature would never get used by you, and that means you wouldnt have any urge to try it.


i dont know which one i would be more willing to say 'dont worry about it and take your time'
could be the extra features, and it could be reading the manual to learn what everything does.
i know i have looked at the manual for my receiver dozens of times.. for fun and to remember some things, or to go back and learn 'what else' the receiver can do.
sometimes i had to look at the manual again to get the full definition of what a setting does.
and sometimes i would read that definition and not fully know what it ment, and would go on about my business without it.
and then i would go back and look at the definitions, and see if there was a way i could combine some things to change the result for 'playing around'
when i felt that i had tried all the combinations, i got the sense of completion.

i was looking at the user manual again 9 years later.. still getting definitions for some of the settings i forgot what they do.
the user manual should be like a tattoo that comes with the hardware.. it is always there for 'reference' .. meaning, it is always there for imagination and outlook into creativity or confusion caused by being bored or wanting something new or different.
when you mess around and try all the options in all the different ways, you get that sense of completion with the device.
it really helps the person decide if they are done with the hardware and want an upgrade.. or if the thing is perfectly okay the way it is.
m
0
l
July 6, 2011 1:24:45 PM

Quote:
does the original poster care to give a review?


Absolutely, however you have to understand, said review will be coming from a novice! Unfortunately I'm at work at the moment and I'll be at my better half's place afterwards. Check back in a day or two and I'll write about what I know so far!

m
0
l
July 6, 2011 1:49:11 PM

sweet.
i dont recall reading some actual reviews of the new receiver's auto calibration.
i know that i have read some words about a grade, usually in a sentence.. something like 'well i use ___ calibration and i think it is good enough to keep me talking to the rest of you people here'
that really doesnt say much about any emotions during the listening experience.
maybe emotions much time after the listening experience.. but that isnt worth anything to me.

i mean, i have calibrated my system before.. so i know how much fun i had, and how i could write at least one paragraph about it.
not something summed up into 'good' or 'okay' or 'improved'

i dont know..
maybe i need to curl up to a good book.
talking about how my shoulders get relaxed and i lift my spirits as i allow the audio to take shape into my brain.
and then go on with how my room was haze-y and the light gets dimmer and i actually start hearing the audio and could describe things in depth.
as if the results are right there to grab tightly and put into words.

much more dramatic than the curtains that get pulled to the side, and the lights dimming at the movie theater before the movie starts.
i mean.. i got haze and lowering lights and maybe some mist, and shoulders relaxing.. sense of my spirit lifting as my ears aim focus.. and maybe my head becomes detached with the rest of me as i listen ... or maybe i am brought into this black empty space of some land that i know isnt in the room with me, but i am somehow taken away to a new place where i can hear and smell things as well as feel the air.


god.. i am a sucker for some detailed reviews.
too bad we dont get them more often.
seems like the only reviews that come close are the ones that go on and on about how long the product has lasted and refused to break over the years.
m
0
l
July 20, 2011 6:26:47 AM

35 watts cannot equal or "mean" 35 volts, anyone that understands electical physics knows this...
m
0
l
July 20, 2011 12:12:58 PM

Watts and volts are two different things entirely, I agree, but anwaypasible thinks that companies are actually referring to volts instead of watts...I'm not sure if they do or don't. Maybe he got confused?

Anwaypasible, you do realize that "Watts=Volts x Amps" right?
m
0
l
July 20, 2011 8:22:31 PM

stop what you are doing, about the whole misquoting me thing.

what i said was a marketing scheme for the black market, as it was moderately adopted into the generic market.

no need to be afraid.
you arent going to expect 100 watts and get 100 volts.
it is/was marketing to slap information around.
the reason it existed in the first place was because of the progress the audio industry made.
everybody wanted 100 watts or more back in the 1990's
then
everybody wanted 1000 watts in the year 2000

the details of how the transformation was coded and decoded was intellectual property.
and going further into the depth of the details.. the code could be used by military or navy in an event of survival.
they would see the sticker on a generic amplifier that says 800 watts.
as a consumer who needs the amp for subwoofers.. they know it wasnt 800 watts.
but
for a trained survival tactic.. the person could rip open the amp and grab whatever parts they needed to repair something more important.


now say you desire to put up an arguement about the whole 'energy star' rating.
well..
those amplifiers dont involve themselves in such a thing.

i do believe i specifically said..
the voltage from a powersupply would be taken into account to slap around some information leading to the peak amplifier value.

the only time the two numbers would LITERALLY be flipped was in the black market dealing with tube amplifiers.
the information is/was a prerequisite to be there shopping.
if you fried your speakers, you would be found out and much attention would come your way.
kinda like knowing the password to get past the door security.


but anyways..
the black market doesnt appear to exist much anymore for amplifiers.
electronics mavins can freely purchase their components on the internet.
back in the 1980's it wasnt the same situation.
those components being sold where being used for products of the 1990's or even early 2000 year.
they were not available for sale anywhere except the black market.

nowadays..
the only thing the black market has to offer is the same exact products that can be bought online, except the pieces are smaller.
if you need the piece in a smaller size, they would probably tell you to re-think your circuit board layout before you go soldering pieces together.

there are some other things that might prove to be a bit more difficult to gather.
such as a transistor or dac that has more or less resistance tolerance.
but
since the industry seems to be really seperating themselves from the 'group'
i doubt those important people want to be anywhere close when they sell something with less resistance tolerance that is supposed to make the piece sound better than usual.
and the person solders it in only to find out the improvement wasnt very high.
it would be easier to allow the customer to ask for a custom piece.. and then let the customer do all of the ranting and raving from the 300 miles that seperates the company from the shipping address.

the black market was in existance for electronics because above average people wanted industrial grade components.
nothing available for them except the consumer level components.
nowadays..
if you want something industrial grade that you cant actually buy new... you find something used or broken on ebay and grab it for the piece inside of it.
m
0
l
July 20, 2011 9:52:57 PM

AnywayPasible

I sent you a Private Message
m
0
l
!