AVR for 2 ch and HT?

[AJ Soundfield]

It's ugly, uses Audyssey instead of Dirac Live, and not near the configurable options (no PEQ, no shelf filters and a bunch more)

Oh boy, strike 1, 2, 3. Ok, not the "best" EQ for dummies scheme and its ugly??? Well, beauty is in eye of beholder and he has fully active speakers (JBL M2), so...
Audyssey, Dirac, lol... please read that last sentence carefully
It's very important.

cheers

 

[AJ Soundfield]

You would have thought that if those speakers were the greatest thing since whatever was before sliced bread that someone would have continued offering the kits, or would have started building them.

How great something is, is irrelevant to market survival.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Oh boy, strike 1, 2, 3. Ok, not the "best" EQ for dummies scheme and its ugly??? Well, beauty is in eye of beholder and he has fully active speakers (JBL M2), so...
Audyssey, Dirac, lol... please read that last sentence carefully
It's very important.

cheers

And good sound is in the ear of each listener!

Bottom line... it sounds better to me with it than without it... regardless of what it is measured with, so I use it.

I'd just as soon turn it off as I had listen to it if I can't use my Dirac Live, Audiolense, or something similar. YMMV of course... especially if you don't believe it helps or don't like it or believe everything that the so-called audio "gods" of the so-called audio "truth" that don't agree with it have written about it. I can't dismiss it just because someone says I shouldn't believe in it.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Something interesting that Floyd Toole wrote in that thread...

At low frequencies equalization is almost certainly beneficial and easily measured steady-state data are all that is necessary. The most important curve is the one measured where you are listening, not averaged over the room or multiple seat listening area. The latter obviously represents an average, not what is truly heard at any seat. It is popular because it makes curves look so much better. One can have an audience EQ and a personal EQ in some flexible systems.

A free measurement system like REW is excellent. The next step is to find prominent spectral peaks below about 500 Hz and attenuate them using a parametric equalizer, another relatively simple task if one has access to DSP in the signal path. Avoid filling narrow dips. They are not as audible as they are visible - humans respond readily to excessive sound at specific frequencies (resonances) but largely ignore narrow dips; an absence or deficiency in sound. The major commercial algorithms differ mainly in how they decide which peaks to attenuate and which dips to fill.

I only measure one position... not multiple locations. I do agree the biggest benefit is getting the area below 500Hz tamed... it's the most noticeable. However, there are also some large peaks above 500Hz that can be annoying and need to be dealt with, otherwise I can't sit and listen for very long before my ears start hurting. Fortunately over the last few weeks, since I received the 15A's, I've tried to be more precise with trying Cardas speaker placement for planar speakers and found the peaks above 500Hz less of an issue, although I still like to smooth it out... for perception if for nothing else, I'll admit. A/B (DL on/off) still sounds noticeably different.

He may touch on this somewhere, not sure, didn't see it... but the auto-EQ platforms are not solely about smoothing out the response, but also about getting the two front speakers frequency matched for better imaging, sound stage and depth acuity. Which to me is why it is important to have some sort of DSP EQ system in your AVR or processor.

 

[FargateOne]

I use my avr for movies (5.1 system) and stereo music listening. Rotel RSX1562. I have an external amp for the fronts. The receiver has 10 filters PEQ manually setted for each channels with REW. Of course if I could add Dirac in the chain it would be great but I would need to change the receiver and add a new amp for the 3 channels left which is not possible.

 

[Todd Anderson]

I don’t understand how companies can market a product where specs matter to the purchaser and have zero specs published. It’s not like they can’t find someone to test it for them.

It's all about marketing.

 

[jtwrace]

You would have thought that if those speakers were the greatest thing since whatever was before sliced bread that someone would have continued offering the kits, or would have started building them.

Watch my podcast with Earl.

 

[JStewart]

It's all about marketing.

I guess it must be. Well, that and @AJ Soundfield 's links were insightful.

My take on the Sinad business is its in some ways indicative of the care and attention the manufacturer put into their device. The DAC chip specs are usually way better spec'd than the result after implementation. Of course this is only piece of the buying equation. And if all else equal, why not get the better performing one?

Really all I'm looking for is not to hear any noise from the speakers when the system isn't playing anything. To this end balanced connections make this far more likely, or easier to obtain, than single ended. Single ended may not cause any issues, but when they do its a pain.

Is there any reason to believe two channel gear actually performs better than AVRs? My guess is not or at least not because its two channel gear. I suspect they would have many of the same measurements as ASR has found with multichannel and there seems to be no correlation between price and performance (spec wise) either.

@jtwrace I also am a happy HTP-1 owner. After some initial hiccups, its performed flawlessly. The issues cited in the ASR review are resolved, except perhaps for the measured jitter performance. That measurement, IIRC, was measured through one of the "analog" inputs because he couldn't get HDMI to work. And also, IIRC, all the analog inputs are converted to digital (ADC) for processing and then converted back to analog (DAC). So that may have come into play with that specific input. Really, we don't know if HDMI is better or not. For the two channel purist, this extra conversion may put the HTP-1 out of the running.

Was that you who did the interview with Earl? Liked it. Thank you!

 

[jtwrace]

@jtwrace I also am a happy HTP-1 owner. After some initial hiccups, its performed flawlessly. The issues cited in the ASR review are resolved, except perhaps for the measured jitter performance. That measurement, IIRC, was measured through one of the "analog" inputs because he couldn't get HDMI to work. And also, IIRC, all the analog inputs are converted to digital (ADC) for processing and then converted back to analog (DAC). So that may have come into play with that specific input. Really, we don't know if HDMI is better or not. For the two channel purist, this extra conversion may put the HTP-1 out of the running.

Thanks for the feedback.

Was that you who did the interview with Earl? Liked it. Thank you!

Sure was, thanks again!

 

[AJ Soundfield]

And good sound is in the ear of each listener!

And eyes and marketing and...
Oh, you mean an "audio god" valid, controlled test? Yes, good sound is indeed in the ear of each listener.

Bottom line... it sounds better to me with it than without it... regardless of what it is measured with, so I use it.

Sure, but it's not a binary forced choice. Option 3/4/5..., manual intervention with the exact same REW mic and dsp. Using ears.
I know, I know, the horror of not pressing a button and having it all done by a magic program. Give me a remote button or death.

I'd just as soon turn it off as I had listen to it if I can't use my Dirac Live, Audiolense, or something similar. YMMV of course.

Of course

He may touch on this somewhere, not sure, didn't see it... but the auto-EQ platforms are not solely about smoothing out the response, but also about getting the two front speakers frequency matched for better imaging, sound stage and depth acuity. Which to me is why it is important to have some sort of DSP EQ system in your AVR or processor.

No one (here) disagrees with latter, So when can we expect the magic EQ folks to provide data reversing the above?
To ears...

Btw, did I mention OP Jason has DSP driven active Harman-Gods speakers?
Other than LF, he shouldn't want to let any of the magic EQ schemes anywhere near them.
But who knows, marketing works..
And now back to our regular 'What bling AVP/R??" programming

cheers

 

[JStewart]

No one (here) disagrees with latter, So when can we expect the magic EQ folks to provide data reversing the above?

Umm, Never?
Dirac, Audyssey, and ARC are at least 3 systems that will allow limiting the range of correction. We can probably all agree that there is almost always a benefit to correcting the bass response.

I know, I know, the horror of not pressing a button and having it all done by a magic program. Give me a remote button or death.

We may also be able to agree that for most consumers an auto eq system is the only eq that’s ever going to happen.

Btw, did I mention OP Jason has DSP driven active Harman-Gods speakers?
Other than LF, he shouldn't want to let any of the magic EQ schemes anywhere near them.

Wouldn’t EQ work well on the upper range of frequencies with a speaker that has a good off axis response like Harman’s do?
I don’t know anything about the EQ that comes with the M2s. Is it limited to bass frequencies?

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Yep... we can slide the curtains over with Dirac Live and have it correct whatever frequency range we want. HOWEVER... I still prefer the entire response corrected.

When Floyd Toole states the following:

When I see extremely flat and smooth high resolution full bandwidth room curves it is an indication that some things were done that probably should not have been done.

Most commercial algorithms these days appear to improve the low frequencies - for a single listener at least. That is about 30% of the factor weighting in sound quality ratings. Above the transition frequency it is the "Wild West". Some algorithms use broadband "tone control" adjustments (good) while others pride themselves on flattening even small irregularities (probably bad).

It sounds like he doesn't necessarily have an issue with wider bandwidth (lower Q) corrections in the upper frequencies.

I would also remind the naysayers that those smooth looking graphs are just that... smoothed. If you look at it unsmoothed you'll likely see that most of those very minor irregularities in the response were not corrected. We smooth it to not only make it look pretty, but also to make it look more "real" as to what we are actually hearing, since as Toole and others say, those narrow dips and peaks are not audible.

 

[JStewart]

Yep... we can slide the curtains over with Dirac Live and have it correct whatever frequency range we want. HOWEVER... I still prefer the entire response corrected.

As do I with Dirac. I haven't had the experience with Audyssey or ARC so I'm not positive it would be the same.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

As do I with Dirac. I haven't had the experience with Audyssey or ARC so I'm not positive it would be the same.

I believe ARC is flexible now... although they use to only allow up to 500Hz. I think it depends on which model you get.

Audyssey does allow a custom target curve with their latest app that you could shape to your natural response I suppose.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Umm, Never?

Right. The valid listening tests above shows why.

Dirac, Audyssey, and ARC are at least 3 systems that will allow limiting the range of correction. We can probably all agree that there is almost always a benefit to correcting the bass response.

Correct but not by false dichotomy, zero correction vs Magic EQ. See the blind tests scores above. Option C.

We may also be able to agree that for most consumers an auto eq system is the only eq that’s ever going to happen.

Correct and a Red Herring. You, Sonnie, Jason (OP) and I, not "most consumers". Sadly, the majority of audio forum posters involved in these type threads have REW and associated mic, not just the included magic EQ ones, unlike "most consumers".
Therefore, option C, D, etc are possible. Only the knowledge of why is lacking. I know its a lost cause.

Wouldn’t EQ work well on the upper range of frequencies with a speaker that has a good off axis response like Harman’s do?

No
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/...howComment=1257355265077#c9032186069318863857 (read ALL his comments too)
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-story-theory-without-measurement.7127/page-3
EQ there should be program dependent. aka a tone control for recordings, not some "fix" of the direct >500hz response.

I don’t know anything about the EQ that comes with the M2s. Is it limited to bass frequencies?

Thats a Jason question, but I think the BSS is a full fledged speaker controller, like a DBX Driverack, Behringer DCX, etc, so full capabilities.

cheers

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Were all of the tests done with 6 seat averaging? I never measure anything but my main listening position, dead center.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

When Floyd Toole states the following:
It sounds like he doesn't necessarily have an issue with wider bandwidth (lower Q) corrections in the upper frequencies.

See above. He's referring to "tone control" for recordings, which we know vary quite a bit.

I would also remind the naysayers that those smooth looking graphs are just that... smoothed. If you look at it unsmoothed you'll likely see that most of those very minor irregularities in the response were not corrected.

What you are missing it that its the "in room" response that is "smooth" see 2 graph/subjective rating above. Note the "rougher: in room response 3...and the higher subjective rating.

as Toole and others say, those narrow dips and peaks are not audible.

Dips yes, peaks can be audible depending on frequency and how narrow. Of course, if it's "in room" >500 Hz, its near meaningless to 2 ears.

cheers

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Were all of the tests done with 6 seat averaging? I never measure anything but my main listening position, dead center.

That one was probably done in their HT lab, The results however, were predictable, based on how we hear vs a pressure mic.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I don’t know anything about the EQ that comes with the M2s.

Btw, here is the native response.

The EQ is baked in, with the appropriate processor.
That of course, is not the "room" response

 

[Todd Anderson]

This is an interesting topic. Do AVRs usually underperform in the 2-channel realm mainly because there's too much going on circuitry-wise with all its functions? Or are the manufacturers just being smart by cutting costs for the AVR demographic and choose to save the best measuring equipment for the strictly 2-channel products (equals more $$$)?

I think the issue is two fold: overall power (often times AVRs are overstated), and most AVRs have a shared power supply. That said, separates have interconnects, which can introduce other issues.

If you sat me down in a blind room and A/B-ed mid-priced separates and a good integrated AVR... I think most anyone would be hard pressed to immediately point out one over the other. Despite the deficiencies of one over the other... can you actually hear a defined difference? Man... it would be tough.