Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: HT systems vs two-channel for music listening (Read 26730 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #25 –
Quote from: Hotsoup on
I'm finally ready to put away my integrated amp because I'd like to be able to at least high pass my mains, and maybe experiment with room correction. What's funny is that even though I trust this forum, I'm nervous about getting an AVR for my 2.1 system. My integrated was a tank and dead simple to use. I tried to help a friend with his Denon AVR a couple years ago and the menus and manual gave me a headache. It's a personal problem. I'm working on it.

I wouldn't dump the integrated until you were sure about the AVR, for the exact reason you state, simplicity vs complexity, with a lot that can the sound worse, rather than only better. The fact is, a properly set up AVR should be as audibly transparent as your integrated, with the additional features that can certainly improve the sound. But those very same features can make the sound worse. Some AVRs apparently cannot fully bypass the "correction" circuits despite "bypass" et al modes. While this may not equate to "bad", it certainly can represent a change to the soundfield, that would not be there with your integrated.
Quite frankly, unless you are going to use for HT, with music, there is no reason to high pass your mains (3x7" woofer 3 way iirc). Regarding the EQ/"Room correction" capacity of most new AVRs, if you read the Toole paper I recently linked, you will see these features are not quite the panacea many believe them to be, especially with speakers like yours.
The catch22 is that manual settings, by experienced/knowledgeable about measurements (and correlation to perception) user configurations, would be optimal for best perceived sound, vs the auto "corrections"....the exact opposite of consumer reality.
(Yes, I'm aware of all the "It always sounds better with correction" consumer testimonials, because the soundfield certainly has changed)
Lots of straw in this thread on a purported objective site. 

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #26 –
Quote from: mzil on
in fact I don't see any posts from him since April... Was he finally banned, perhaps?

Pretty sure he has been.
I didn't last very long on his WTF? site either, before the screaming of the insects and shysters had to be addressed.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #27 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Regarding the EQ/"Room correction" capacity of most new AVRs, if you read the Toole paper I recently linked, you will see these features are not quite the panacea many believe them to be, especially with speakers like yours.

It wasn't in this thread, this is your first post here, so could you please provide a link? Thanks.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #29 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: mzil on
in fact I don't see any posts from him since April... Was he finally banned, perhaps?

Pretty sure he has been.
I didn't last very long on his WTF? site either, before the screaming of the insects and shysters had to be addressed.



Getting banned from Amir's site is a well-known badge of courage. If you haven't been banned from there... ;-)

I heard by a separate means that he was indeed banned from AVS.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #30 –
Quote
Some AVRs apparently cannot fully bypass the "correction" circuits despite "bypass" et al modes. While this may not equate to "bad", it certainly can represent a change to the soundfield, that would not be there with your integrated.


How do you know AVR's can't fully bypass etc, when in Pure Direct modes? Any technical references to support that?

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #31 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: mzil on
in fact I don't see any posts from him since April... Was he finally banned, perhaps?

Pretty sure he has been.
I didn't last very long on his WTF? site either, before the screaming of the insects and shysters had to be addressed.


You don't seem to last very long on most of the audio forums you frequent. 

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #32 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Hotsoup on
I'm finally ready to put away my integrated amp because I'd like to be able to at least high pass my mains, and maybe experiment with room correction. What's funny is that even though I trust this forum, I'm nervous about getting an AVR for my 2.1 system. My integrated was a tank and dead simple to use. I tried to help a friend with his Denon AVR a couple years ago and the menus and manual gave me a headache. It's a personal problem. I'm working on it.

I wouldn't dump the integrated until you were sure about the AVR, for the exact reason you state, simplicity vs complexity, with a lot that can the sound worse, rather than only better.

I second that. There's another catch for the unwary, which lies in the fact that an AVR invariably will have active electronics before and for the volume control, which makes it vulnerable to overdrive that can't be cured by turning the volume down.

Integrated amps frequently have passive circuitry up to the volume knob, and hence no problem with overdrive. Even when there's a remote control, the volume pot is often motorized.

Bear this in mind when connecting relatively "hot" line sources to an AVR. In order to get good THD+N numbers, the manufacturers are not going to give you much headroom.

I wish they would provide an overdrive LED that warns of clipping anywhere in the signal path.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #33 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: mzil on
in fact I don't see any posts from him since April... Was he finally banned, perhaps?

Pretty sure he has been.
I didn't last very long on his WTF? site either, before the screaming of the insects and shysters had to be addressed.


You don't seem to last very long on most of the audio forums you frequent. 


I wouldn't take too many bows in that department given that you use different aliases to post on different forums.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #34 –
Quote from: pelmazo on
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Hotsoup on
I'm finally ready to put away my integrated amp because I'd like to be able to at least high pass my mains, and maybe experiment with room correction. What's funny is that even though I trust this forum, I'm nervous about getting an AVR for my 2.1 system. My integrated was a tank and dead simple to use. I tried to help a friend with his Denon AVR a couple years ago and the menus and manual gave me a headache. It's a personal problem. I'm working on it.

I wouldn't dump the integrated until you were sure about the AVR, for the exact reason you state, simplicity vs complexity, with a lot that can the sound worse, rather than only better.

I second that. There's another catch for the unwary, which lies in the fact that an AVR invariably will have active electronics before and for the volume control, which makes it vulnerable to overdrive that can't be cured by turning the volume down.


I'm loving watching the digital and AVR haters fomenting Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about AVRs. I'll even bet that few of them have reviewed service manuals or done bench testing to support their speculations.

Quote
Integrated amps frequently have passive circuitry up to the volume knob, and hence no problem with overdrive. Even when there's a remote control, the volume pot is often motorized.


AVRs frequently have gain structures that reduce or eliminate the possibility that their active input circuits are clipped by reasonable sources.  Clipping often starts with inputs on the order of 4 or 5 volts while most consumer audio gear has outputs that are either provided with gain controls or top out at 2 or 2.5 volts.

Many integrated amps also have active circuitry prior to their volume controls.

Quote
I wish they would provide an overdrive LED that warns of clipping anywhere in the signal path.


Or at least the power amps.  But integrated amps are not much different - clipping indicators are like hens teeth on consumer gear of any kind.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #35 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I'm loving watching the digital and AVR haters fomenting Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about AVRs.

Holy hyperbole Batman. "digital and AVR hater"?? Seriously?
The bulls seeing red everywhere these days, take it easy Arny, it's a holiday weekend!

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #36 –
It's like an AVR vs a stereo integrated amp.

The thing is given that an avr performs so many functions it is not fair to match a R10k integrated with an R10k AVR ..... the stereo integrated has two channels of power amplification with a couple of analog inputs and thats around it

an AVR does the following :

1) 7 channels of amplification
2) subwoofer bass management
3) room enhancement and adjustment including but not tlimited to DSP functionalty and crossover adjustment as well as equalization and time delay
4) networking
5) streaming
6) DAC functionality (sometimes good .... and sometimes average)
7) multi-zone inputs and outputs
8) video switching
9) still plays stereo 90% (sometimes more) as good as the dedicated stereo stuff

now with all of these factors taken into account it stands to reason that just to match a R10k stereo amplifier you need an AVR that will cost around three to four times more to give you matching performance in amplification with two channels and to add all the extra functionality ..... so to be fair you need an AVR that costs around R30k to match your average stereo amplifier of around R10k

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #37 –
Quote from: Rich B on
you need an AVR that will cost around three to four times more to give you matching performance in amplification with two channels and to add all the extra functionality


And where did you pick that magical number from? Why 3x or 4x Rich? Do tell.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #38 –
...or you realize that the price of the integrated has been jacked way way up because people who believe that nonsense are willing to pay extra.

Rich B, didn't you already try this argument on for size here, or at least participate in such a discussion along with your twin brother?

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #39 –
Quote
Rich B, didn't you already try this argument on for size here, or at least participate in such a discussion along with your twin brother?


Twin brother??

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #41 –
Quote from: greynol on
...or you realize that the price of the integrated has been jacked way way up because people who believe that nonsense are willing to pay extra.


And larger production volumes and economies of scale mean that AVRs can end up being cheaper than integrated stereo amps (certainly much cheaper than nearly all preamp+power amp combos), with no compromises in performance.

The only compromise is the absolutely horrendous UI on some AVRs 

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #42 –
Quote from: mzil on
Well if subs are evil when there is no visual element attached to the sound being reproduced [?] yet are quite necessary when there is a visual element attached to the sound being reproduced that simply having large front left and right speakers can't replicate just as well [?] then their solution is to use the sub when there's a visual element attached to the sound and turn it off when there is no visual image attached to the sound.

I'd make the argument that movies in general will have more energy at very low frequencies than music. -3dB @ 20Hz seems to be some sort of holy grail in home cinema. Using a (powered) sub to get there is just economically efficient. Here you can get this sort of performance starting from 600-800€. How many "full-range" speakers even go this low, let alone at this price point? And then you still need to buy an amplifier.

Quote
a) No, a crossover is not required for the main speakers, in fact one stupid subwoofer company I once sold, REL, which is highly regarded in their circles and sold by many high end salons, instructs user to not filter the main speakers at all. All modern AVRs allow for such a configuration ["speakers large/both (double bass), subwoofer yes"] even without having to tap into the speaker level, full range signal being sent to the fronts with an adaptor they supply.

But the sub will usually have a highpass. Typically there will be some overlap between the spectrum of the mains and the sub. The phase shift introduced by the highpass can cause interference with the un-shifted signal emitted by the mains (the "double bass" scenario from above). Even if you let the AVR perform a full frequency split, you'll get "interesting" interference due to different radiation patterns and placement of the speakers/subs. Basically the same issues people argue over regarding two-way vs. three-way speakers.

Moving to multi-channel, this can get pretty messy if you use different edge frequencies for all of your speakers. So maybe your rears only go to 80Hz, your larger center manages 60Hz and your floor-standing mains go to 40Hz. If you want to avoid the phase mumble-jumble you should probably highpass all your speakers at 80Hz (cf. THX recommendation). Your large speakers are basically a waste of money in this scenario. This then leads to using the same/similar speakers all around.

Relevance/audibility is of course debatable, when all of this is happening in a reverberant room.

Quote
This is an extremely convoluted argument they make:
1) For uncompromised 2ch sound you have to have two large front speakers.
2) For uncompromised 5.1ch sound you have to have three identical front speakers. [plus other stuff]
3) Having three identical front speakers that are large, which accounts for needs 1 and 2, is too difficult to position, or I guess isn't aesthetically pleasing, so the solution is

How would you use a regular floor-standing speaker as center? Its doable with a screen but if you're just a Schmoe with a large TV...?

Quote
4) Have five total front speakers, 2 large ones for 2ch sound and 3 little ones for 5.1 sound, and this, for some odd reason, is not aesthetically unpleasing or difficult to position.

The resolution to this conflict directly leads to the scenario Rich described, where you have two dedicated rooms.

Quote
Quote
b) a subwoofer's bass is "slow"

Do they think sub sound is "slow" only when there's no visual element attached to the sound and that it speeds up when there's a visual element attached?

I understand it as a compromise of economics and different design goals:
Giant robots stomping across the screen? The bass needs to be loud and deep. Temporal precision, linear response? Nice to have, but can be compromised for the other two. A "slow" sub works great.
Somebody strumming a double-bass? Temporal precision needs to be high, linear response is important. Probably doesn't need to be as loud and deep as for the home cinema experience. "Slow" sub not working really well.

In my book, subs aren't slow per se, but some finesse is required to integrate them into your system. Proper filtering and time delay are tools to achieve this. These are, of course, routinely offered by AVRs.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #43 –
Quote from: Gecko on
But the sub will usually have a highpass.


Nope, that is rare. Variable lowpass is standard. Speakers already have an intrinsic highpass.

Quote from: Gecko on
Moving to multi-channel, this can get pretty messy if you use different edge frequencies for all of your speakers. So maybe your rears only go to 80Hz, your larger center manages 60Hz and your floor-standing mains go to 40Hz. If you want to avoid the phase mumble-jumble you should probably highpass all your speakers at 80Hz (cf. THX recommendation). Your large speakers are basically a waste of money in this scenario. This then leads to using the same/similar speakers all around.
Relevance/audibility is of course debatable, when all of this is happening in a reverberant room.

Jeez, where to begin.
Ok, single 80hz cycle is around 14', so less than the typical dimension of all but smallest room, 40hz is double, exceeding any room dimension, so you are less likely to have phase integration issues at lower frequencies. Further, there is no way you're getting phase integration with all channels at 80hz, so that's a complete red herring about different extensions on the center and surrounds, plus they don't all get equal signals, plus....oh well. I'm not going to bother getting into the difficulty of clean measurements that low in room, as gating is useless and you're pretty much measuring sound power, etc...
The larger speakers are not a waste, because you effectively have two spatially displaced "subs" to 40hz if you run them full range, thus will reap the benefit of the averaging vs a single sub. Using a single sub below 40hz is fine because the modes become quite sparse. Using a single sub to 80hz, yeah, good luck getting smooth amplitude there. So now 2 subs below 80hz? Well, that's more money....which could have been spent towards larger mains. I could go on, but oh well, use what suits you best.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #44 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Ok, single 80hz cycle is around 14', so less than the typical dimension of all but smallest room, 40hz is double, exceeding any room dimension, so you are less likely to have phase integration issues at lower frequencies. Further, there is no way you're getting phase integration with all channels at 80hz, so that's a complete red herring about different extensions on the center and surrounds, plus they don't all get equal signals, plus....oh well. I'm not going to bother getting into the difficulty of clean measurements that low in room, as gating is useless and you're pretty much measuring sound power, etc...
The larger speakers are not a waste, because you effectively have two spatially displaced "subs" to 40hz if you run them full range, thus will reap the benefit of the averaging vs a single sub. Using a single sub below 40hz is fine because the modes become quite sparse. Using a single sub to 80hz, yeah, good luck getting smooth amplitude there. So now 2 subs below 80hz? Well, that's more money....which could have been spent towards larger mains. I could go on, but oh well, use what suits you best.

cheers,

AJ



Well and good, except I question when you are going to get two mains that have -3db @ 20 Hz (*and* have good on/off axis performance across the rest of the spectrum) for the cost of a second sub.  Also, whether absolute phase integration matters in routine listening is a matter of debate. 

I use one large-ish sub, in a 5.1 system crossed over at 80 Hz,  same speakers all around, with Audyssey calibration tuned to my one sweet spot.  Works for me (though I wish the 'consumer grade' Audyssey had an option to *only* correct low frequencies), but I know the LF audio isn't as consistent for other listeners outside the sweet spot.  WAF and neighborly  concern prevents adding a second sub...for now.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #45 –
Quote from: Gecko on
I'd make the argument that movies in general will have more energy at very low frequencies than music.

I see. When there is a concurrent visual element to the sound, only then will there be deep bass, requiring a sub. IMO that's a ridiculous notion. Subs are used and are actively working with most music.

Quote
How would you use a regular floor-standing speaker as center? Its doable with a screen but if you're just a Schmoe with a large TV...?

Firstly, you don't always have to have an identical third speaker in the center if you don't want to. [Most people don't, but I do.] Secondly, average people, even ones with very tall tower speakers, are incapable of mounting TVs above the lower three? How would a third tall tower "not" fit here, for example? [Well, maybe the TV should be an inch higher.]:
http://www.avsforum.com/photopost/data/224...6_IMG_0855.jpeg
[I just found this image randomly via google, by the way. I have no idea if this is our OP or not, I haven't read the AVS thread it is from.]

Quote
I understand it as a compromise of economics and different design goals:
Giant robots stomping across the screen? The bass needs to be loud and deep. Temporal precision, linear response? Nice to have, but can be compromised for the other two. A "slow" sub works great.
Somebody strumming a double-bass? Temporal precision needs to be high, linear response is important. Probably doesn't need to be as loud and deep as for the home cinema experience. "Slow" sub not working really well.


Wow. What an incredibly convoluted argument. To paraphrase:
"Sound reproduction when there is a concurrent visual image must ideally have deep bass extension, via a sub, which isn't needed and may even be detrimental to sound reproduction without a concurrent visual image, i.e. 2ch music alone." Um, baloney. Even if this silly notion were true, which it isn't, then how would you deal with optimally listening to music within a movie? Turn off the 5.1 speaker system and switch to the alternate 2 fullrange speakers whenever there is music in the movie?! What percentage of movies have no music at all, including the ending credits?

Quote
In my book, subs aren't slow per se, but some finesse is required to integrate them into your system. Proper filtering and time delay are tools to achieve this. These are, of course, routinely offered by AVRs.
Which is why for people looking to get the very best, price no object sound systems, AVRs are usually the best way to go, or a concoction of the individual elements that make up an AVR wired together if you don't mind the increased complexity.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #47 –
I notice in the AVS forum people seem locked to the outdated notion that center speakers must be just like the small, horizontal boxes which were originally designed in the 80's for placement on top of average Joe's CRT TVs and seem to have hardly evolved at all since then despite the fact that those TVs aren't even made anymore:


This isn't helped any when companies like Dolby release conceptual images which bolster the notion that the center speaker, the most important one of the 5, should be a very small and horizontal box:


Look at all that wasted, unutilized space under the TV which could have allowed for much better speaker! Note this is not how they actually do things in their own laboratory's listening rooms, but I guess they don't want to rock the consumer retail boat.

Another mindset people are locked to, which is hard to break them from, is that the electronics have to be below the TV. They can't appreciate that one long wire to the TV will allow the electronics to be placed elsewhere, perhaps even invisibly hidden in a closet or vented cabinet. Mount also an IR relay system's eyeball near the TV and they even don't have to aim their remote in a different direction than which they view.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #48 –
Quote from: mzil on
[Secondly, average people, even ones with very tall tower speakers, are are not incapable of mounting TVs above the lower three? How would a third tall tower "not" fit here, for example? [Well, maybe the TV should be an inch higher.]:
Oops. Corrected to "are not".

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #49 –
Quote from: mzil on
Quote from: Gecko on
I'd make the argument that movies in general will have more energy at very low frequencies than music.

I see. When there is a concurrent visual element to the sound, only then will there be deep bass, requiring a sub. IMO that's a ridiculous notion. Subs are used and are actively working with most music.



It's not that ridiculous.  *Deep* bass (like 20-30kHz) not to mention 'explosive' bass events were pretty much absent in home systems during the LP era, when bass was rolled off during LP mastering -- though in the digital era, deep bass became not uncommon in some genres (e.g. hip-hop, electronic, symphonic classical).  I can't say how prevalent it is popular music today -- most, some -- though I expect the answer also relates to genre mixing (hip hop and EDM influencing 'pop' styles).  I would expect most popular films today to have some deep LFE bass though...again because 'popular' today tends to mean 'action' genre -- explosions, battles, stomping monsters...

Subs being 'actively working', especially when crossed over at the common 80Hz, is not a sure sign that 'deep bass' is happening.