lipinski Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 IMO it's worty saying that before you spend the xtra bucks on separates, you better have the very finest speakers that your ears enjoy before you spend the next dollar on separates. What do i mean? If you don't already have the finest quality speakers, anyone should seriously consider an upgrade of their speakers before an upgrade to separates from a AVR. IMO you just get more bang for your buck with a speaker upgrade than a separates upgrade. just my $0.02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 lipinski, Your point about the speakers being more important than the processor is a good one IMO. However, we listen to the room as much as we listen to the speakers. Room tweaking does not have to be expensive, but it is hard work when you move 90 pound speakers. Modern receivers with a room correction feature can help at very little added cost over a conventional receiver. Paul Klipsch was of the view that every speaker was a corner speakers. The reason was that he wanted to take advantage of the corner for bass response and toe the speaker in so that reflections and off axis response did not degrade the sound. Some of us have rooms that do not lend themselves to good setup. This is where a good room correction feature works its magic. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 ---------------- On 2/6/2005 3:40:53 PM MrMcGoo wrote: Griffinator, I doubt that you have ever seriously listened to an i.link system playing SACDs and DVD-As. I doubt that you would infer that i.link it is a gimmick, if you had seriously listened. Pioneer's sales have caused many manufacturers to redesign their systems. The DACs in my processor are better than most stand alone processors. They are Burr-Brown PCM 1704s that are individually tuned by BB. They were the highest quality DAC that BB produced at the time. I have a RTA of a Pioneer 49TXi on RF-7s. There is a substantial improvement in the room response with MCACC. I hear the benefits in my room every day. The room has more impact on the sound than any factor other than speakers. Dr. Floyd Toole and PWK have written about it. Pioneer is the first company to do something about it that ordinary people can benfit from with no access to specialized equipment. The reason that I publically disagree with you is that I believe that you sometimes mislead folks that are underinformed. Your business seems to produce a conflict of interest that colors your views. Bill ---------------- 1) As long as there is no industry-wide standard protocol for I-link, it's a gimmick to me, because the only way to make it work properly is to buy components from one company, which compromises your ability to make the best overall quality choice between units. I will not be beholden to one company just because that company's firewire interface doesn't talk to other companies' equipment. 2) MCACC is not a room correction function. It's a damned graphic equalizer. We've been over the use of GEQ's and PEQ's a million times over in the architectural forum and here. It doesn't comp the room the way a proper installation of simple sound absorption materials and bass traps does. I've used multi-thousand-dollar equalizers to comp a room, and it just doesn't work as well as real room treatments. You're happy with it, good for you. To me, and for my clientele, it's just not good enough, and it's a frickin' gimmick that adds unnecessary expense to the cost of a receiver. 3) The Burr-Browns are nice. To say that they're better than what's in most processors demonstrates your lack of knowledge about what actually goes into most processors. How many DAC's are in that thing? Two? Three? Seven? Are they completely mag-shielded from the amplifier stage? How about the power supply? Is it magnetically isolated from the electronics? You don't need to justify your choice to me, nor do I expect you to. The man asked a question, and I gave him an answer that just happens to have been echoed by a number of other people on this forum. A $3500 processor is going to outperform a $3500 receiver as a preamp stage. That's my opinion, and it's based on personal experience in both home and professional audio (I ran a damned mastering studio for three years) and on a pretty substantial knowledge of electronics (not just selling them, thank you very much) By the way - I completely and utterly resent your accusation that I'm deliberately misleading people. Not only is it petulant and rude, it's completely baseless. You follow me around from thread to thread disagreeing with me just to disagree, regardless of what you believe, and then accuse me of misleading people? I submit that your constant barrages are disingenuous and, as such, far more misleading than anything I've put out on this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 ---------------- On 2/7/2005 5:33:28 PM Griffinator wrote: ---------------- 1) As long as there is no industry-wide standard protocol for I-link, it's a gimmick to me, because the only way to make it work properly is to buy components from one company, which compromises your ability to make the best overall quality choice between units. I will not be beholden to one company just because that company's firewire interface doesn't talk to other companies' equipment. 2) MCACC is not a room correction function. It's a damned graphic equalizer. We've been over the use of GEQ's and PEQ's a million times over in the architectural forum and here. It doesn't comp the room the way a proper installation of simple sound absorption materials and bass traps does. I've used multi-thousand-dollar equalizers to comp a room, and it just doesn't work as well as real room treatments. You're happy with it, good for you. To me, and for my clientele, it's just not good enough, and it's a frickin' gimmick that adds unnecessary expense to the cost of a receiver. 3) The Burr-Browns are nice. To say that they're better than what's in most processors demonstrates your lack of knowledge about what actually goes into most processors. How many DAC's are in that thing? Two? Three? Seven? Are they completely mag-shielded from the amplifier stage? How about the power supply? Is it magnetically isolated from the electronics? You don't need to justify your choice to me, nor do I expect you to. The man asked a question, and I gave him an answer that just happens to have been echoed by a number of other people on this forum. A $3500 processor is going to outperform a $3500 receiver as a preamp stage. That's my opinion, and it's based on personal experience in both home and professional audio (I ran a damned mastering studio for three years) and on a pretty substantial knowledge of electronics (not just selling them, thank you very much) By the way - I completely and utterly resent your accusation that I'm deliberately misleading people. Not only is it petulant and rude, it's completely baseless. You follow me around from thread to thread disagreeing with me just to disagree, regardless of what you believe, and then accuse me of misleading people? I submit that your constant barrages are disingenuous and, as such, far more misleading than anything I've put out on this forum. ---------------- i-link or IEEE 1394 IS an industry standard..... and sony, yamaha, denon, integra, onkyo, samsung(new digital receiver) and pioneer are just a few of the companies that have already released products that will transmit digital audio signals via this link (protocols).... and all of the above will pass multi-channel DVD-audio between the different brands.... multi-channel SACD is subject to licensing agreements but it will work in yamaha, sony and pioneer equipment... just because the products that you happen to sell and install have not implemented this standard does not change the fact that it IS a standard.... here is some furthur reading for your education... http://www.ttcsweb.org/articles/firewire/ http://www.havi.org/news/press/2000_01_07-b.html http://www.bixnet.com/firprod.html here is a great quote from the above site: Officially known as IEEE-1394, i.Link or FireWire is a new high-speed, low-cost interconnection standard. Adopted with flexibility and speed in mind, this technology represents the next generation of Plug and Play. With standard speeds of 100, 200 and 400 Mbps, it is ideal for connecting high-end consumer electronics such as digital A/V equipment http://www.businesswire.com/webbox/bw.063003/231815356.htm http://www.soundnow.com/formats.htm?ilink You can criticize the MCACC function all you want.... but it does make a big improvement in the sound in my system.... not to mention that it allows a big improvement in the sound even if the significant other will not permit other room treatments... it is 5 (or 7) digital equalizers that add absolutely no noise to the system and DO improve the response of my speakers in more than a few forums, the only people that are critical of these "equalizer" systems are those who have never heard them function or as bill suggested - have a vested interest in opposing them.... i'm not sure if you are so opposed to this technology again because none of the equipment that you sell has it or because it is found in lower cost receivers.... would you be as critical of the Tact system??? http://www.tactlabs.com/ the Tact system uses an equalizer, delay, and level controls on every speaker to apply its "room correction"...... yes it is more sophisticated and has more parametric bands - but the function is the same (it is also very expensive - $1500 for two channels).... yet you will not find anyone in the world calling it a "damned equalizer" http://www.tactlab.com/webshop/ here's a good quote from the Tact site: Why do we need it? Today, most high quality loudspeaker systems have a very good frequency response, often with a deviation of less than 1.5 dB from being ideal. However, once the loudspeakers are placed in a listening environment, the deviations will increase dramatically. This is most often found to be as much as + /- 10 dB, which translates to the dominant frequencies being 100 times more powerful than the least audible frequencies. This is only the beginning of the problems that are faced with room interaction. Even when it is possible to place the speakers in relatively ideal positions, each of the speakers will have a dramatically different response. If one were to look at the lower half of the frequency spectrum the response variations between the individual speakers are often so great that the speakers might as well have been made by totally different manufacturers. This problem is compounded even further with the multiple speaker setups used in home theater installations. Due to the resonant behavior of listening rooms it is not unusual that up to 90% of the signal arriving at your ears are resonance's and delayed sound created from the room. This is what causes audio systems to have a booming bass characteristic rather than punch. No matter how accurate your speakers are room interaction makes room correction a requirement. IMHO - the MCACC system in my mere $1500 receiver was the biggest improvement in my system short of buying all new speakers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/1202/13.firewire.shtml (please note the date) December 13, 2002 DVD-Audio Firewire Standard Approved Manufacturers Hurry To Get Their Gear Ready Written by Jerry Del Colliano One of the biggest hurdles in the development of DVD-Audio was overcome in September, when the DVD Forum adopted FireWire as the digital transmission method for the DVD-Audio format. Gone, in principle, is the need for the six analog outputs from a DVD-Audio player and/or the need for six analog inputs on your AV preamp when connecting a DVD-Audio player. But your problems arent completely solved yet. In order to take advantage of these breakthroughs, you need both a DVD-Audio player with a FireWire output and an AV preamp or an AV receiver with a FireWire input. Pioneer, which successfully shepherded the FireWire project with the DVD Forum, has DVD players with FireWire outputs on the market now. Other AV companies like Denon and Meridian have created proprietary digital output formats for DVD-Audio and they are likely to switch over to the new standard and/or add FireWire as an output. Other Japanese AV companies, which have historically operated on a nine- to 12-month product cycle, are likely to get varying models of DVD-Audio machines with FireWire outputs into stores before the high-end companies do. High-end manufacturers are also scurrying to get into the game after most of them took a wait-and-see approach during the first two years of DVD-Audios development. Madrigal has been patiently waiting for the DVD-Audio Forum to adopt a standard while they were busy designing their flagship Mark Levinson No. 40 and Proceed AVP2 AV preamps. Both will be upgradeable to accept a FireWire input which is important, especially considering that Madrigal doesnt have a DVD-Audio player slated for release for more than one year. Sunfire and Anthem have provisions for FireWire inputs as well. Transparent is working on higher-performance FireWire cables. Advantages abound with the new FireWire standard. Security is what scares the record labels away from any real support of the DVD-Audio format and now security issues should be less worrisome. Overall consumer confusion and sheer system complexity is a major factor as to why mainstream consumers dont use DVD-Audio in any large numbers to date. Try explaining to a typical Best Buy customer why he or she needs eight cables to connect a new DVD player, which will require an outlay of another $150 for more cables. It can be a deal breaker. Now one of the millions of people who will be buying a DVD player in the next year can hope to connect the audio with one cable, as easy as installing the hard drive on an Apple iMac. On the Mac, it is literally plug and play. DVD-Audio players should be the same. DVD-Audio has some renewed hope as the next format despite its sputtering during this Christmas season. It will take the mainstream Asian electronics manufacturers to make all of their receivers and DVD players compliant to the new format so that tens of millions of players are installed in homes over the next year or two. Add on real title support from the labels most specifically Universal and ultimately Sony and there is a chance the format will catch on. For now, CD sales continue to slide as people either download their stereo music in low-resolution MP3 formats or spend their entertainment dollars on value-packed DVD-Video discs that cost only a few dollars more than a retail-priced CD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Russ, The Pioneer 49TXi and 59TXi have 9 bands of equalization. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 ---------------- On 2/7/2005 8:57:11 PM MrMcGoo wrote: Russ, The Pioneer 49TXi and 59TXi have 9 bands of equalization. Bill ---------------- you are right bill..... i was referring to 5 or 7 channels with a digital equalizer on each channel.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Sound & Vision has published test reports for three high end processors. The three were the Anthem AVM 30, Krell Showcase and Parasound Halo C1 and can be found in the November, 2004 issue of S&V. Sound & Vision also tested the Pioneer 49TX (without i.link) in the February/March 2002 edition. Folks that are interested in this debate should read the reviews, particularly the high end separates. The high end performance is frequently weak in measured performance and/or features. The readers should draw their own conclusions based on measured performance and features, and ignore anyone (including me) with a vested interest such as defending their own purchase or defending their business venture. The Pioneer's test was as good or better on every feature or audible test that was published save two. (The AVM 30 has one more component input, but waited two years to pass the 49TXi.) The separate processors all had more flexibility on the subwoofer crossovers. The Pioneer was better on noise with CDs, better on noise with the multi-channel inputs (with or without conversion of the multi-channel inputs to digital to do bass management and time alignment.) How much better on the multi-channel inputs? Lots better. About 11 db better without digital conversion and about 7 db better than the Anthem AVM 30 when it converts the analog signal to digital for bass management. The other two processors apparently did not offer digital bass management on the analog inputs. Many receivers are tested for quality. They frequently fall down on amplifier output, but are otherwise usually strong performers when the receivers are higher end machines. Inexpensive receivers are frequently noisy. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 ---------------- On 2/7/2005 9:40:58 PM MrMcGoo wrote: ....Folks that are interested in this debate should read the reviews, particularly the high end separates. The high end performance is frequently weak in measured performance and/or features. The readers should draw their own conclusions based on measured performance and features, and ignore anyone (including me) with a vested interest such as defending their own purchase or defending their business venture.... Bill ---------------- very good point...... i did exactly that before i purchased my pioneer elite 55txi receiver.... i had been planning to buy a separate pre/pro all along......but the features (which helped improve the sound) and the overall performance made it the best choice for my $1500.... if you like the sound of a $1500 pre/pro better - great!!!...... at the time i purchased my receiver, it was the best sounding unit i could find.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuge Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 ---------------- On 2/7/2005 8:11:01 PM minn_male42 wrote: Transparent is working on higher-performance FireWire cables. Wow. Higher performace Firewire cables. I guess what's good enough for bit-perfect transfers of files isn't good enough for audion huh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 ---------------- On 2/7/2005 10:32:10 PM meuge wrote: ---------------- On 2/7/2005 8:11:01 PM minn_male42 wrote: Transparent is working on higher-performance FireWire cables. Wow. Higher performace Firewire cables. I guess what's good enough for bit-perfect transfers of files isn't good enough for audion huh. ---------------- when i quote an article, i try to quote the whole thing..... even if i don't agree with certain parts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strabo Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 I haven't posted on the klipsch forum for quite some time but thought this would be a good teaching moment to expain why. It is threads like this that really do a disservice to klipsch. The vigorous fighting using overglorified (mis)-information to validate certain peoples purchases is plain stupidity. In my case, this fervor drove me away from the HT forum and into the two channel and architectural forums where I learned so much more about good sound. I appreciate what I have learned from the many helpful and knowledgeable people of this forum and occasionally I come back to see what they have to say. Over time the arguing with miss guided information drove me to look elsewhere to learn. I am not saying that the information provided is wrong. It is probably correct, but with a miss guided application. In a way, keep it up. I am much happier now that I have been driven away and I bet there are others in the same situation but this does not help your cause or Klipsch as a company. Grif (and others), I sympathize with your pain in fighting the good fight to educate people about how to fix the illness (room) instead of the symptom (sound caused by the room). Also, it is the final sound that matters. I listen to music not measurements. MN Male and Mr. McGoo. I'm glad that you think you are happy with your set-ups but it sounds like you are trying to convince yourselves of something that you do not believe. Your arguments sound like justifications of money spent rather than enjoyment of the sound. To quote Daniel von Recklinghausen, "If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad. If it measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong thing." I could care less how things "measure" because I don't listen to measurements. If you are happy by correcting the symptoms of the problem then great but do not shout down the people that are trying to educate others about how to fix the actual problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 ---------------- On 2/8/2005 10:10:40 AM Strabo wrote: I haven't posted on the klipsch forum for quite some time but thought this would be a good teaching moment to expain why. It is threads like this that really do a disservice to klipsch. The vigorous fighting using overglorified (mis)-information to validate certain peoples purchases is plain stupidity. In my case, this fervor drove me away from the HT forum and into the two channel and architectural forums where I learned so much more about good sound. I appreciate what I have learned from the many helpful and knowledgeable people of this forum and occasionally I come back to see what they have to say. Over time the arguing with miss guided information drove me to look elsewhere to learn. I am not saying that the information provided is wrong. It is probably correct, but with a miss guided application. In a way, keep it up. I am much happier now that I have been driven away and I bet there are others in the same situation but this does not help your cause or Klipsch as a company. Grif (and others), I sympathize with your pain in fighting the good fight to educate people about how to fix the illness (room) instead of the symptom (sound caused by the room). Also, it is the final sound that matters. I listen to music not measurements. MN Male and Mr. McGoo. I'm glad that you think you are happy with your set-ups but it sounds like you are trying to convince yourselves of something that you do not believe. Your arguments sound like justifications of money spent rather than enjoyment of the sound. To quote Daniel von Recklinghausen, "If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad. If it measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong thing." I could care less how things "measure" because I don't listen to measurements. If you are happy by correcting the symptoms of the problem then great but do not shout down the people that are trying to educate others about how to fix the actual problem. ---------------- LOL it is so nice of you to share with us your vast knowledge of the subject so we may all learn from you..... FYI... by using the MCACC in my humble receiver - my room DOES measure better and SOUND better.... as for MISINFORMATION or MISGUIDED information.... please educate me as to what misinformation i have posted or how i have misguided anyone.... i have listed facts and links to back up my position... and it seems that for such a "misguided" position - pioneer, denon, yamaha, h/k, and now sherwood disagree with you.... if you even research the subject furthur, you will find that many high end prepros have been using a simple notch filter for years to electronically address problematic bass modes in listening room - B&K, meridian, and lexicon are three brands that offer at least one notch filter and maybe more in more current models..... are you going to call that a "gimmick" as well and assert that the owners of those prepros should only use large bass traps in their rooms to fix a bass peak??? room correction is most easily addressed by room treatments - i never said it wasn't.... but in many situations in which you cannot use room treatments addressing the situation electronically will improve the sound... perhaps you should visit this forum more often as well as do some reading on the Tact website and you may learn something... to take griff's positon (or yours) that these systems to address room sound problems are a "gimmick" is short-sighted or just exhibiting an ignorance of the what is happening in the industry right now... and i fail to see how posting information on the ways that many manufacturers are using electronics to improve the sound in a listener's room is a dis-service to klipsch.... in case you missed it - Bill and I have both stated that these systems helped our Klipsch speakers sound even better than before.... i am not trying to justify anything in my postings on this forum.... but i am trying to correct some "misinformation" posted by griff.... 1. i-link (IEEE 1394) is an industry standard... (see above links) 2. room correction electronic circuits have been proven to improve the sound in a room... Tact has been doing it since 1991 and now there are many major manufacturers promoting this feature.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Strabo, If measurements are so unimportant, then why did Paul Klipsch take so many of them? Paul Klipsch speant much of his lifetime determining which measurements were important and which were irrelevant. Paul Klipsch commented that folks that copied his speakers lacked a research and testing program. Many folks are put in a position of purchaseing equipment without the ability to adequately audition it before purchase. Also, folks need a way to narrow down their choices. Test reports are a starting point, not an ending point. Many folks loudly state that receivers are noisy junk, and that separates are always better. Lots of different folks report that upper end receivers make good processors. What is the matter with giving the newer members access to the objective facts in published reports and letting them read both the ojective facts and the subjective listening review, then listen on their own and make up their own minds???????? Bill PS: Why does Bo$e prohibit these same publications from publising test measurements; only highly subjective listening tests are allowed to be reported? B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 here is some more info for the discussion..... http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0803/04.meridian.shtml Meridian 861 Upgrade Adds Room Correction The new Version 4 software, coupled with the new EF20 DSP Card for the Meridian 861 includes a completely new feature: Meridian Room Correction. Conventional room equalization systems attempt to simply invert the room/speaker response something which cannot be done accurately and produces undesirable effects such as listener position dependence, ringing, pre-echo and loss of headroom. Meridians Room Correction system, in contrast, relies on controlling room modes at low frequencies, where room problems are the most noticeable and effective results can be obtained for a wide range of listening positions. It should, of course, be remembered that room correction supports, rather than replaces, good room acoustics. Meridian Room Correction uses Meridians on-board DSP (Digital Signal Processing) system to first measure the room and then automatically build a series of digital filters that reduce the reverberation time of significant room modes. As the filters generated are entirely digital in nature they can be created without any artifacts and easily incorporated into the all-digital Meridian signal path. The result is a noticeable improvement in the sound of a room, calming down resonances and smoothing out the acoustic. The measurement of a rooms acoustic characteristics is normally difficult to carry out without expensive and complicated software and hardware. With Meridian Room Correction, however, both the measurement and the filter-creation are handled virtually automatically. You just set up a simple measurement microphone such as a cheap sound-level meter obtained from a local electronics store in the listening position and plug its output into an analog input on the processor, choose the Room Correction option in the Meridian setup program, and watch as the system performs measurements of each speaker in the room and builds the appropriate filters. Multiple sets of filters can be defined to be associated with different presets for different types of listening. Along the way, the room correction program develops sophisticated before and after waterfall plots of the rooms frequency response, which can be used to analyze room acoustics and examine the performance of the filters. In addition, filter information can be displayed, edited and even created numerically or graphically by an installer or advanced user. In addition to Room Correction, Version 4 software adds a number of other enhancements: Smart Source, which automatically detects a wide range of digital signals and applies the correct decoding, and Meridian and THX post-processing, are now available on all inputs; all presets are now implemented with high-resolution processing and can handle input sampling rates up to 96 kHz; and a new bass protection system has been implemented, incorporating a revised calibration procedure. Meridian System Software Version 4 has been available since early May for the 861 processor. To utilize the new room correction software, an EF20 DSP card and an analog input, such as is provided on the IA00 analog input card, are required. Both cards are standard in new 861 units. Existing Version 3 861 units can be upgraded by an authorized Meridian dealer, including the addition of an EF20 card and Version 4 software. Earlier units may require a factory upgrade. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_1/lexicon-mc-12-auto-room-correction-1-2004.html Lexicon MC-12 7.1 Surround Sound Processor: Automatic-Room Correction Introduction At CES, 2004, one of the hottest new things for surround sound processors (SSP) and receivers was Automatic Room Correction (ARC). Several companies were showing products with this feature, and so we decided it was time to review one to see how the latest technology performs. In 2003, we reviewed the Lexicon MC-12 Surround Sound Processor, but at that time, we did not have the latest option package for ARC. In order to use the ARC feature, you need to purchase the set of 4 calibrated microphones that are designed for its use (a $795 option). We obtained another MC-12 and microphone package for review. There are other processors and receivers that have now or have had various aspects of room correction built-in. However, it takes a massive amount of DSP to perform the calculations, and the MC-12, with its 4 SHARC processors, is at the leading edge in terms of modern sophistication. It uses 4 microphones (most ARC systems use 1 microphone) that can be placed to give you the best compromise for multiple seating position situations. That takes a lot of processing power that has only become available recently. Since the basic MC-12 features have been covered in our previous review, we will concentrate on the the auto room correction for the present review. If one were to automatically correct a room using software and processing power in an SSP or receiver, it would include several things: (1) correction for distances between the various speakers and the listener; (2) correction for volume in each channel; and (3) EQ for each channel. The current Lexicon automatic room correction system handles (1) and (2) above, but not (3), although EQ correction for the lower octaves will be in the next software version coming in a few months. Correction for the high frequencies is unlikely since the wavelengths are so short, all you have to do is move your head an inch forward, backward, or to the sides, and the EQ changes. Therefore, EQ in future SSPs will most likely just be for the lowest octaves. Lastly, early reflections and standing waves are only correctable with room acoustical treatments (placing absorption panels on the walls), rather than something that is adjustable in an SSP. So, let's call the current MC-12 software ARC Minus 1 until the new EQ software arrives. In any case, automatic distance and level correction are important enough that we will talk about those two features now, and update you with the EQ feature when it arrives in our editorial offices. Some might argue that automatic distance and level calculation is not anything you can't do with a tape measure and Radio Shack SPL meter. That's true, but if the SSP or receiver will do the work for you, it means that much more time you can spend watching movies and listening to music. Secondly, the Radio Shack SPL meter is not calibrated, and can be off by a few dB at various frequencies. It is fine for comparing relative speaker levels between channels but cannot be considered accurate to within 1 dB in its readout at all frequencies. Also, the processing power of the MC-12 lets you calculate the best compromise for several simultaneous listening positions, and that is something you really can't do manually. http://www.bryston.ca/newsletters/44_files/vol4is4.html .....Electronic equalization can take the place of a passive device used to control an over excited room mode. Careful and correct electronic equalizers can reduce ringing as well as a properly placed set of helmholtz resonators. Electronic equalization can be used in a very limited way to control deep nulls in the frequency response. It can be dangerous to loudspeakers if electronic correction is applied to correct deep nulls in frequency response at low frequencies. Woofer cone excursion limits can be easily reached with low frequency EQ boost..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 ---------------- On 2/8/2005 12:41:48 PM minn_male42 wrote: .....It can be dangerous to loudspeakers if electronic correction is applied to correct deep nulls in frequency response at low frequencies. Woofer cone excursion limits can be easily reached with low frequency EQ boost..... ---------------- Precisely. Do it right, with bass traps, or run the risk of destroying your speakers with an automatic EQ function. BTW, last I had heard, the firewire interfaces on different brands of equipment didn't talk to each other. Granted, that was about 4 months ago. As far as everyone adopting the "room correction" thing, I see that as more of a "me too" thing going on, rather than a "this is a good idea". 9 band GEQ's, whether automatic or not, aren't anywhere near capable of fully correcting a room. Hell, even the dual 30-band Furmans I used to use didn't account for enough room characteristics to fully comp response - I've seen untreated rooms with dead flat response at each 1/3 octave band on a GEQ, but when a full-frequency spectrum analyzer was employed, demonstrated nulls and spikes all over the audible range - and they all were missed by the GEQ. I'm sure it's providing some measure of improvement over raw, untreated signal processing, but it's still not measuring up to proper room correction. That press release about the Lexicon processor was dead on in at least one respect - the processing power required to do proper full-spectrum RTA is a lot higher than what Yammy, Pioneer, et al are installing in their receivers. One of the points you guys are missing about physical room correction vs. digital equalization is that room reflections can't be compensated by equalization. Slapback doesn't get removed by cutting a frequency band - you're still hearing the multiplying effect, but you're getting less of a particular frequency in your entire source programme, thus you're compromising the source. Nulls are created by phase cancellation from multiple reflections in the room - standing waves - this can't be overcome by boosting a particular band - all you're doing is adding more phase problems. So the final question remains - why not correct the problem in the first place, rather than compensating for it? This is why I view pseudo-RTA technology as a gimmick. It doesn't solve the problems in the room, it compensates for them. I suppose if you move around a lot, compensation is cheaper, but if you've got a dedicated listening room, you should be making every effort to fix problems in your system, rather than compensate for them. If one of your speakers had a malfunctioning midrange driver that wasn't putting out the proper volume, would you compensate for it by boosting the midrange, or would you fix the driver? Your room is no different. It's just as much a critical component of the system as your speakers, your amp, and your sources, and when it has a problem, it needs to be fixed, not compensated for... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Here we go again!!! If room correction is so dangerous, why haven't I blown a driver in three years of use of two Pioneer receivers? My amps have more than enough power to fry my speakers. Firewire is a standard. Most i.link audio equipment interoperates. There is an extremely lengthy thread at AVS about interoperability. Only Denon has chosen to have Firewire that does not interoperate amongst receiver manufacurers that use i.link. Many Denon 5900 purchasers are unhappy with Denon misleading them about the 5900 DVD player. As to receiver DACs and SN ratios: The Pioneer 49TXi and 59TXi has a separate DAC for all 8 channels. They are fully shielded. Pioneer uses a copper chasis and puts the power supply in a separate compartment. As a result of the excellent shielding, the Pioneer 49TX signal to noise ratio was measured by Stereophile Guide to HT (Sept. 2002, p. 50) as -103 db, A weighted at 1 watt. Since I am usually below one watt, the SN ratio at one watt was important to me. I have yet to find any separate processor with a better noise floor measurement. The point is the sound quality. I am very satisfied with the sound quality of the Pioneer processor section. The amp section is weak with low impedance loads. It is a typical receiver with low impedances; it sucks. In fairness to Pioneer, it is not recommended with 4 ohm loads. The RF-7s allegedly go below 3 ohms per S&V. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 "BTW, last I had heard, the firewire interfaces on different brands of equipment didn't talk to each other. Granted, that was about 4 months ago." on DVD-audio - they all talk to each other except for sony which only does SACD.... as i mentioned ealier yamaha, denon, and pioneer units all talk to each other without any problems "So the final question remains - why not correct the problem in the first place, rather than compensating for it?" and most people out there do not have dedicated "home theaters".... they use the living room or great room.... room treatments are simply not an option.... the popularity of the POS bose 3-2-1 speaks to that issue directly - no rear speakers with the wires running all over the place... i have stated several times above that true room treatment is better.... but as the quote from the Tact website stated very well (on the previous page in this thread).... "Today, most high quality loudspeaker systems have a very good frequency response, often with a deviation of less than 1.5 dB from being ideal. However, once the loudspeakers are placed in a listening environment, the deviations will increase dramatically. This is most often found to be as much as + /- 10 dB, which translates to the dominant frequencies being 100 times more powerful than the least audible frequencies." if a simple digital equalizer built-into my receiver can help address the above problem it DOES improve the sound..... it's not perfect - i never said it was.... but the AUDIBLE RESULTS are very convincing.... there is a very definite improvement... to dismiss the technology and it's uses as a "gimmick" does a dis-service to the many people that don't have that "Dedicated home theater" but still would like to improve their sound.... these latest generation receivers have provided an improved sound in many situations.... again i'm not saying it is perfect.... but they do provide an improvement.... in my case - i feel the improvement was nothing short of DRAMATIC... that is in my room with the room that i have.... others have posted that the effect was just a slight improvement in their rooms.... perhaps the best thing is that you can defeat all the settings with one push of a button on the remote and compare to a direct signal path... and as the articles that i posted above infer.....i hardly feel that lexicon and meridian would decide to say "me too" to any technology... if this technology was just a "gimmick" then those two companies wouldn't have anything to do with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 ---------------- On 2/8/2005 2:03:51 PM MrMcGoo wrote: ...Firewire is a standard. Most i.link audio equipment interoperates. There is an extremely lengthy thread at AVS about interoperability. Only Denon has chosen to have Firewire that does not interoperate amongst receiver manufacurers that use i.link. Many Denon 5900 purchasers are unhappy with Denon misleading them about the 5900 DVD player.... ---------------- The latest denon 5900 players now do pass SACD and DVD-audio and work with other manufacturers' receivers... (i read that on some forum) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strabo Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 ---------------- On 2/8/2005 10:59:49 AM minn_male42 wrote: edited out the sales brochure. ---------------- Thanks Russ for making my point. Where in my previous post did I say that these things do not work? I didn't. In fact I made it a point that they do some good. My problem with them is the application of room correction software. For example, yes, I use a parametric EQ on my sub to help tame a bass hump that my room creates. All it does in attenuates the level around 47hz +/-6hz by 3dbs at the center point. The EQ is the last resort because, as Grif explained, it cannot fix everything. The laws of physics are not changed by a fancy EQ. I use it knowing that there is a null created somewhere else that I can live with. First is room treatment, followed by speaker placement, which also dictates the treatment. Get those right then add room correction if necessary which should be minimal. As a pricing analyst in retail, I can guess why all those hardware manufacturers adding this software to their equipment. It's called sales. Add whatever gimmick that will separate people from their money. It isn't unethical in this case because they are adding value to the unit. If it is a value that the consumer thinks they want then they will vote with their checkbooks. Unfortunately what most people miss is that this is the lazy way out and the consumer will not reap the full benifit without doing the first two steps properly. Plus, as pointed out, they could actually do more harm to their equipment than good to the sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.