The SEPARATES vs. AVR Thread

[Mikado463]

Guess it would be spl and room dependent. Top flight AVRs don’t have the amp sections they did 20 years ago. Going back to the early 2000s Denon, Yamaha and pioneer had some extremely stout amps. Not sure modern avrs with 9+ channels can claim the same, not that they can’t be more than sufficient under the right circumstances.

while it is unlikely to ever have it done I think it would be a hoot !

 

[everettT]

Without going thru the entire thread I’d say the for sub integration an avr or preamp with selectable crossover slopes would be high on my list for perfect piece.

 

[Steve81]

Really? They believe that a $600 cheap pre-pro has better parts and sounds better than a $2200 AVR?

I would like to hear them say it.

And maybe give their rationale.

Better parts? Probably not. Sounds better? Depends.

As auto-calibration systems go, EmoQ is nothing to write home about. OTOH, the entry level Emotiva pre/pros have always offered the end user a fair amount of flexibility in getting things set up, with the ability to apply up to 11 channels of PEQ to each speaker channel (3 for the sub),and the aforementioned adjustable high and low pass filter slopes for bass management among other details. Of course that flexibility is a blessing or a curse depending on how capable the end user is.

As far as Audyssey goes, here's one take:
https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/3-weeks-with-audyssey-the-good-bad-and-the-ugly-part-3-where-to-from-here.110580/

I'd like to think my manual configuration hasn't been "highly deleterious" at least

 

[stato]

How about an AVR as processor and use a dedicated power amp to power the speakers. Main channels taken care by the power amp and surrounds or heights by the AVR. Will that be considered as separates?

thats exactly what Ive been doing since my first AVR... and use a Rotel to power fronts... or 2 to bi amp for a change. I also have a 3 channel Rotel but just let the Denon power surrounds and centre channels.... one day i will try that also.

 

[3db]

The poll questions in this thread are truly pointless and far to vague to have any meaning. There are so many factors involved that have been ignored here.

No seperates will ever sound better or worse than my AVRs in my living space. I let you guys figure out why and maybe then, some meaningful poll questions can be asked.

 

[Ataraxia]

My comments only apply to people who came to this forum asking for opinions on integrated amps, and then some of us old timer members would suggest AVRs to be included for consideration. People who are considering 2 channel integrated amps, probably don't need the same "range" of inputs typically found on multi channel AVRs.

When I started my research on what to do for amplification after buying my R3's I originally wanted to keep it simple and get an integrated, because I had the impression an integrated would provide better sound than an AVR. I figured I'd be about 50/50 music/movies.

I was later educated that because almost all integrated only accept 2 channel PCM, the LFE channel would be lost. Therefor the movie experience would be less with an integrated. On top of that, the integrated's do not usually have surround sound decoding, so no down-mixing all the great audio effects into my preferred 2.1 or 2.2 channel system.

So in the end I decided to use an AVR to keep surround sound decoding and down-mixing and the LFE channel material. The other benefit is that If I do get the urge to go 3.1 or 3.2 I will have that option. However, since I've barely started my journey into higher level audio I still wonder if it would be better to try an integrated with bass management so I make sure I'm not missing anything the R3's and my shortly arriving Rythmik F12SE have to offer.

 

[Zildjianmeister]

@Ataraxia,
I actually tried just that with my Integrated. I have the Parasound Halo Integrated. I was not happy at all when watching movies with PCM. Lost the LFE and the full sound of movies. Then I connected my AVR to it and have that LFE back as well as a center channel option now. I do 3.1 for movies.

Regarding the separates vs avr: I'm going to test my old Yamaha avr one day without the integrated being connected and see how it sounds. I may not have the overhead that I would with the integrated but it may not make much difference since I don't listen at very loud levels anyway. I am curious if there will be a difference in sound with the integrated out of the loop. My guess is not much.

Z

 

[Ataraxia]

@Ataraxia,
I actually tried just that with my Integrated. I have the Parasound Halo Integrated. I was not happy at all when watching movies with PCM. Lost the LFE and the full sound of movies. Then I connected my AVR to it and have that LFE back as well as a center channel option now. I do 3.1 for movies.

Regarding the separates vs avr: I'm going to test my old Yamaha avr one day without the integrated being connected and see how it sounds. I may not have the overhead that I would with the integrated but it may not make much difference since I don't listen at very loud levels anyway. I am curious if there will be a difference in sound with the integrated out of the loop. My guess is not much.

Z

@Zildjianmeister

Thanks. You just summarized my whole journey and seems saved me from continually wondering.. "What if I went with a Parasound Hint 6?" You did exactly the experiment I would have done with it.

So I guess AVR was the right move to keep the surround codec down-mixing and LFE channel. The only other thing I still wonder about, is, with the 87 db R3's that dip to around 3.2 ohms at about 45hz and 150hz (45hz won't be a problem when I add my sub and filter it out to the sub) is what if I added some big power outboard amps like 200-300 watts or so.. Would that drive the R3's to their best at all dynamic levels? At any rate, the AVR I'm currently using, the Yamaha A2080 does 140 watts into 2 channels which should... be about as good as it gets. The journey continues.

 

[PENG]

As far as Audyssey goes, here's one take:
https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/3-weeks-with-audyssey-the-good-bad-and-the-ugly-part-3-where-to-from-here.110580/

My "take" is very different. In the linked thread, you have two proponents who just can't stand Audyssey for reasons that they know best, and I can't/won't argue with them. I have graphs to prove some of my points, but that's for my two set ups in my two rooms only, though I can't see why people who have the kind of rectangular small medium to medium sized rooms similar to mine cannot have the same results. TLSGuy has the XT version, and I am not sure he has taken the necessary steps during calibration and some basic manual adjustment after, in order to obtain better results.

Even if done properly, but following instructions to the letter and with decent end results, my graphs do show why many people may still not like what Audyssey typically does, i.e. leveling the bass in the 15-120 Hz range. That looks good on paper but could also mean that in many cases, result in much weaker bass in that region, when the major bumps were eliminated or largely reduced. The other necessary trick that most people wouldn't bother doing is to try different (usually higher) XO points for the mains. In my experience, that step is critical for better integration of bass capable speakers and subs. I don't think Audyssey, or other REQ system can optimize this part of the process, probably because they don't control the slopes, among other reasons.

I do think Audyssey XT32 with the Editor App is a pre-requisite as it allows people to select the cutoff frequency (some experts would likely choose their perceived transition/Schroeder frequency) for EQ, and do away with the mid range compensation may not work well with some or most speakers.

 

[PENG]

@Ataraxia,
I actually tried just that with my Integrated. I have the Parasound Halo Integrated. I was not happy at all when watching movies with PCM. Lost the LFE and the full sound of movies. Then I connected my AVR to it and have that LFE back as well as a center channel option now. I do 3.1 for movies.

Regarding the separates vs avr: I'm going to test my old Yamaha avr one day without the integrated being connected and see how it sounds. I may not have the overhead that I would with the integrated but it may not make much difference since I don't listen at very loud levels anyway. I am curious if there will be a difference in sound with the integrated out of the loop. My guess is not much.

Z

The Halo integrated has HT bypass input, did you try it?

 

[PENG]

@Zildjianmeister

Thanks. You just summarized my whole journey and seems saved me from continually wondering.. "What if I went with a Parasound Hint 6?" You did exactly the experiment I would have done with it.

So I guess AVR was the right move to keep the surround codec down-mixing and LFE channel. The only other thing I still wonder about, is, with the 87 db R3's that dip to around 3.2 ohms at about 45hz and 150hz (45hz won't be a problem when I add my sub and filter it out to the sub) is what if I added some big power outboard amps like 200-300 watts or so.. Would that drive the R3's to their best at all dynamic levels? At any rate, the AVR I'm currently using, the Yamaha A2080 does 140 watts into 2 channels which should... be about as good as it gets. The journey continues.

I don't know if you have used an online peak spl calculator to figure out how much power you need in your room sitting where you sit, but I highly doubt power is an issue for you if already have a mid range AVR such as the Yamaha RX-A20X0, or equivalent D&M, Onkyo, Sony, Anthem, NAD etc.

Consider the following:

- The R3 is rated 110 dB, that typically means at 1 m, that would be about 101.5 dB at 3m not counting room gain, so any 120 WPC AVR/Amp should be able to get you the maximum spl that speaker can put out.

- KEF recommended 15-180 W so a more powerful amp will get you more safety margin and headroom, but there won't be audible benefits unless you listen to spl that push the R3 to it's upper limit, but then the speakers won't be sounding their best anyway, when pushed so hard.

- The 3.5 ohm dip at 150 Hz is not going to be a problem because it will be for very short duration, a good mid range AVR or integrated amp rated 100-120 W into 8 ohms typically can deal with such impedance for such short duation. In fact, many have been bench tested to output 180 W or more into 4 ohm, two channel driven, at <0.1% THD.

I have used my 5 WPC amp to drive my R900 to 75 dB average, and they sounded as good as when driven by my 250 WPC halo A21. More power will only result in audible benefits when the power is actually used, but not when you average need is less than 1 W, or a few watts with peaks to less than 100 W that your AVR are likely rated for at <0.1% distortions.

Many of us have learnt it the hard and costly way. Amplifiers simply amplifier the signal, they can't make a poor or mediocre recording to sound good. Having said that, some of us, like me, have no regrets of having spent money on separates because there are other reasons than just audibly better sound. In my case, my only regrets is to have bought/owned too many amps/preamps, and don't have the time to listen to them often enough.

 

[Steve81]

My "take" is very different.

Indeed, Audyssey and other auto-calibration systems have their success stories. The main issue in the past was if it gave you crap results, there was a limit as to how much the user could tweak. It was more or less take it or leave it. Things have improved relatively recently with the Audyssey editor app, though if you know enough to use it effectively, you could probably have saved your cash and rolled your own EQ on an el cheapo Emotiva anyway with good results.

The other necessary trick that most people wouldn't bother doing is to try different (usually higher) XO points for the mains. In my experience, that step is critical for better integration of bass capable speakers and subs.

That's the big thing I find hilarious. If Audyssey can't get one of the most basic settings right, how much faith are you really willing to put into it?

 

[PENG]

That's the big thing I find hilarious. If Audyssey can't get one of the most basic settings right, how much faith are you really willing to put into it?

I don't know if it is a right or wrong thing. I am just saying if I leave the as found XO (60 Hz in my case),then I know if the mains are playing the exact same frequency between say 40-, at the same time the subwoofer does, I would get a dip, others may get a bump, and it may or may not be an audible thing. I am also not sure if any system, Dirac, Anthem ARC, Trinnov, or whatever can do this better, because XOs are just not brick walls or they shouldn't be for practical reason, so to EQ the individual speaker in a room is one thing, to EQ them altogether the software/hardware will have to optimize the numerous scenarios that a multi-channel (even just 5.1) system can produce.

Specifically in my case, If I change the as found XO manually to 80 Hz, the dip got so much better, to the point I have not seen better published results, aside from @Pogre, who also took the time to do the best he could. In theory, if manufacturers can standardize on the slope of their crossovers, a good REQ software, not limited by processing power, should be able to integrated better. It is worth noting that even if I leave it at the as found XO 60 Hz, the unsmoothed graph still look pretty good compared to the one with Audyssey off. SVS advised that I should use 1/12 smoothing, and at 1/12, the as found results were very good as far as they are concerned, so again, I am just nitpicking on the as found results.

The only other system I have tried is REW+minidsp, it gets some decent results, but no where near as good as XT32, and you still have to play with different XO. I am still hoping to try Dirac live soon, after that I can do a comparison.

I don't really want to hijack the thread too much, but would really like to show you what I am talking about, may be you can shed some light on something.... So please take a look of the attached graph.

Black - Audyssey off
Blue - Audyssey Ref XO 80 Hz (post Audyssey adjustment)
Red - Audyssey REf XO 60 Hz (as found)

Again, no smoothing applied..

You can see how much bass Audyssey took away in the range 15-32 Hz and 75-120 Hz, for the sake of a much smoother response. To me it's a good thing and sound better to me, but to bassoholics, that could be bad.

 

[Steve81]

I don't know if it is a right or wrong thing.

Ohh it definitely gets things wrong in that department. As far as I'm aware, Audyssey only reports where the speakers roll off to the AVR, which sets the XO accordingly. That's why you have guys that get their speakers set to large, even if they have no business being set as such, and conversely if Audyssey happens to see a dip in the response, IME and that of TLSGuy, it can set the XO abnormally high. It does nothing to check how the speakers / sub integrate with the XO selected by the AVR. Not exactly a stellar starting point for software a lot of people rely on to get the best performance out of their systems.

 

[PENG]

Ohh it definitely gets things wrong in that department. As far as I'm aware, Audyssey only reports where the speakers roll off to the AVR, which sets the XO accordingly. That's why you have guys that get their speakers set to large, even if they have no business being set as such, and conversely if Audyssey happens to see a dip in the response, IME and that of TLSGuy, it can set the XO abnormally high. It does nothing to check how the speakers / sub integrate with the XO selected by the AVR. Not exactly a stellar starting point for software a lot of people rely on to get the best performance out of their systems.

That's true, I knew that but wasn't thinking momentarily. Audyssey denied setting XO a few times in their FAQ lol.. I' ll soon find out how Dirac Live does in that regard.

 

[Alex2507]

Not that this is the Room Correction Thread but the 2 times I have heard RC, it took something out of the music that I needed in the music. The first time was Anthem's ARC and now Audyssey (if I spelled it right it would be a minor miracle) at a friend's. I forget the version on a Marantz slim line something or other that I set up. It bugs me to think that I left his system not right.

EDIT: Actually I tried YPAO but never formed an opinion. It was probably okay. Nothing jumped out as wrong.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Not that this is the Room Correction Thread but the 2 times I have heard RC, it took something out of the music that I needed in the music. The first time was Anthem's ARC and now Audyssey (if I spelled it right it would be a minor miracle) at a friend's. I forget the version on a Marantz slim line something or other that I set up. It bugs me to think that I left his system not right.

EDIT: Actually I tried YPAO but never formed an opinion. It was probably okay. Nothing jumped out as wrong.

I think all EQ are equivocal and polarizing. Some people (you, me, @TLS Guy, @RichB, many others in the separates components camp) hate it.

Some people love it (@PENG and many others).

The obvious explanation is the different systems, different rooms, and different setups.

Some like it spicy and hot, and some like it mild and flat.

Maybe it’s a personal thing like foods and drinks.

 

[PENG]

I think all EQ are equivocal and polarizing. Some people (you, me, @TLS Guy, @RichB, many others in the separates components camp) hate it.

Some people love it (@PENG and many others).

The obvious explanation is the different systems, different rooms, and different setups.

Some like it spicy and hot, and some like it mild and flat.

Maybe it’s a personal thing like foods and drinks.

Agreed, would like to add that if one prefers neutrality/accuracy then one may have a better chance of liking it (it being REQ that works to produce flatter response without introducing nasty things), or not hating it as much. Not really sure, just my educated guess based on Dr. Toole's finding that apparently if the speakers have flatter response sound better to people, something like that....

 

[Steve81]

Not really sure, just my educated guess based on Dr. Toole's finding that apparently if the speakers have flatter response sound better to people, something like that....

Dr. Toole advocates for speakers with a flat anechoic response, which isn't the same thing as a flat in room response. AFAIK, he isn't a big fan of most REQ systems.

 

[PENG]

Dr. Toole advocates for speakers with a flat anechoic response, which isn't the same thing as a flat in room response. AFAIK, he isn't a big fan of most REQ systems.

He didn't deny the potential benefits either, and in the Harmon conducted comparison he also did have good things to say about one/or two particular products. In that article he wrote about the compared REQ products, he obviously didn't like the one that he thought scored worse (not named but people guessed it was Audyssey) but based on the year, if it was in fact Audyssey, it would have been the old MultEQ or XT version (not 100% sure, definitely not the Pro or XT32). As far as I know, Harmon had subsequently developed their own REQ, but was a pricey one that wasn't meant for AVR users. So you I think you are right, that he isn't a big fan of "most" REQ systems, but he could be a fan of one that scores well in areas that he thinks are important for good sound quality.

To your point of flat anechoic response, that's true, but Dr. Toole included some caveats too, such as his favorite thing on "off axis" performance. He emphasized that if the speaker performed will in off axis, it will likely perform well in room (presumable not really bad rooms) without the need of EQ. Anyway, I respect his credentials, but like us, he's not totally free from being a little bias.