Yamaha Owners’ Thread (AVR, Pre-pro, Amp)

[Johnny2Bad]

... {snip} ...

I'm just saying many audiophiles don't like the idea of any kind of EQ.

... {snip} ...
.

I don't think that Audiophiles are against EQ per se, but they are inclined to get the best frequency response possible first, and then if necessary after all avenues have been explored, use EQ.

The non-Audiophile tends to do it the other way ... EQ first, upgrade source / amplification /speakers / room treatment etc later (if at all).

If you talk to those who use EQ the most (sound engineers, Pro Audio engineers, Live Music Facility Engineers, etc) they still will start with equipment and a room response that is as close to the ideal end result first, and then tweak to achieve that 10th 10th they are looking for. It's just incredibly difficult to do that if your starting point is far off from your end goal.

 

[PENG]

Have you seen the new P6 preamp?

http://www.parasound.com/p6.php

On paper only, and I was disappointed to learn that they included the DAC thing. I don't believe good class AB or A/AB power amps make much sq difference, even less so for preamps. Regardless, I still prefer a preamp to do just amplification as I want my separates to be as separate as possible, audible difference or not.

 

[highfigh]

On paper only, and I was disappointed to learn that they included the DAC thing. I don't believe good class AB or A/AB power amps make much sq difference, even less so for preamps. Regardless, I still prefer a preamp to do just amplification as I want my separates to be as separate as possible, audible difference or not.

Why are you disappointed? The P5 had a DAC, why should this one not, even if it has been upgraded? You still have the option of using a different one and I doubt that the cost of the DAC is such a major part of the price that it should be a deal-breaker. Compare this to an outboard DAC and I bet it stands up well. When have you heard of a DAC going belly up and not working?

I replaced a B&K AVP 2000 preamp with a Parasound P5 and it absolutely sounds better now. The B&K may have been good when it was new, but on looking inside, the OpAmps are nothing special- TI TL072, which had been superceded by the TL073 in the '80s, a lower noise version. The B&K didn't have an analog volume control or digital inputs, either. The fact that the P5 has a DAC made integration of the components easier because I didn't need to use Y cords to connect them to two devices when they were shared or convert to analog so they could be connected to the B&K. The homeowner has a California Audio Labs DAC, but that doesn't sound as good as the P5 either, and it has a mechanical switch, so it couldn't be left in the basement with the other equipment.

 

[PENG]

Why are you disappointed? The P5 had a DAC, why should this one not, even if it has been upgraded? You still have the option of using a different one and I doubt that the cost of the DAC is such a major part of the price that it should be a deal-breaker. Compare this to an outboard DAC and I bet it stands up well. When have you heard of a DAC going belly up and not working?

I replaced a B&K AVP 2000 preamp with a Parasound P5 and it absolutely sounds better now. The B&K may have been good when it was new, but on looking inside, the OpAmps are nothing special- TI TL072, which had been superceded by the TL073 in the '80s, a lower noise version. The B&K didn't have an analog volume control or digital inputs, either. The fact that the P5 has a DAC made integration of the components easier because I didn't need to use Y cords to connect them to two devices when they were shared or convert to analog so they could be connected to the B&K. The homeowner has a California Audio Labs DAC, but that doesn't sound as good as the P5 either, and it has a mechanical switch, so it couldn't be left in the basement with the other equipment.

As I said, I prefer separates to be as separate, simple and "pure" as possible. It is just my preference. I can use external ones but I don't want to pay for the build in one, and the extra parts (likely some of the same found in AVRs) that come with it.

The P6 does look like a much improved version of the P5, and price is good.

 

[highfigh]

I used to read that an audio purist really wants "straight wire, with gain", nothing more.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I don't think that Audiophiles are against EQ per se, but they are inclined to get the best frequency response possible first, and then if necessary after all avenues have been explored, use EQ.

I meant that many audiophiles have tried both auto and manual EQ many times in the past. And they concluded that non-EQ gave them the best sound.

Other audiophiles found that the right EQ that produced a flatter in-room response produced the best sound to them.

So bottom line - try EQ and Non-EQ and go with the one that produces the best sound.

For example, I have heard audiophiles complained that after getting close to that flat 20Hz-20kHz in-room response using EQ, they felt that it "sucked the life out of the system".

So if that's the case, then don't use EQ to produce a flat in-room response.

IMO, "accuracy" is about producing sounds that are as close to what you hear in real life - real music, real concerts, real sounds. It's not about achieving a perfectly flat 20Hz-20kHz +/- 0.1dB in-room response (even if that were possible).

But if that flat in-room response (maybe 20Hz-20kHz +/-3dB) produces real-life accurate sound to you, then go with that.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

On paper only, and I was disappointed to learn that they included the DAC thing. I don't believe good class AB or A/AB power amps make much sq difference, even less so for preamps. Regardless, I still prefer a preamp to do just amplification as I want my separates to be as separate as possible, audible difference or not.

I agree with you. I loved my old Acurus and Bryston class-A analog preamps. No DAC. No tones. Just inputs, outputs, L/R balance, and volume controls.

Otherwise, just get an AVR and call it a day.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The P6 does look like a much improved version of the P5, and price is good.

Lordy, every time I hear "Parasound P5", I can't help but think about @ematthews P5's perpetual problems.

 

[PENG]

IMO, "accuracy" is about producing sounds that are as close to what you hear in real life - real music, real concerts, real sounds.

Agreed, completely..

It's not about achieving a perfectly flat 20Hz-20kHz +/- 0.1dB in-room response (even if that were possible).

That, in theory, does not sound logical to me. Even if we ignore harman's findings, that:

In a nutshell, if a speaker exhibits flat and linear on-axis frequency response with consistent off-axis performance to preserve critical early reflections, then the speaker will score very highly in blind listening tests and also provide more consistent performance from room to room.

But if that flat in-room response (maybe 20Hz-20kHz +/-3dB) produces real-life accurate sound to you, then go with that.

Agreed, completely..

 

[PENG]

Lordy, every time I hear "Parasound P5", I can't help but think about @ematthews P5's perpetual problems.

Very funny the way you put it, but true.. I did feel sorry for ematthews, and hope Parasound had finally fixed that for him.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

IMO, "accuracy" is about producing sounds that are as close to what you hear in real life - real music, real concerts, real sounds. It's not ONLY about achieving a perfectly flat 20Hz-20kHz +/- 0.1dB in-room response...

That, in theory, does not sound logical to me...

Yeah, it depends on the point of view and overall picture. Just a single statement or snapshot may not be logical.

For example, what Harman or any audio “researchers” conclude about people’s preference in relationship to on-axis and off-axis responses isn’t as accurate as medicine.

In the medical field, there’s a saying that we “treat the patient, not the lab numbers”.

So medical lab numbers may guide us, but the actual clinical response of the patient is the goal, even if the numbers are not “ideal”.

I won’t even say that requency responses or any findings in audio “research” even compares to any medical lab numbers.

In-room frequency responses can guide us like lab numbers on paper, but the actual sound is like the actual clinical response of the patient.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So if the patient’s lab numbers are 20Hz-20kHz +/- 6dB and his seizures or other medical problems are fixed, then that’s what we’re going with.

There’s no point of achieving 20Hz-20kHz +/-0.0dB if the seizures, arrhythmias, and other medical problems are not fixed.

This is what happens when you work at a hospital on Thanksgiving.

 

[Bookmark]

 

[Johnny2Bad]

...{snip} ...

For example, I have heard audiophiles complained that after getting close to that flat 20Hz-20kHz in-room response using EQ, they felt that it "sucked the life out of the system".

So if that's the case, then don't use EQ to produce a flat in-room response.

IMO, "accuracy" is about producing sounds that are as close to what you hear in real life - real music, real concerts, real sounds. It's not about achieving a perfectly flat 20Hz-20kHz +/- 0.1dB in-room response (even if that were possible).
... {snip} ...

A perfect example of EQ first / assemble quality equipment / treat the room, etc last. Almost always a fail.

Also may be an example of improper use of EQ (for example perhaps boosting valleys; generally valleys should be ignored and only peaks reduced). Adjustments greater than 3dB and that is an extreme limit means you didn't assemble the system properly in Step 1.

There is no inherent reason why EQ should "suck the life out of the music". Phono preamps provide EQ that is excessive by room EQ standards, but it doesn't "suck the life out of LPs". If that's the case, you did it wrong.

Trying to achieve a +/- 1dB in-room response is indeed impossible, let alone +/- 0.1 dB. Furthermore there is the issue of direct and reflected sound, nearfield (direct only) or listening chair (both) ... which one do you EQ for? They won't be the same.

The biggest problem with EQ is it is difficult to do properly and generally it takes experience and training to do it properly, skills most users don't possess. It isn't fair to judge the value of EQ if you limit your examples to the work of amateurs.

 

[Ataraxia]

A perfect example of EQ first / assemble quality equipment / treat the room, etc last. Almost always a fail.

The biggest problem with EQ is it is difficult to do properly and generally it takes experience and training to do it properly, skills most users don't possess.

Could you explain this failure please and how to avoid it.

Thanks

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Could you explain this failure please and how to avoid it.

Thanks

Sorry, I can't ... or at least I won't, for free. There are books on the subject, read some, spend a few years doing live sound or pro installations or studio recording or AV installation and setup. Then you will be qualified to EQ a room.

There's a reason why things like Anthem Room Correction are complex computer-driven EQ systems with measurement at multiple areas of the room required to setup a basic EQ. It's not something you can distill to a few paragraphs in a forum post.

 

[Ataraxia]

Sorry, I can't ... or at least I won't, for free. There are books on the subject, read some, spend a few years doing live sound or pro installations or studio recording or AV installation and setup. Then you will be qualified to EQ a room.

Ok. But very generally please, are you implying that it is best to treat a room for optimum acoustics, including acoustical treatments if necessary, then match your equipment to your room, and then EQ as necessary?

 

[M Code]

Within this thread are many opinions and insertions about loudspeakers, EQ and room acoustics...
Attached is a link to a presentation from Dr.Toole who IMHO is 1 of the most knowledgible authorites for loudspeakers, his thoughts are covered in his books but here is an informative YouTube presentation. I have known Dr.Toole for >20 years and worked closely with him on multiple, proprietary projects..

Just my $0.02...

 

[PENG]

Yeah, it depends on the point of view and overall picture. Just a single statement or snapshot may not be logical.

For example, what Harman or any audio “researchers” conclude about people’s preference in relationship to on-axis and off-axis responses isn’t as accurate as medicine.

In the medical field, there’s a saying that we “treat the patient, not the lab numbers”.

So medical lab numbers may guide us, but the actual clinical response of the patient is the goal, even if the numbers are not “ideal”.

I won’t even say that requency responses or any findings in audio “research” even compares to any medical lab numbers.

In-room frequency responses can guide us like lab numbers on paper, but the actual sound is like the actual clinical response of the patient.

You can ignore Harman's finding if you don't believe them. I don't think they are 100% right either, not even close.

My point is about how you define accurate, referencing to "live" and "flat" FR, does not seem logical. A perfectly flat FR system does not automatically mean it can reproduce a recording accurately, but a non flat FR system is not "accurate" by definition. I am talking about in room condition.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

..a non flat FR system is not "accurate" by definition.

Which definition?

Who decides what is the best definition?

Do all live concerts and all live sounds measure flat?