Hot off the presses, Sound United is acquiring Onkyo/Pioneer

[ryanosaur]

Its funny, and true!
I'll add that I'm not so much looking for the "high-end" experience, myself. What I want is just something that works well, with some features that stupidly seem to be only available on certain brands and at certain levels.
Why can't I choose to plug in 3 subwoofers and have independent control over them?
Why can't I choose to have 6 Atmos channels and only 5 on my bed layer? (Don't know if I will, but am considering it.)
Why can't I turn off the on-board Amps I'm not using? (Not to be confused with saying 'none' to an Atmos layout in selection screen thus not activating that 8th and 9th amp channels which I'm not using yet, but deactivating mains, center, and surrounds.)
I'm going to leave room correction out of this for now.
(That said, @PENG, since that previous thread when Aud App got updated, I've had it on and am using it still. Sounds fine. Maybe not perfect, but it hasn't sucked the life out of my rig. In fact, that Faux BBC style MRC which Aud employs and that I built minimally back into my curve works great. I think later this year after I get to play around building some things, I very well might look at some room corrections to lighten the liveliness of my room. Something behind the new speakers perhaps, and at first reflection... Perhaps even a diffraction panel behind me. I don't wanna kill my room entirely, but I would like to run my speakers clean.
With that,)
Bass Management is the last piece of the puzzle. MiniDSP and REW? mDSP with Dirac? A receiver or processor that can do Dirac and give the above stated flexibility of use? ...
I have looked hard at the MDSP DDRC88A/BM to which I would need to add another unit to manage up to 6 additional channels if deemed necessary to dial in up to 14 channels: 5.3.6 or 7.3.4. Hell, I have to add an additional unit just to manage what I have right now in 7.2.
In the end, maybe that's all I need, except for the freedom, I think, of processing channels through an AVR/AVP.
When last I looked, none of the products I saw from Dennon, Marantz, Onkyo or Pioneer offered what I want. Anthem comes close, but not all the way. The Monolith HTP1 is the closest, and includes Dirac.
Where does that leave me today: If I add mDSP product to my SR6012, I can do 7.2.4, and add a sub through the mDSP making it 7.3.4... But I cannot change to 5.3.6 due to processing limitations in the Marantz (unless I missed something). Cost: 900 already spent on the SR6012, plus roughly 14-1500 on mDSP product. If Anthem updates in a year, say, and they offer better channel assignability for Atmos configuration in an AVR or AVP, maybe I only need to add a mdsp2x4hd to manage a 3rd sub... if I choose. Total cost: btw27and3700 depending on model. Monolith: 4K, but will it be dialed in for UHD? I don't see that listed right now in their specs for it. Emotiva...? RMC1... maybe the tease of the RMC2 comes to fruition... (Buggy A.F. ??? Roll the dice? play it safe?) RMC 1 is 5K.
Maybe the best bet is sticking with an updated Marantz or Denon, purchased as soon as the price drops, and employing the MDSP Dirac products. As before: Time will tell.

 

[ryanosaur]

Funny, Lovin, I got your message via email but not here... but yes... running sub out to MDSP 2x4 will allow for that! Absolutely correct. Clumsy verbage.

 

[lovinthehd]

Funny, Lovin, I got your message via email but not here... but yes... running sub out to MDSP 2x4 will allow for that! Absolutely correct. Clumsy verbage.

LOL I deleted it because I noticed you specifically mentioned the DDRC unit, but yes was thinking a 2x4 would manage four subs quite nicely for you.

 

[ryanosaur]

LOL I deleted it because I noticed you specifically mentioned the DDRC unit, but yes was thinking a 2x4 would manage four subs quite nicely for you.

Obviously I've been strategizing how to run my system. These AVR discussions have a funny way of bringing out my repressed Type A personality. Probably should go burn one, but I'm behind the bar tonight and its been raining. People love Ramen when its raining.

 

[lovinthehd]

Obviously I've been strategizing how to run my system. These AVR discussions have a funny way of bringing out my repressed Type A personality. Probably should go burn one, but I'm behind the bar tonight and its been raining. People love Ramen when its raining.

Hear you got most of the bay area's forecast in your area alone It's been wet here...of course the week I'm having a new roof put in....

 

[gene]

Emo has a note on their site published in Feb that has this comment:

You will soon see “Assembled in the USA with Globally Sourced Components” on all products designed and assembled in Franklin, Tennessee.

I'm sure you are aware of the strict FTC rules for this type of marketing. And, what I see on that comment says that they are following the rules.

Yes but that was not what they were claiming originally. Dan Laufman said in online interviews and to me ALL manufacturing would be done in the USA. Glad they are being transparent about it now however.

 

[gene]

Have no idea what Gene did but I have played with the graphic eq and copying a profile over....it's not as good as simply using Audyssey IMO.

The GEQ in Denon receivers is virtually useless and a shame they haven't updated it to a PEQ. You can't copy Audyssey EQ settings over to the manual GEQ. Use the editor App.

 

[gene]

Audyssey is a more complex set of filters than the graphic eq....and those aren't copied over for use in the graphic equalizer. Here's a description of how Audyssey filters work:



Audyssey Labs July 15, 2010 13:53
There are two fundamental differences from every other method available in AV receivers today. The first is that MultEQ is not based on parametric equalization. Parametric equalization relies on a few bands that are centered at certain frequencies. These bands do not provide sufficient resolution to address many room acoustical problems. Also, parametric bands tend to interact so that changes at one frequency have undesirable results at nearby frequencies. Moreover, parametric equalization methods use a particular type of digital filter called Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) that only attempts to correct the magnitude response in the frequency domain. These filters can cause unwanted effects, such as ringing or smearing, in the time domain particularly as the bands get narrower. MultEQ uses Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filters for equalization that use several hundred coefficients to achieve much higher resolution in the frequency domain than parametric bands. Furthermore, by their nature, FIR filters simultaneously provide correction in the frequency and time domains. FIR filters had been considered to require too many computational resources. But Audyssey solved this problem by using a special frequency scale that allocates more power to the lower frequencies where it is needed the most.
The second major difference is that MultEQ combines multiple measurements to create equalization filters that better represent the acoustical problems in the room. Most other methods only perform a single point measurement and this can result in making other locations in the room sound worse than before equalization. There are some methods that use spatial averaging to combine multiple room measurements. Although this is a step above single-point correction, it does not provide optimum correction when discussing spatial averaging. For example, it is common to find a peak at a certain frequency in one location and a dip at the same frequency at another nearby location. The averaging methods will add the peak and the dip and this will result in an apparent flat response at that frequency, thus causing the equalization filter to take no action. MultEQ uses a clustering method to combine measurements so that acoustical problems are better represented, thus allowing the equalization filter to perform the appropriate correction at each location.

This sounds great but Audyssey like ALL room correction systems often cause more problems than they solve when running full BW correction. They have no way of differentiating room problems from acoustical problems in the speakers and make way too many assumptions as a result.

 

[lovinthehd]

The GEQ in Denon receivers is virtually useless and a shame they haven't updated it to a PEQ. You can't copy Audyssey EQ settings over to the manual GEQ. Use the editor App.

There are some avrs with a "feature" to copy just that rough eq shape over, and there's only the sad graphic eq to further use. I don't have the editor app in any case, my 3 Audyssey units are all older than the app works on. See this for example as to comments from Audyssey on the subject https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212345483-Audyssey-adjustments-and-manual-EQ

 

[lovinthehd]

This sounds great but Audyssey like ALL room correction systems often cause more problems than they solve when running full BW correction. They have no way of differentiating room problems from acoustical problems in the speakers and make way too many assumptions as a result.

Yes this has been repeated by several members a lot lately. Still, it works for some better than nothing or what the graphic eq does. It may not be correct but seems to be a preference. Like some have for no subs, or just 2 speakers, etc.

 

[VonMagnum]

What's so horrible about a room correction system making some frequency corrections to your speakers as well? That used to be a marketing thing back in the 90s when DSP speaker correction was looking to be a thing. I mean I might as well not bother with DIRAC with my Carver speakers as they are dipolar (loads of room reflections I don't really want to correct as they are what gives the speakers their imaging. If anything, I'd rather correct the speakers themselves (near mic) than the room.

So what is it, then? You correct both, you end up moving to the left or right, but neither is correct? Can your brain tell the first arrival from the reflections so well you'd even actually notice? Is it known/tested to sound worse? How could you ever REALLY correct the room when reflections are always going to be at the mic location? Wouldn't you need to measure something like the close mic (pseudo anechoic) and compare and then subtract the difference and then alter the difference alone?

I played with Audyssey full range on my home theater system and I went one cardinal sin even further. I left my matrixed speakers ON when I corrected the room (seeing as it's not really practical to correct them separately and they will mix with the other speakers as well to create the overall arrayed phantom image, so isn't it the arrayed sound I'd want to be "even" rather the individuals since they are not discrete with a matrixed array?).

Thus, I was going for an averaged room response rather than a corrected room response. I suppose you can talk about timing and how the brain differentiates such things, but what I hear with my ears and measure with a meter with sin wave tones and pink noise is uneven response at the listening position. Why do I care if it's a direct wave, reflected wave or rather the combination of the two so long as my 150Hz bass tone is no longer 10dB lower than my 80Hz tone? Because I can HEAR the difference between the tones and my brain doesn't know why it's uneven, it just doesn't like hearing the bass on George Michael's "Cowboys and Angels" drastically changing volume between notes as it's quite noticeable when it does.

After correction? EVEN STEVEN.

But that's within the whatever the guy's name I can never remember (Heinz, Oscar Meyer, Chef-Boy-R-Dee...darn I'm getting hungry) so maybe it then sounds like crap at higher ranges? Well, that's where it gets a bit more interesting. I tamed the room with a combination of absorptive things and diffractive things and odd shaped things so it doesn't sound terrible to begin with, but I did notice sibilance got noticeably louder with some songs the first attempt. I tried again after changing the toe-in a bit on the mains and it was MUCH better sounding. But in "Flat" it''s a bit harsher, if not more sibilant again.

So then is it bad sounding "flat" or am I used to hearing ribbon speakers that naturally roll off above 15kHz (oddly emulating a record player in some respects) and that colors my view, at least for a preference for "reference" over "flat"? Sibilance is more in the 5kHz-8kHz range, though so maybe not. I do know that it sounds better as long as the songs don't have sibilance issues, but if they do, it does make them slightly more noticeable. It's probably something I could tame with the editor, but it was much better the second time so I haven't bothered (very slight).

But then am I even hearing a difference between the two at all? I've flipped Audyssey on/off and reference/flat to compare (it'd be nice if they had a slightly easier method to do so without having to bring the menu up like a direct rotate button or something, preferably that could switch faster as your short term frequency type memory is pretty short indeed in small increments). Sometimes, I'm at a loss period between on/off. Clearly, it's only affecting certain ranges in a noticeable manner. Bass wasn't even "that" uneven to begin with. It's when it's off by 6+ dB that it starts to really stick out.

Then there's the question of if I'm not "really" hearing much of a difference, did I even need a room correction system to begin with? I mean people choose their AVR on room correction systems (given the lack of DIRAC when it's considered to be on the of, if not the best system), but is it a REAL palatable difference or one that exists primarily in one's sense of "I know it's more accurate now" ? I can't answer that question because I'm still wondering it myself. I tried limiting the correction to 200Hz. I could barely hear any difference at all. The predicted graphs looked good, and now that I have my UMIK-1, I can go measure it with REW to see how close it came, but did I buy the system to look at graphs or should I expect to actually notice a big improvement? So many state it's worse sounding with full bandwidth, I have to wonder if the entire system should be questioned to a certain extent.

Why even bother when a parametric EQ (Mini-DSP) can correct your sub bass (there's even a DIRAC option there as well) and say screw the rest? Yeah, that's only to 80Hz-100Hz (it's a pain to do 11-17 more channels individually with external equipment), but it's typically where the room has the most issues. But even then, it can't work miracles. Nothing replaces a bass trap and nothing tames high frequency reflections quite like absorptive/diffractive offsets (I had god-awful slap echo not so long ago 1/3 into the room (was it audible with sound? NO IDEA, but it sure was if you clapped or yelled in that space) and two tapestries wiped it out like it never existed).

I dunno. I guess I really haven't looked into the acoustical theory and math behind all these corrective issues, but somehow I thought I'd actually "hear" more of a difference overall than I did. I'm pretty certain if someone had put in a dummy switch and told me it was on/off and it wasn't changing at all, but just blanking out for a second or two, I'd probably have believed them based on sheer suggestion alone (or maybe it's just more noticeable in a bad room than one with decent acoustics? Or even with bad speakers (if it's trying to correct them)? Hmmmm.

Me: Oh yeah, it sounds "smoother" now!
Dude with switch: (It was off)
Yup. It must be that high frequency correction that sucks.
(but it's bandwidth limited)
Um. Well, I like it better off.
(It's been off the whole time! Foooooollled You! [in Dark Helmet's voice]).
Damn you Gustafson! (in my best impression of Walter Matthau)

Think I'll go watch Grumpy Old Men now....

 

[PENG]

I thought DM allows you to copy the Audyssey Curve to the manual EQ. Then you could manually override the frequencies you don't want to mess with like Yamaha.

I vaguely recall Denon AVP-A1HDCI asking me about this when I was playing around with the settings.

As per HD's post, Audyssey EQ, like Dirac and others, does it's thing in the time domain as well, and its FIR filters has much higher resolution. When you copy the Audyssey curve to PEQ, it sort of do some simplified translation, i.e. copy whatever makes sense for the PEQ side of things, but you will lose most of what Audyssey EQ would do. I tried using REW generated EQ parameters with minidsp and the effects were so limited, so I went back to using Audyssey only and put the minidsp HDX4 back in the box, it was a paper weight for a while.

To me, now that we have the $20 Editor App, for someone who is willing to spend time getting the best possible from the App, people have little to complain any more, except those who don't believe in RC/REQ altogether. What they used to complain about were the BBD mid range compensation, thinned sound due to EQ's all the way to 20 kHz, fixed target curves, flattened bass etc. All valid, except the flat bass response one that is highly subjective in nature imo. Just because Harman found most people prefer the bass to have a gentle rise towards the low end, does not make it gospel. Next thing you know they may say, perhaps, that people prefer some sort of DEQ even at reference level.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Just because Harman found most people prefer the bass to have a gentle rise towards the low end, does not make it gospel. Next thing you know they may say, perhaps, that people prefer some sort of DEQ even at reference level.

Some people do consider those "audio-scientists" as prophets and their words as "commandments" in their Hi-Fi religion. LOL.

Actually, you are an audio scientist since you do have an actual professional Electrical Engineer degree (not from the university of Google) and do take a lot of measurements and calculations.

 

[Phase 2]

Some people do consider those "audio-scientists" as prophets and their words as "commandments" in their Hi-Fi religion. LOL.

Actually, you are an audio scientist since you do have an actual professional EE degree and do take a lot of measurements and calculations.

Hey Andrew, PENG, pretty damn good with his assessments on gear he pretty close the Gene. No really I try to find as many post as I can on audio by PENG. You ain't to shabby yourself brother. I've learned a lot following you guys on the technical end of stuff with audio/video. TLS Guy pretty damn good too alone with Stewart, Shady J. Of course we all know only Gene is Master Yoda up in here.

 

[lovinthehd]

Seems the first casualty is longtime Marantz Ken Ishiwata https://www.avhub.com.au/news/sound-image/a-farewell-message-from-ken-ishiwata-to-australia-525361

 

[VonMagnum]

Seems the first casualty is longtime Marantz Ken Ishiwata https://www.avhub.com.au/news/sound-image/a-farewell-message-from-ken-ishiwata-to-australia-525361

I wonder if they actually pushed him out or he just figured the eventual resulting kerfluffle made it a good time to retire?

 

[lovinthehd]

I wonder if they actually pushed him out or he just figured the eventual resulting kerfluffle made it a good time to retire?

I saw a little chatter on this and many felt it was likely a bit of both, but suspect the door wasn't being held open by Sound United. Get rid of old guys first!

 

[lovinthehd]

Dang, took a quick look and didn't see anything. Nor any chatter in the forum....was this posted to the forum and I just missed it, Gene?

Interesting....bot copying my comment from earlier in the thread....

 

[VonMagnum]

I saw a little chatter on this and many felt it was likely a bit of both, but suspect the door wasn't being held open by Sound United. Get rid of old guys first!

So when I read about "that kind" of a buyout, it's really not just sub-companies still running their own show but connected to the other companies to improve efficiency and reduce costs, but rather some big shots who do little more than sit at a desk drinking Scotch on the clock figuring out what companies to buy and whose jobs to chop so they can "consolidate". You might not even have an Onkyo or Pioneer in a couple of years or they will just be labels put on otherwise nearly identical products (look how similar Denon and Marantz already are to each other). It's actually a shame.

But then given how almost ALL AVRs are using the same basic DSP chipsets for Atmos/X, etc. there isn't all that much different about them as it is. Which room correction system. How does the GUI operate? What extra connections, if any. I dunno. It's not like in the days of stereo only there were huge functional differences, but somehow the products at least felt different. Denon and Marantz feel like someone's trying to pull the wool over my eyes. It's like, do I like the porthole look and 7CH IN plus HDAM enough to spend $200 extra once they were on sale? Because that's ALL it came down to.

 

[Hobbit]

The question I have is how long is it going to take SU to streamline/consolidate and then eventually eliminate brands? This is clearly not a conglomerate. I can already see Pioneer and in the fine print below it "By Onkyo" and an Onkyo receiver that's virtually identical except the name. Then over time just Onkyo (or Denon/Marantz). With this acquisition there is too many brands with similar product lines. I can perhaps see three separate brands for AVRs: consumer, prosumer, and high end.