Room correction opinions

[panteragstk]

Good discussion happening here. So, by my estimation there are certain things that RC can help, and others that it can royally screw up. My ears have always been the judge so that won't be changing. I really appreciate you guys going through this for me.

I wonder if the pro line RC that the Harmon products use is anything like what the higher end HK or JBL systems use? I almost (almost) bought some JBL recording monitors that came with their own RC just because it was praised by our Harmon rep (kinda their job, but their demos of our products were always impressive).

 

[KEW]

Good discussion happening here.

Agreed! Thanks for starting the thread!

It is great to see the different perspectives from different members!

 

[Buckster]

I own a Pioneer 59TXi with MCAAC, which when I thought was unrepairable bought a Denon 4311 for its XT32

well apart from the fact the base SQ of the 4311 was no-where near the 59TXi (to my MASSIVE disappointment) - the EQ I did not get on with either

yes overall specs wise XT32 is massively better - but without the Pro kit you can't tweak for your individual tastes - so I ended up - no matter how many times I eq'd with tissy "S" s etc which drove my mad - I think XT32 tried to compensate for my rolled off treble in my Tannoys

now MCACC can do the same - the out of the box results in mysystem are worse than XT32 - BUT after tweaking I much prefer it. Its amazing how even a + or - 2dB at a certain frequency can transform the sound from being annoying to being great

thing is with some rooms trying to EQ certain frequencies to get near flat - is just not going to work - so you can add +9dB here and there but its not going to help - it'll just make your speakers sound compressed as over-worked

its here where you can apply your own judgement

so for me - I prefered MCAAC over XT32

 

[PENG]

It is hard to understand why some people have such experience that they noticed big difference between mid range AVRs of Denon, Pioneer and whatever in "base" SQ in this case and in pure direct (basically same idea) in other cases. Anyway, such posts will pop up from either camp from time to time, we just can't go with hearsays. That's why I don't care what they say about going by your ears, I prefer to first and foremost go by specs, lab measurements. It is facts, figures and science that get us to the moon, not perceived stuff. My own experience, along with others doing comparison listening at the same time, revealed no noticeable difference no matter how hard to try to listen for differences. Surely the specs tell us there are differences but not audible to our young and old ears. I think ADTG, who owns many high end speakers, has similar experience, judging from some of his posts. I can see EQ, RC making noticeable difference though and I do play with them all the time. On the other hand, I experienced much more significant SQ differences among media sources than electronics. In my setup, I much prefer to listen to my best media source (e.g. CD or SACD) using my old 3805 or my newest 1912, than to listen to my worse or even mediocre discs using my separate system. That's just my ranting in general, OP please go ahead and ignore this post as it is not really directed at yours about the 4311 and Elite.

 

[jliedeka]

It seems that speaker room interactions can be pretty complicated. I'm sure it's possible to create an algorithm that will handle complex cases but that may be some time in coming. Do all these systems allow manual tweaking? My Marantz has an older Audessy system that allows me to adjust a limited number of frequencies.

In a perfect world, I'd have three or four DCXs feeding external amps but there's a lot of appeal to the one box solution.

Jim

 

[PENG]

It seems that speaker room interactions can be pretty complicated. I'm sure it's possible to create an algorithm that will handle complex cases but that may be some time in coming. Do all these systems allow manual tweaking? My Marantz has an older Audessy system that allows me to adjust a limited number of frequencies.

In a perfect world, I'd have three or four DCXs feeding external amps but there's a lot of appeal to the one box solution.

Jim

I asked tech support before about that but was told if you did in manually then you are really not using Audyssey. You would be just EQ'ing it yourself, so the answer is, no.

 

[Buckster]

It is hard to understand why some people have such experience that they noticed big difference between mid range AVRs of Denon, Pioneer and whatever in "base" SQ in this case and in pure direct (basically same idea) in other cases. Anyway, such posts will pop up from either camp from time to time, we just can't go with hearsays. That's why I don't care what they say about going by your ears, I prefer to first and foremost go by specs, lab measurements. It is facts, figures and science that get us to the moon, not perceived stuff. My own experience, along with others doing comparison listening at the same time, revealed no noticeable difference no matter how hard to try to listen for differences. Surely the specs tell us there are differences but not audible to our young and old ears. I think ADTG, who owns many high end speakers, has similar experience, judging from some of his posts. I can see EQ, RC making noticeable difference though and I do play with them all the time. On the other hand, I experienced much more significant SQ differences among media sources than electronics. In my setup, I much prefer to listen to my best media source (e.g. CD or SACD) using my old 3805 or my newest 1912, than to listen to my worse or even mediocre discs using my separate system. That's just my ranting in general, OP please go ahead and ignore this post as it is not really directed at yours about the 4311 and Elite.

its frustrating as I can't afford an amp to replace my 59TXi which I like the SQ of - but there is definately (IMO) considerable difference in sound quality without EQ on from AVR to AVR

I desperately want to go all digital and HDMI and get rid of my Pioneer but only with equivalent SQ - and you can see from the below that I've tried ... !

I've owned the following:

Arcam AVR500
Pioneer 59Txi
Denon 4311
Pioneer SC05
Yamaha 3800

and home demoed: Yamaha 3067

the top 2 sounded far better in my system - even without EQ than the others. I even went to the trouble of switching between the above and my Pioneer in quick succession, ie play part of a movie, got removing all cables etc and replacing down to about a 15 min swap-over. Note as well that the Pioneer was being compared to the others (apart from the Arcam) with legacy DTS/D.Digital vs lossless formats bitstreamed on the others and it still sounded better

it could be my speakers, my front 3 are older Tannoy Revolutions which are not easy loads (although nothing special) - 6 ohms @ 88dB, and I'm running a 7.1 system. So the amps are having to drive 7 speakers, that said I'm running a 80hz crossover (as I have a SVS-PC-Ultra 13) - so load shouldn't be bad at all. Only thing I haven't tried (as couldn't afford) is one of the above mid-range avrs + external power amp.

I would have kept the Arcam - as that was the best sounding AVR I've heard - but I had stability issues and quite a few bugs - and in the end had to return for a refund

anyway back on topic- I much prefer an EQ I can tailor to my needs - without forking out lots of money for a pro kit

NOTE: the amps I've listed apart from the 3067 - I have genuinely owned, and used in my own room and own speaker setup, I had a long chance to play with them - so these were not quick comparisons. Note also I've probably "lost" (buying and reselling when disappointed) easily > $700 trying to find a replacement.

 

[PENG]

its frustrating as I can't afford an amp to replace my 59TXi which I like the SQ of - but there is definately (IMO) considerable difference in sound quality without EQ on from AVR to AVR

I desperately want to go all digital and HDMI and get rid of my Pioneer but only with equivalent SQ - and you can see from the below that I've tried ... !

I've owned the following:

Arcam AVR500
Pioneer 59Txi
Denon 4311
Pioneer SC05
Yamaha 3800

and home demoed: Yamaha 3067

the top 2 sounded far better in my system - even without EQ than the others. I even went to the trouble of switching between the above and my Pioneer in quick succession, ie play part of a movie, got removing all cables etc and replacing down to about a 15 min swap-over. Note as well that the Pioneer was being compared to the others (apart from the Arcam) with legacy DTS/D.Digital vs lossless formats bitstreamed on the others and it still sounded better

it could be my speakers, my front 3 are older Tannoy Revolutions which are not easy loads (although nothing special) - 6 ohms @ 88dB, and I'm running a 7.1 system. So the amps are having to drive 7 speakers, that said I'm running a 80hz crossover (as I have a SVS-PC-Ultra 13) - so load shouldn't be bad at all. Only thing I haven't tried (as couldn't afford) is one of the above mid-range avrs + external power amp.

I would have kept the Arcam - as that was the best sounding AVR I've heard - but I had stability issues and quite a few bugs - and in the end had to return for a refund

anyway back on topic- I much prefer an EQ I can tailor to my needs - without forking out lots of money for a pro kit

NOTE: the amps I've listed apart from the 3067 - I have genuinely owned, and used in my own room and own speaker setup, I had a long chance to play with them - so these were not quick comparisons. Note also I've probably "lost" (buying and reselling when disappointed) easily > $700 trying to find a replacement.

Sorry I have to bring up the possibility of Placebo again as you know the top two were Pioneer's Ex-flag ship and the Arcam's Ex-2nd from the top model. The 59 no doubt has impressive specs and might in fact make a difference driving low impedance high phase angle load though the 4311 could probably come close, equal or slightly better. Short of any lab measurements the 4311 is rated 4 ohms while the 3808 rated 8 ohms produced about the same as the 59TXi into 4 ohms and actually better than the 59Txi into 8 ohms according to HTM lab measurement figures. Just curious, when you did those serious comparison listening did you do it with other people such as friends and family members, who may be in a more unbiased state of mind? Not saying you are bias though just that others not in the game may have a different perception.

The Arcam ARV600 is class G. The 500 may also be class G but judging by its weight I would guess Arcam may have switched back to class A/B for whatever reason. It remains interesting to me why there are two camps of AVR users who have such seemingly inexplicably different experiences. The right/true explanation may never be found for the obviously reasons.

 

[Buckster]

I wish it was Placebo - who knows maybe it is

all I know is all the mid-range "new" AVRs sounded very very similar to me in SQ - EQ excepted

yet the Arcam and Pioneer 59 sounded better

 

[PENG]

I wish it was Placebo - who knows maybe it is

all I know is all the mid-range "new" AVRs sounded very very similar to me in SQ - EQ excepted

yet the Arcam and Pioneer 59 sounded better

Well then you should keep the 59. Interestingly my mid range AVRs sound similar to my separate HT and music systems, differing only in power and features.

 

[jliedeka]

The only way you can really do a fair A/B is to level match to about 0.1 dB. That's a lot of work so most people don't do it. Without that, one component may be slightly louder and perceived as better.

An amplifier shouldn't have a sound when used with a load it is designed for and operated short of clipping. That only applies to most solid state amplifiers. Anything with a high output impedance (eg most tube amps) will have a sound, usually emphasizing bass.

Jim

 

[panteragstk]

That's just my ranting in general, OP please go ahead and ignore this post as it is not really directed at yours about the 4311 and Elite.

Not to be ignored, good information there.

In a perfect world, I'd have three or four DCXs feeding external amps but there's a lot of appeal to the one box solution.

Jim

I'm not a snob, but I'm about to sound like one. Nothing with the name behringer will ever be in my system. I've had a lot of experience with their equipment and it just won't happen. Note:this is not a behringer discussion.