Audyssey DSX -- Should I even bother?

[Thetwinmeister]

I've been doing a lot of general research on audio technologies in the past few months trying to determine what I wanted to buy for a new setup. (All I'm upgrading right now is the sound system.) I happened across "Audyssey DSX" and thought it was really cool adding two heights and wides.

So my question is, is Audyssey DSX worth having to buy and place all those extra speakers about the room? It seems really cool, and from what I can tell I would love it, but I've been proved wrong in the past.

[Second question] At the moment I have a strict $1600 budget. Does that effect the outcome of the first question? I wanted to do something out of ordinary with the budget I have, but I don't want to over-extend myself either.

For reference, the room is rather large but I don't have the measurements off the top of my head.

Any help at all would be great, including recommendations for speakers. I was looking at the TX-SR707 for the receiver.

 

[jostenmeat]

By most accounts, DSX is worth it, but that's assuming they have the space and money. $1600, strict, with sub, no don't even bother. With $1600, Id probably would just focus on 2.1 or 3.1 at the most in a large room. I mean, that's just me.

The other thing that will push the budget even further is that some receivers might only do 7.1 w/ DSX (like forgo rears in order to add heights), some can only do 9.1, and a very few can do 11.1. The more channels there are, the more processing is required, besides the amps!

 

[Thetwinmeister]

Budget aside, I'm glad I didn't misjudge DSX.

Back to reality, I was afraid of that answer, lol.

I totally understand where your going with the 2.1 and 3.1 with such a low budget. Quality over quantity is defiantly better, I defiantly agree. However, I really do need/want the surround sound capabilities in this case. This system will be handling a wide range of tasks, anything from listening to BGM to gaming. The gaming part is what really drives home the need for surround sound, as that can make a crucial difference in many FPS games. That being said, this is the first "sound system" setup in this room, going from using simple TV speakers. At this point, anything really would be an upgrade. Because of these two points I am willing to sacrifice a bit of quality/size for surround sound capabilities, even if it means using satellites. Now whether or not using DSX is altogether wise or not in this situation is another matter, haha.

I may, and probably will, end up upgrading this room again to something really epic in the future, distant or otherwise.

Lastly, good observation with the reviver total speaker support. Fortunately the Onkyo TX-SR707 does support 11.2 total channels.

 

[AVRat]

To clarify, the 707 can only do 7.2 using only one additional set of speakers beyond the standard 5.# setup; backs, heights, or wides. The 707 offers no feature to reassign amps. The only unit, I believe, that can do all 11 channels is the Denon 4810.

 

[Patrukas777]

I defiantly agree with Jostenmeat

 

[Thetwinmeister]

Whoa, really? I read the users manual online and from what I could tell the 707 could support all 11 at once, but maybe I'm missing something? Also there seems to be 11 pairs of terminals to connect the speakers to in the back, each labeled as if it would to all 11. But I hate to disagree with an Audioholic Ninja. xD (Also I'm pretty sure the DSX website had the 707 listed as supporting full DSX)

I'd really hate to buy a receiver like that and 11.2 speakers only to find I couldn't use all of them at once. As they say, "trust but verify"... I don't find what your saying to be far fetched, but everything I've seen up to this point suggests that the 707 could support all 11. So please, prove me wrong and save me a ton of time and money. I would be ever so grateful.

Okay, there seems to be a consensus that even if the 707 did support all 11 speakers at once, its still not a good idea considering the tight budget restrictions. In this case, what would you recommend? A 5.1 setup? Or maybe 7.1? Or maybe 5.1 with the 707 driving two wides or two heights?

 

[jostenmeat]

Whoa, really? I read the users manual online and from what I could tell the 707 could support all 11 at once, but maybe I'm missing something? Also there seems to be 11 pairs of terminals to connect the speakers to in the back, each labeled as if it would to all 11. But I hate to disagree with an Audioholic Ninja. xD (Also I'm pretty sure the DSX website had the 707 listed as supporting full DSX)

I'd really hate to buy a receiver like that and 11.2 speakers only to find I couldn't use all of them at once. As they say, "trust but verify"... I don't find what your saying to be far fetched, but everything I've seen up to this point suggests that the 707 could support all 11. So please, prove me wrong and save me a ton of time and money. I would be ever so grateful.

Okay, there seems to be a consensus that even if the 707 did support all 11 speakers at once, its still not a good idea considering the tight budget restrictions. In this case, what would you recommend? A 5.1 setup? Or maybe 7.1? Or maybe 5.1 with the 707 driving two wides or two heights?

I didn't "verify" that the 707 can only do 7.1, though I totally trust Rat on this. He is in fact correct that only the 4810 can do 11.1.

Even the top of the line Onkyo/Integra (waaaay more expensive than the 707) can only do 9.1 at the most, simultaneously. This includes the 5507, or the Integra 80.1 pre/pro, for example.

If you want a basic HT setup, you can 5.1 with your budget. If you want an Audioholics level HT, then I'd recommend focusing on less speakers.

Another huge factor is how dynamic you expect the system to be, in regards to how large your room is, and how far you sit from speakers. The great proportion of us members with large rooms use outboard amplification with our HTs.

So, we are here to help you allocate your funds, but you also have to keep your own expectations in check. Think of what you are willing to compromise first. SQ? Power handling/dynamics? Number of speakers? Low visercal bass with the sub? You probably will only get 2 out of the 4 here, with your budget, as my very stupid guess.

 

[ufokillerz]

the 707 is a 7.1 or 7.2 receiver for a reason. it will not sent out more then 7 distinct signals to speakers. i have the tx-nr807, tx-nr3007 and pr-sc5507, and i've had a lot of time to play around with the settings.

you also cannot get front wides and height at the same time. it outputs the same signal, just depends on what you mode you have enabled.

 

[Thetwinmeister]

I didn't "verify" that the 707 can only do 7.1, though I totally trust Rat on this. He is in fact correct that only the 4810 can do 11.1.

Even the top of the line Onkyo/Integra (waaaay more expensive than the 707) can only do 9.1 at the most, simultaneously. This includes the 5507, or the Integra 80.1 pre/pro, for example.

Ooh, now that you say it like that it makes so much more sense, and ufokillerz defiantly drove the point home. What a horrible manual, they really shouldn't lead people astray like that.

Thank you guys, all of you, you seriously saved me a ton of time, money, and one hella of a headache. xD I'll save DSX for that fancy $XXk system sometime in the future I plan to eventually build.

That being said, I am defiantly willing to sacrifice total speaker count. On the other hand, sound quality is very important. So in this case, low visercal bass and dynamics are up in the air at the moment.

I found the measurements of the room. It is 18 feet 7 inches wide, and 15 feet 3 inches long. The TV isn't quite in the center of the room, (the 18' measurement) but it can move around a bit. I don't think it will ever be able to be totally centered because there is a staircase leading out of the room on one side, but not being centered isn't horribly bad, is it? I guess if it is absolutely critical that the TV is centered, we could move it to the opposite side of the room of the staircase.

 

[AVRat]

Definitely

I’m thinking an eD A2-300 or A3-250 (~$400) may be your best bet for a sub. A refurbed Onkyo 707 goes for ~$500, which leaves about $700 for 5 speakers. SVS 5.0 SBS-01 - $630 + shipping.


Or go to a refurbed Onkyo 606 for ~$300 and an Ascend Acoustics CBM-170/CMT-340C/HTM-200 combo ~$888.

 

[Thetwinmeister]

Woah, those Ascend Acoustics speakers are looking pretty awesome. From a money standpoint it makes sense I guess, but is upgrading the speakers and downgrading the thing that drives the speakers... Er, Okay? Heck, everything but the surrounds are more expensive than the 606. (And the surrounds only being like $2 less) I mean, I don't know a huge amount about receivers, but it seems almost counterintuitive off hand, but idk... Maybe it doesn't matter.

Awesome looking subs too. I don't mind spending $15 more for a two inch bigger driver, but what would suit better? I know the 15" subs have a hard time doing fast bass, but I'm not really aware of any limitations or differences between 10' and 12', other than 12' being louder.

 

[BWG707]

Woah, those Ascend Acoustics speakers are looking pretty awesome. From a money standpoint it makes sense I guess, but is upgrading the speakers and downgrading the thing that drives the speakers... Er, Okay? Heck, everything but the surrounds are more expensive than the 606. (And the surrounds only being like $2 less) I mean, I don't know a huge amount about receivers, but it seems almost counterintuitive off hand, but idk... Maybe it doesn't matter.

Awesome looking subs too. I don't mind spending $15 more for a two inch bigger driver, but what would suit better? I know the 15" subs have a hard time doing fast bass, but I'm not really aware of any limitations or differences between 10' and 12', other than 12' being louder.

I actually have a Onkyo 606 powering a set of Ascend 340SE's plus five other speakers (7.1) and the Ascends sound great for music and HT. You can not go wrong with the 340SE's. Just my $0.02.

 

[Thetwinmeister]

I actually have a Onkyo 606 powering a set of Ascend 340SE's plus five other speakers (7.1) and the Ascends sound great for music and HT. You can not go wrong with the 340SE's. Just my $0.02.

Nice, good to have personal experience verification. Thanks for the $0.02, appreciate it.

 

[jostenmeat]

That being said, I am defiantly willing to sacrifice total speaker count. On the other hand, sound quality is very important. So in this case, low visercal bass and dynamics are up in the air at the moment.

I vote for bass! Whether bass or dynamics, either can represent a good deal of money. However, I am under the impression that almost anyone enjoys improved bass, but only some of us enjoy theater levels of volume.

I found the measurements of the room. It is 18 feet 7 inches wide, and 15 feet 3 inches long. The TV isn't quite in the center of the room, (the 18' measurement) but it can move around a bit. I don't think it will ever be able to be totally centered because there is a staircase leading out of the room on one side, but not being centered isn't horribly bad, is it? I guess if it is absolutely critical that the TV is centered, we could move it to the opposite side of the room of the staircase.

Centering is ideal, but if it's ballpark, I really wouldn't worry about it at all. Many people have it much worse, whether only one speaker shoved in a corner (meaning unbalanced because of three reinforcing boundaries), or even a corner layout. Just FWIW, lengthwise orientation is best, but again, I wouldn't worry about it here.

Woah, those Ascend Acoustics speakers are looking pretty awesome. From a money standpoint it makes sense I guess, but is upgrading the speakers and downgrading the thing that drives the speakers... Er, Okay? Heck, everything but the surrounds are more expensive than the 606. (And the surrounds only being like $2 less) I mean, I don't know a huge amount about receivers, but it seems almost counterintuitive off hand, but idk... Maybe it doesn't matter.

While generalizations are only just that, most of us always vote for the best speakers over the best thing that drives them. The reason being is that electronics are pretty darn transparent, relatively/comparatively, but with speakers, there is really an ENORMOUS variation. The hardest part, as far as the things you actually buy, is the transferring of electrical energy into mechanical energy. The speakers. This is where the greatest compromises and distortions lie. They are what finally create what you actually hear.

Awesome looking subs too. I don't mind spending $15 more for a two inch bigger driver, but what would suit better? I know the 15" subs have a hard time doing fast bass, but I'm not really aware of any limitations or differences between 10' and 12', other than 12' being louder.

FYI, the "fast bass" is a total misconception, and a larger woofer is not any slower in creating any particular frequency. If it was indeed slower, well then, it would simply be playing a lower freq. It's not so much the size of woofer, but the design of woofer+cabinet implementation. I think what misinformed people might think of when they say fast bass, is instead fast decay? This perception can be greatly improved/aided with acoustical treatments, as the room represents over half of what you hear.

 

[Thetwinmeister]

I vote for bass! Whether bass or dynamics, either can represent a good deal of money. However, I am under the impression that almost anyone enjoys improved bass, but only some of us enjoy theater levels of volume.

Okay, I concur, bass it is.

Edit again: Oh, this just occurred to me; is one $400 sub better than two $200 subs? (I hope that doesn't sound like a stupid question)

Centering is ideal, but if it's ballpark, I really wouldn't worry about it at all. Many people have it much worse, whether only one speaker shoved in a corner (meaning unbalanced because of three reinforcing boundaries), or even a corner layout. Just FWIW, lengthwise orientation is best, but again, I wouldn't worry about it here.

Lengthwise is best huh? Well, that would probably fit the room better anyway, but on one side there is a fireplace and on the other a big glass door. So unfortunately lengthwise isn't an option in this room... But thanks for the tip.

The hardest part, as far as the things you actually buy, is the transferring of electrical energy into mechanical energy. The speakers. This is where the greatest compromises and distortions lie. They are what finally create what you actually hear.

That makes a lot of sense! I have been enlightened, thank you. ^^

Edit: So whats the deal with Yamaha and their "HD audio receivers" advertised on this site? Seems kinda funny to me, even without having the benefit of this new found knowledge. I mean to some degree electronics effect it sure, and apparently D-class amplifiers and tubes sound the best, but "HD audio"? I've also heard that different receiver manufacturers sound differently, like Onkyo has the best mix, Yamaha has the best something rather, and Denon has the best other something sounding.

FYI, the "fast bass" is a total misconception, and a larger woofer is not any slower in creating any particular frequency. If it was indeed slower, well then, it would simply be playing a lower freq. It's not so much the size of woofer, but the design of woofer+cabinet implementation. I think what misinformed people might think of when they say fast bass, is instead fast decay? This perception can be greatly improved/aided with acoustical treatments, as the room represents over half of what you hear.

That makes sense too. When I first heard of it I kind of doubted it but went with the flow. So I guess bigger is indeed better? So we should go with the 12" sub?

 

[jostenmeat]

Edit again: Oh, this just occurred to me; is one $400 sub better than two $200 subs? (I hope that doesn't sound like a stupid question)

That's not too easy to answer. On one hand, some would prefer the single, better sub, as they would say that once you give up extension, you can never get it back. These people who might urge you to get the better sub are secretly crossing their fingers behind their back, with the hopes that you will get a second "better" sub.

But, without crossing my own fingers here, I personally might go with two lesser subs, for the better response. However, at the $200 mark, the only sub that I know of on my own radar are the Dayton subs. Outside of DIY, it is in my rough opinion that subs start taking off at around the $500-600 mark.

Edit: So whats the deal with Yamaha and their "HD audio receivers" advertised on this site? Seems kinda funny to me, even without having the benefit of this new found knowledge. I mean to some degree electronics effect it sure, and apparently D-class amplifiers and tubes sound the best, but "HD audio"?

HD audio is surely referring to the new codecs available on bluray. They are "lossless", meaning that all of the source information that the audio engineers intended makes its way into our sound system. D class and tubes do not necessarily sound the best.

I've also heard that different receiver manufacturers sound differently, like Onkyo has the best mix, Yamaha has the best something rather, and Denon has the best other something sounding.

Yamaha is known to make very transparent pre-amp sections. Onkyo is known for both large feature sets and healthy amp sections (which also run hot, due to the intended design in getting more power), for the money. Denon is known to have excellent implementation of advanced technologies, with good reliability, but at significantly higher price points.

Personally, ever since the advent of HDMI receivers, I've always looked towards Audyssey technologies, and so of the brands you listed, I'd cross off Yamaha on my own. IMO, Denon is more desirable with comparable models of Onkyo, but I find that I am on my second Onkyo, because I have found that Denon's comparable models are usually 50-100% more in price with receivers, and about 200-400% more with pre/pros.

 

[Thetwinmeister]

That's not too easy to answer. On one hand, some would prefer the single, better sub, as they would say that once you give up extension, you can never get it back. These people who might urge you to get the better sub are secretly crossing their fingers behind their back, with the hopes that you will get a second "better" sub.

Haha, good call. And who knows, maybe that'll happen here too. Hard to say.

But, without crossing my own fingers here, I personally might go with two lesser subs, for the better response. However, at the $200 mark, the only sub that I know of on my own radar are the Dayton subs. Outside of DIY, it is in my rough opinion that subs start taking off at around the $500-600 mark.

Taking off as in becoming excellent, correct? Hmm, idk, how hard is DIY subs? I'm very skilled with DIY computers, but I imagine DIY subs are a whole other item in itself. I'm sure if I was given the right direction and good information, however, I could manage. How feasible is it-- does it really save that much money? If the difference is night and day I would defiantly consider it.

Yamaha is known to make very transparent pre-amp sections. Onkyo is known for both large feature sets and healthy amp sections (which also run hot, due to the intended design in getting more power), for the money. Denon is known to have excellent implementation of advanced technologies, with good reliability, but at significantly higher price points.

Personally, ever since the advent of HDMI receivers, I've always looked towards Audyssey technologies, and so of the brands you listed, I'd cross off Yamaha on my own. IMO, Denon is more desirable with comparable models of Onkyo, but I find that I am on my second Onkyo, because I have found that Denon's comparable models are usually 50-100% more in price with receivers, and about 200-400% more with pre/pros.

Ooh, so thats what it was... But, yeah, I hear you. With the $1,600 restrictions at the moment I think Onkyo is defiantly the best bet. From what I've learned so far, if I was able to increase the budget I would first invest in better subs, then speakers, and then the receiver. Needless to say, I'm defiantly looking to see if I can raise the budget a buck or two, but for now I'm stuck with $1.6k.

 

[jostenmeat]

Taking off as in becoming excellent, correct? Hmm, idk, how hard is DIY subs? I'm very skilled with DIY computers, but I imagine DIY subs are a whole other item in itself. I'm sure if I was given the right direction and good information, however, I could manage. How feasible is it-- does it really save that much money? If the difference is night and day I would defiantly consider it.

1. I guess so, sort of. It all depends, including the output desired.
2. It can really vary, from premade kits, to complex tapped horn builds.
3. It can potentially save a whole lot of money, for the performance.

 

[Thetwinmeister]

I have a cousin who was once really into custom speakers and subs. Let me ask him if he'll want to get into a DIY sub project or two with me, and if hes willing we'll probably go that route. I'll be back with an answer hopefully shortly. DIY seems like a good alternative right now. (not to mention a lot of fun!)

 

[ufokillerz]

I have a cousin who was once really into custom speakers and subs. Let me ask him if he'll want to get into a DIY sub project or two with me, and if hes willing we'll probably go that route. I'll be back with an answer hopefully shortly. DIY seems like a good alternative right now. (not to mention a lot of fun!)

Diy Subs are awesome, i'm running Danley DTS-10 subs, not completely diy, but these things were back breakers to put together at ~300lbs each assembled.