AVR output vs Discrete Amplifiers with 7.4.2 System, Maybe Atmos?

[PENG]

Hello all,

So given the idea of using only the AVR as the main driving factor for the speakers involved and going towards a 4 speaker Atmos configuration, the Denon X4500H and Yamaha A3070 seem to be fairly similar, both allowing 11 channels to be used with an additional external amplifier; which I like the idea of being able to go with a 7.2.4 ultimately with one of these without losing the 7 channels to 5 channels just for Atmos (which may or may not be the long term use); with a output difference, but otherwise quite similar. The more flexibility the better! I'm curious which is the better unit ultimately and whether their likely unrealistic power outputs over that many channels would truly drive my mains (given a distance of 10 to 12 feet likely).

The more I think of the room, the more I realize the speakers will not be hugging the rear wall and likely have a little room from the wall and not just in the corners. So the listening position will not likely be exactly in the center, and likely a bit closer to the speakers. So 15 feet is likely not realistic. 10 to 12 feet is likely more realistic.

Very best,

Don't forget to consider the potential (as always, there are many who don't seem t believe in that..) benefits of room "correction/or EQ". I don't know how good Yamaha's YPAO is, but I can assure you D+M's Audyssey XT32 works well in the 10 - 200 Hz range for sure, if you use the $20 App. Take a look of the Audyssey On Vs Off I just posted in the App users thread (post#37). You probably can hear the difference if you were in my room. Some people prefer more bass, especially towards the low end, with the App you can customize it. I would always target a flat response first, from there I would then customize it to tip the bass up towards the low end. The Yamaha would allow you to use the PEQ feature to customize but in my opinion, D+M's Editor App is much more flexible and powerful as a tool for tweaks.

The Audyssey MultEQ Editor app users thread (with facts and tips)

I was conflicted whether or not to post this here, but in the end decided it made sense to start a new thread and link it so anyone reading this thread would know it was available. https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/accueq-reviewed-by-amir-at-audiosciencereview.118042/

forums.audioholics.com

 

[MalVeauX]

Don't forget to consider the potential (as always, there are many who don't seem t believe in that..) benefits of room "correction/or EQ". I don't know how good Yamaha's YPAO is, but I can assure you D+M's Audyssey XT32 works well in the 10 - 200 Hz range for sure, if you use the $20 App. Take a look of the Audyssey On Vs Off I just posted in the App users thread (post#37). You probably can hear the difference if you were in my room. Some people prefer more bass, especially towards the low end, with the App you can customize it. I would always target a flat response first, from there I would then customize it to tip the bass up towards the low end. The Yamaha would allow you to use the PEQ feature to customize but in my opinion, D+M's Editor App is much more flexible and powerful as a tool for tweaks.

The Audyssey MultEQ Editor app users thread (with facts and tips)

I was conflicted whether or not to post this here, but in the end decided it made sense to start a new thread and link it so anyone reading this thread would know it was available. https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/accueq-reviewed-by-amir-at-audiosciencereview.118042/

forums.audioholics.com

That is true, I'm curious how good each room correction suite is. I've read great things about Audyssey; my old AVR was MCACC, so rather dated by today's standards. Your graph in that thread looks like Audyssey did fantastic for generating the flat response. Did it sound flat to you from that position anecdotally?

I admit I enjoy the sub-bass to be on the hot side, but not the mid-bass, I actually dislike bloomed bloated mid-bass, I'm not into totally flat response for fun movie time and games. For critical listening, I do use a flat response setup, but the goal of this is more fun for me and the family and friends so I'm less concerned about flat response. That said, the ability to generate a flat response and then tweak the frequencies I want to for personal preference is a big plus. I do this currently on my AVR manually and by ear as I do not have a good means to measure, and I like how it sounds right now and would be fine it continued to sound this way in the new room, just more speakers and Atmos running with it. So even if my M70's are not fully dynamic per the white sheet, I'm happy enough with how things are sounding for now. But more tools is a plus!

Another thing for me to consider, is how AVR's work these days.... in the past, I had to set the AVR to know that the speakers were "small" and that there was a sub-present, and then set a crossover frequency for that. I would love for my full towers to all play as large speakers and do all the frequencies they're capable of, and in addition run my subs. I'm not sure this is possible though. Maybe it's not wise to do so either? That said, if my M70's do not have to perform anything under 60hz or 80hz, then maybe they do not require the full wattage rating they are set for since a lot of that energy would be going to lower frequencies anyways? I'm curious how this could factor in (a speaker not doing its full range) with respect to energy needs?

Very best,

 

[PENG]

Another thing for me to consider, is how AVR's work these days.... in the past, I had to set the AVR to know that the speakers were "small" and that there was a sub-present, and then set a crossover frequency for that. I would love for my full towers to all play as large speakers and do all the frequencies they're capable of, and in addition run my subs. I'm not sure this is possible though. Maybe it's not wise to do so either? That said, if my M70's do not have to perform anything under 60hz or 80hz, then maybe they do not require the full wattage rating they are set for since a lot of that energy would be going to lower frequencies anyways? I'm curious how this could factor in (a speaker not doing its full range) with respect to energy needs?

You are right, AVRs typically would set your big towers to "large", sometimes even small towers and large bookshelf ones get to be "large" too. That's one of Audyssey's complaints as people blame them, when it is the AVR manufacturers who decide the "large" or "small" thing, Audyssey just creates filters and do the EQ thing.

As you said, if you M70's don't have to produce much below 80 Hz, then they won't tax the AVR as much but by how much would obviously depend on the contents of the media you play. If the music is heavy on bass below 80 hz, or movies like LOTR that keeps banging the bass drum like kind of sound, then setting XO to 80 Hz or higher would help to a more significant degree, otherwise the difference would be negligible.

I am of the opinion, not just based on experience but also by my graphs, that it is almost always better to set the large towers to XO at 80 Hz the highest. In some cases 90 and 100 Hz may even be better. If you let them play the low frequencies, I don't care if you have the most expensive REQ such as Trinnov and Dirac Live, it would be a challenge for them to integrate the deep bass produced by the towers and the subwoofers. It is a lot better to let the subwoofers do their job without being messed up by the towers. It a case of one big guy can do a better job than a bunch of mini skinny ones trying to help him only to hinder him or even get hurt.

 

[MalVeauX]

You are right, AVRs typically would set your big towers to "large", sometimes even small towers and large bookshelf ones get to be "large" too. That's one of Audyssey's complaints as people blame them, when it is the AVR manufacturers who decide the "large" or "small" thing, Audyssey just creates filters and do the EQ thing.

As you said, if you M70's don't have to produce much below 80 Hz, then they won't tax the AVR as much but by how much would obviously depend on the contents of the media you play. If the music is heavy on bass below 80 hz, or movies like LOTR that keeps banging the bass drum like kind of sound, then setting XO to 80 Hz or higher would help to a more significant degree, otherwise the difference would be negligible.

I am of the opinion, not just based on experience but also by my graphs, that it is almost always better to set the large towers to XO at 80 Hz the highest. In some cases 90 and 100 Hz may even be better. If you let them play the low frequencies, I don't care if you have the most expensive REQ such as Trinnov and Dirac Live, it would be a challenge for them to integrate the deep bass produced by the towers and the subwoofers. It is a lot better to let the subwoofers do their job without being messed up by the towers. It a case of one big guy can do a better job than a bunch of mini skinny ones trying to help him only to hinder him or even get hurt.

Thanks, that is a good point and favors not worrying so much about maxing out the M70's potential and allowing it to just be a bigger more sensitive bookshelf and not try to produce the sub-bass the subs will be doing. I have a pair of M70II's right now setup as stereo and they drop 50hz and 60hz pretty nicely, not like a sub does, but nice enough where I often don't even turn on the sub for casual use. But that required some EQing in the AVR due to the room it's currently in, attached to several rooms, soaking up all the lower frequencies. Letting the subs handle 80~100hz and below will likely take a lot of energy needs off the M70's. I just wish I knew how much! But if it's enough to not worry about external amplifiers and allowing a decent AVR to the work, that's a very good thing.

If I EQ'd the sub-bass and lower/mid bass by +10db to be inline with where I like the volume of those frequencies relative to the mids/treble in the particular room (the room really sucks the low frequencies away fast), then that's 10 times the power requirement, correct? So a factor of 10x energy needs to do this? Kind of hints at the energy needs?

Very best,

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

So I thought I’d drop some reading material ...

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-next-generation-audio-for-cinema-white-paper.pdf

 

[MalVeauX]

So I thought I’d drop some reading material ...

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-next-generation-audio-for-cinema-white-paper.pdf

Thanks; interesting that it's discussed in their documentation to use normal speakers, but not in place of losing surrounds for them to gain Atmos (I think the interpretation being to not go down to a 3.1 system just to have 3.1.2 fore example though).

Very best,

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Thanks; interesting that it's discussed in their documentation to use normal speakers, but not in place of losing surrounds for them to gain Atmos (I think the interpretation being to not go down to a 3.1 system just to have 3.1.2 fore example though).

Very best,

And something many people don’t realize is the for that which you pointed out, is the XYZ coordinate placement of objects. I don’t think that would be possible with only a front stage and overhead speakers. The Atmos renderer needs the whole bed layer to triangulate.
Many people think it’s only about overhead sound and if it’s not busy overhead than the track isn’t that good. Well imo, it’s definitely about more than just overhead, and I enjoy the subtleties as much as the crazy stuff.

 

[MalVeauX]

And something many people don’t realize is the for that which you pointed out, is the XYZ coordinate placement of objects. I don’t think that would be possible with only a front stage and overhead speakers. The Atmos renderer needs the whole bed layer to triangulate.
Many people think it’s only about overhead sound and if it’s not busy overhead than the track isn’t that good. Well imo, it’s definitely about more than just overhead, and I enjoy the subtleties as much as the crazy stuff.

I look forward to playing around with it. Back in the 90's I had a few small speakers hanging on the roof in a quad setup because it sounded more immersive than just rear surrounds in a quad setup (but it wasn't surround, it was just expanded stereo really), but didn't have a center. I've not done that since then, but have done 7.2 setups for a while now. I'm curious about adding the 0.4 Atmos to this to flesh it out. I'm really curious how well the upmixing of legacy content will be handled.

Very best,

 

[MalVeauX]

So, moving forward, I'm curious if there's anything better for similar cost to the Denon X4500H for the ability to do 9.2 (11.2 with additional amplifier via pre-amp output; allows 5.2.4~6, 7.2.2~4, 9.2 I think, with some wiggle room?) at 125wpc@8ohm with the bells & whistles including Audyssey XT32. Or is there something that will do this job for less?

I'm always also concerned about support these days. I really worry about dropping $1k on an AVR after my last experience. My Pioneer VSX1121K ended up throwing an UE22 error. After researching online, the only fix was to use a heat gun and "re-solder" the DTS chip and it didn't always work and some people installed heat sinks. This is complete unacceptable. So whatever AVR I go with in the future either needs to be dirt cheap (obviously this is not the case with a $1k receiver) or have support or have a really good track record of not having a really common problem involved with it. So whatever the AVR is, I need to do some homework into it to make sure its not riddled with common issues 5 years down the line, etc.

I think I'm finally over the idea of having to get external amplifiers in the 200 watt range. Everything adds up. This will get used literally many hours per day by my family and myself, so I do keep in mind the cost of the energy too and while the idea of a bunch of stuff blazing around is great, I'm sure I will not like the heat all of it outputs, which I then I have cool down, and it's already horrifically hot in Florida and we're AC-babies here, my house is 68F right now as summer is cranking up. Having a "hot room" of electronics is going to add more stress to a larger house with larger volume to cool with a bigger AC. It all just adds up to more. So I think I will try to keep things simple and efficient where possible, so maybe just the AVR and some self-powered subs moving forward would keep energy costs down (again it matters when its literally several hours per day every day) and the heat which results in more AC work and cost per day too.

I think it will be outputting to a 75" 4K LED TV, looking at a Samsung currently, but have not settled on. Will wait until I have the room. I definitely think I'm not going to go forward with a projector, while I like the idea of the size, I do not like the idea of the contrast/brightness if the room is not completely dark on anything affordable, plus maintenance. I know very little about projectors, but it seems like something I wouldn't want when you add in some couch-coop-gaming on this platform in addition.

Very best,