Denon/Marantz vs Yamaha vs Anthem Thread

Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Warlord
Thanks for the clarification.

So.......... NO Manual Parametric EQ and NO Q-Values with Audyssey Editor App.

If you use the Audyssey Editor App to Manually EQ, it is NOT PEQ, but it is GRAPHIC EQ in function. But if you know what you are doing, you could get Audyssey + App to equalize the bass manually similar to Parametric EQ, except you don't choose any Q-values at all. :D

In that case........I'm still going to say that Yamaha has the better manual EQ. Haha. :D
Well it looks like my terminology was wrong (thank you @PENG for a much better explanation), but the end result still allows for very detailed and precise customization. If the app and rb were available at the time I would never have gotten the mini.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
When I was saying Q I thought I was referring to the tightness of the adjustment (the higher the Q the sharper the notch), and made some assumptions, but the end result is the same. Adjusting Audyssey's target curve feels, looks and measures exactly the same as adjusting my mini without having to manually type in Q values.
Well it looks like my terminology was wrong (thank you @PENG for a much better explanation), but the end result still allows for very detailed and precise customization. If the app and rb were available at the time I would never have gotten the mini.
Yeah, I think Q-values is overrated anyway, especially if we’re just talking about under 200Hz. I don’t think I can actually hear any difference in Q-Values.

But I sure can hear the difference with a 1dB boost or cut in the 200Hz region, especially under 100Hz.

Perhaps for many cases, the Q-value is more “academic“ and “theory” than ”real life”.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Anyway, I think :D I did some calculations on Q-values for PEQ.

00-30Hz, Mid Freq 15Hz, Q=0.5
30-50Hz, Mid Freq 40Hz, Q=2.0
50-70Hz, Mid Freq 60Hz, Q=3.0
70-90Hz, Mid Freq 80Hz, Q=4.0
90-110Hz, Mid Freq 100Hz, Q=5.0

So if I wanted to ”only” affect the frequency between 30-50Hz, I would adjust (boost or cut) the 40Hz point using a Q=2.0.

If I wanted to EQ from “only” 00-30Hz, I would adjust the 15Hz point with a Q=0.5.

But in reality, there will probably be overlaps, since nothing is a brick wall. :D
 
Last edited:
M

Movie2099

Full Audioholic
Have you guys checked out the new NAD T 778 AVR? For those looking in the $3k range of AVR's that might be a good challenger to other major brands out there in the same price range. It has a nice touch screen in the front, future proof in the back to add multiple HDMI 2.1's, when it get released. You will be getting 85w with all 9 channels driven at 8ohm. It may be lacking in some areas, but just from the the early reviews I've seen so far, it looks like a very solid AVR.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Have you guys checked out the new NAD T 778 AVR? For those looking in the $3k range of AVR's that might be a good challenger to other major brands out there in the same price range. It has a nice touch screen in the front, future proof in the back to add multiple HDMI 2.1's, when it get released. You will be getting 85w with all 9 channels driven at 8ohm. It may be lacking in some areas, but just from the the early reviews I've seen so far, it looks like a very solid AVR.
Back in the days, I would buy even a $5500 AVR (Denon AVR-5308). But now I would not spend more than $1500 on any AVR. Why? If I’m spending $3K or more on an AVR, I might as well buy separates and get pre-pro + amps, not an AVR.

I know some people must have one auto room EQ or another, but I don’t need any Room EQ.

But for people who must have a specific Auto Room EQ, I can see them spending a lot on an AVR. Manufacturers know that and are very smart to cash in on that.
 
Last edited:
Ken32

Ken32

Full Audioholic
Back in the says, I would buy even a $5500 AVR (Denon AVR-5308). But now I would not spend more than $1500 on any AVR. Why? If I’m spending $3K or more on an AVR, I might as well buy separates and get pre-pro + amps, not an AVR.

I know some people must have one auto room EQ or another, but I don’t need any Room EQ.

But for people who must have a specific Auto Room EQ, I can see them spending a lot on an AVR. Manufacturers know that and are very smart to cash in on that.
Yup. Paid a couple hundred for mine and it does what I need/want.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Anyway, I think :D I did some calculations on Q-values for PEQ.

00-30Hz, Mid Freq 15Hz, Q=0.5
30-50Hz, Mid Freq 40Hz, Q=2.0
50-70Hz, Mid Freq 60Hz, Q=3.0
70-90Hz, Mid Freq 80Hz, Q=4.0
90-110Hz, Mid Freq 100Hz, Q=5.0

So if I wanted to ”only” affect the frequency between 30-50Hz, I would adjust (boost or cut) the 40Hz point using a Q=2.0.

If I wanted to EQ from “only” 00-30Hz, I would adjust the 15Hz point with a Q=0.5.

But in reality, there will probably be overlaps, since nothing is a brick wall. :D
Okay. I tried using larger Q-values for the PEQ in this 20-100Hz region, but it resulted in much less bass. Much less bass. The bass went from Freight-train-from-hell to FLAT. :eek:

So I went back to Q=0.5. :D

It turns out Q-value does make a HUGE difference in the bass region!

So I don’t know about using manual EQ in the bass region WITHOUT using Q-value.

Anyway, whatever works best for us is what we should use. :D
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Okay. I tried using larger Q-values for the PEQ in this 20-100Hz region, but it resulted in much less bass. Much less bass. The bass went from Freight-train-from-hell to FLAT. :eek:

So I went back to Q=0.5. :D

It turns out Q-value does make a HUGE difference in the bass region!

So I don’t know about using manual EQ in the bass region WITHOUT using Q-value.

Anyway, whatever works best for us is what we should use. :D
If you use PEQ you have to figure out the Q value for each entry, obviously you found that out already.

Using the Audyssey App is not the same as doing manual EQ, and Audyssey filters are not PEQ types at all. The app just let you customer a target curve, once the curve is done, Audyssey will recreate the filter set based on the new target curve. So again, it is not really the same as Yamaha manual EQ option. In principle though, one may argue that customizing target curve is sort of manual EQ as well.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
If you use PEQ you have to figure out the Q value for each entry, obviously you found that out already.

Using the Audyssey App is not the same as doing manual EQ, and Audyssey filters are not PEQ types at all. The app just let you customer a target curve, once the curve is done, Audyssey will recreate the filter set based on the new target curve. So again, it is not really the same as Yamaha manual EQ option. In principle though, one may argue that customizing target curve is sort of manual EQ as well.
Yeah, no matter what kind of EQ we use, the key is figuring out the way to get the sound you want.

So with Editor app, first you tell Audyssey to EQ from 200Hz and below. Then Audyssey will create the usual curves for this region - Audyssey and Audyssey Flat. Then you choose one of these curves - like Audyssey Flat.

Then if you aren’t happy with the bass, you can go back and manually boost the 40Hz, 60Hz, 80Hz?

You can run REW to more accurately see the new curve, but will Audyssey app show the new Manual Curve with the boost at 40, 60, 80Hz so that you can roughly see what you’ve done to the response without using REW?

YPAO will show the new response curve immediately ON SCREEN as you are adjusting PEQ with the new amplitude (+/-dB) and Q-value. I’m sure it’s not as accurate as REW, but it’s a quick way to see the immediate results as you are going through every step.

When I changed the Q from 0.5 to larger numbers/ more narrow effects, I could see the bass curve go from a big mountain to almost flat. And the bass sound reflected this change.

You think Audyssey App figured the Q-values from the initial run, then use the same Q-values when you are adjusting the manual EQ?
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Yeah, no matter what kind of EQ we use, the key is figuring out the way to get the sound you want.

So with Editor app, first you tell Audyssey to EQ from 200Hz and below. Then Audyssey will create the usual curves for this region - Audyssey and Audyssey Flat. Then you choose one of these curves - like Audyssey Flat.

Then if you aren’t happy with the bass, you can go back and manually boost the 40Hz, 60Hz, 80Hz?
That is correct. I understand for Yamaha, you can run YPAO, that is auto EQ, and then go back and do your manual tweak using PEQ filters. With Audyssey, you just select the frequency point you want to apply manually entered (if using Ratbuddyssey UI) or draw by hand to modify the target curve. Then when you send the new target curve to the AVR, a new modified set of filters will be created to try and achieve that modified target curve.

You can run REW to more accurately see the new curve, but will Audyssey app show the new Manual Curve with the boost at 40, 60, 80Hz so that you can roughly see what you’ve done to the response without using REW?
Sort of yes. Below was the steps I took, after running Audyssey:

1. Run REW to obtain the actual FR with Audyssey "On".
2. I have also can run REW for say 6 or more positions so that the mic would cover the MMP, left, right, up, down, relative to the MMP and then I would end up with a average FR.
3. The REW curve is not going to be flat, in my case, it has dips and bumps with peak to peak variation of about 9 dB, or +/- 4 to 5 dB between 15 and 200 Hz no smoothing.
4. I then set up an Excel spreadsheet, and find out what are the cuts and boost at selected frequency points (I would say you need at least 20 freq points between 15-200 Hz) I need to apply in order to achieve a flat curve, that is +/- 0 dB 15 to 200 Hz.
5. Then I would use Ratbuddyssey to enter the cuts and boosts calculated by Excel.
6. Save the modified curve.
7. Select send the curve to the AVR.
8. The App will create the filters and upload it to the AVR.
9. Run REW again to see how flat the actual FR now has become, and go from there.

In my case, the whole process took about 30 min to an hour, to get the curve flat to about +/- 2 to 2.5 dB. To get it to within +/- 1 to 1.5 dB (absolutely no need imo..), it would take me a few more hours as it is a trial and error process, and I would have to use well over 35 frequency points to "anchor" the curve flat.

With using the 3 rd party Ratbuddyssey user interface software, one would have to try and draw in order to modify the target curve using just the MultEQ Editor App, and that would be a painful process as Amir called it.

YPAO will show the new response curve immediately ON SCREEN as you are adjusting PEQ with the new amplitude (+/-dB) and Q-value. I’m sure it’s not as accurate as REW, but it’s a quick way to see the immediate results as you are going through every step.
Audyssey MultEQ Editor App does that too, but as you know those are not the same as using REW/Umik-1 mic to measure the actual response.

When I changed the Q from 0.5 to larger numbers/ more narrow effects, I could see the bass curve go from a big mountain to almost flat. And the bass sound reflected this change.
Yes I realized that, you have to use a formula to calculate Q but to do with with a highly irregular curve it isn't easy to do and won't therefore be accurate without going through some trial and error, at least that was my experience when I was using minidsp and REW's biquad/PEQ equalizers. I believe Audyssey's FIR filters are better and have much higher resolution, and best of all, you don't have to worry about Q, its algorithm used for filter creation should be much more advanced than PEQ filters.

You think Audyssey App figured the Q-values from the initial run, then use the same Q-values when you are adjusting the manual EQ?
I believe the Audyssey App creates filters exactly the same way either way, the only difference is, the initial filters were created to meet the flat target curve, whereas the new set of filters would be to created to meet to modified target curve that will not be flat. So in that sense, I suppose yes you can say that Audyssey has to figure out the appropriate "Q" for the new filters but no it won't necessarily be the same as those used in the original set of filters. Think of it this way, YPAO does not require you to enter "Q", or anything because it collected the info from the mic and figure things out all by itself. Same for Audyssey, except if the App is used to modify the target curve, in doing so you have to enter the changes to the target curve by entering/or drawing the cuts and boosts at selected frequencies, but that is just the way to tell Audyssey you want it to follow and implement the new target curve, the filter creation is still done by Audyssey. So that is very different than the manual tweak you do after YPAO, that actually requires you to create your own PEQ filters on top of those already created by YPAO.

Look at it this way,

- the original flat curve used in the Audyssey auto setup run resulted in an actual FR curve that is flatter than it Audyssey is turned off, but not as flat as the target curve, that is, it managed to get close to the target curve, such as within +/- 4 to 5 dB.

- the modified target curve, based on the manually entered cuts and boosts on selected frequency points are intended to get the "actual" FR flatter, but naturally the target curve will have to be "non flat", because we have already found out, using REW, that the flat target curve resulted in a non flat actual curve. I know you an IQ man so I am sure you can follow my logic, no matter how confusing it may sound on surface.;)

I might have documented the procedure for using Ratbuddyssey UI with the Audyssey MultEQ Edior App in my users thread.

Try post#144:

If you have time, here's a very informative Youtube video on the App:

 
Last edited:
jliedeka

jliedeka

Audioholic General
Back in the says, I would buy even a $5500 AVR (Denon AVR-5308). But now I would not spend more than $1500 on any AVR. Why? If I’m spending $3K or more on an AVR, I might as well buy separates and get pre-pro + amps, not an AVR.

I know some people must have one auto room EQ or another, but I don’t need any Room EQ.

But for people who must have a specific Auto Room EQ, I can see them spending a lot on an AVR. Manufacturers know that and are very smart to cash in on that.
I just modernized my receiver. I had a Marantz SR8002 and I went with a Denon S960H. Seems weird going from a top of the line Marantz to the lower line Denon but I really overbought when I got the Marantz. The Denon I got has plenty of headroom for my small living room and all the essential features.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I just modernized my receiver. I had a Marantz SR8002 and I went with a Denon S960H. Seems weird going from a top of the line Marantz to the lower line Denon but I really overbought when I got the Marantz. The Denon I got has plenty of headroom for my small living room and all the essential features.
Or may be you wanted to downgrade in order to "cool" things/sound off, while also upgraded to the newer features?;):D
 
jliedeka

jliedeka

Audioholic General
The one constant between my new receiver and the old one, I still get HDMI handshake hiccups. The first time I fired up the Xbox One, I got the display in 640x480. I occasionally have sound drop out from streaming apps. Powering the receiver off and on fixes it like always.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
The one constant between my new receiver and the old one, I still get HDMI handshake hiccups. The first time I fired up the Xbox One, I got the display in 640x480. I occasionally have sound drop out from streaming apps. Powering the receiver off and on fixes it like always.
Have you ever tried any Yamaha AVR to see if the HDMI compatibility is any better?
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
The AudioScienceReview of the Denon AVR-X3700h is up!


It looks like it is another winner - right in line with the 3600 review!

Perhaps more importantly is it appears that Amir (of ASR) has established a contact/relationship with Denon (and Marantz?) who has the scientific knowledge and authority within D&M to understand/support ASR's efforts!
Hopefully, this may result in other major manufacturers doing likewise and being more conscious of optimizing the performance of their products.
If Denon is the only one paying attention, I think they will ultimately run ahead of the competition!
If we have someone saying my XYZ AVR is much more chocolaty while someone else can point out that Denon measures significantly better, I think the measurements will have more sway (as it should be)!
 
Last edited:
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
The AudioScienceReview of the Denon AVR-X37--h is up!

It looks like it is another winner - right in line with the 3600 review!
Denon X3700 = SINAD of ~ 100dB, THD+N of 0.001% at 2Vrms.

For newbies, the absolute WORST AVR measured on ASR website is the NAD T758, which has a SINAD of 53dB = THD+N of 0.22%.

The 2nd Worst AVR measured is the ARCAM
AVR390, which as a SINAD of 70dB = THD+N of 0.03%.
 
Last edited:
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Denon X3700 = SINAD of ~ 100dB, THD+N of 0.001% at 2Vrms.

For newbies, the absolute WORST AVR measured on ASR website is the NAD T758, which has a SINAD of 53dB = THD+N of 0.22%.

The 2nd Worst AVR measured is the ARCAM
AVR390, which as a SINAD of 70dB = THD+N of 0.03%.
The Arcam did very well with analog input, in direct mode. Imo, Analogs are simpler, and has matured long ago. On the digital side, things are getting more complicated by the day; and that's why for AVR/AVP/AVC, D+M and Y are the better bet. They can afford to have unlimited (relatively speaking) resource to deal with the more complicated and forever changing issues in the digital domain.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
The Arcam did very well with analog input, in direct mode. Imo, Analogs are simpler, and has matured long ago. On the digital side, things are getting more complicated by the day; and that's why for AVR/AVP/AVC, D+M and Y are the better bet. They can afford to have unlimited (relatively speaking) resource to deal with the more complicated and forever changing issues in the digital domain.
Hmm, we've seen a lot of guys say Analog is better than Digital. I guess for cases, it's true. :D

Well, nobody can hear THD of 0.03% on the ARCAM digital Inputs anyway.
 

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top