Perfect AV Receiver

Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
Denon recommends using pure direct for the "audiophile" community. They are marketing to that group while giving their gear the function of what a receiver is supposed to do.

Maybe Denon is a cut above the rest, but I have still seen more flexible bass management than the Denon BD and DVD players, as shown by you, are offering.;)

I am finished debating this with you, as you clearly have no intent of changing your mind on this subject of "direct". I believed as you did a few years ago. I know better now, and my ears and wallet thank me for it.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
I do think there is an advantage in simplicity.

Personally I find a lot of this pressing buttons on remotes tiresome.

As for EQ I have little time for it. I occasionally turn to my equalizers to touch up a vintage recording. I would never agree to let an auto EQ set my system precisely wrong!

Features I have never used on my AV processor preamp.

Tone controls.

Panorama

Width.

I only use the music setting, none of the others.

Since to properly hear SACD, the level and bass management can not be used in a player, receiver or preamp, I use analog leveling. I found this to be much better. I db level changes are too great. An analog infinitely variable controls I have found a great improvement.

As far as bass management my needs are minimal, as that is built into the design of my system.

All speakers are set to full, and the LFE mixed in. It is important for my system that the speakers be full as the left and front mains are dual transmission lines in each left and right speaker. The lines are tuned 1/2 octave apart. Something I leaned from the late John Wright of TDL. The center is also tuned 1/2 octave above the long lines. Step diffraction compensation is via active crossover on the three fronts. I was doodling on Siegfried Linkwitz's site yesterday and I see I had independently come to the conclusion, that this is a good application for active crossovers.

This gives the most detailed accurate and powerful bass I have ever heard

So my settings are large to all speakers, with the LFE blended at 80 Hz. All speaker levels are set in the analog domain between pre amp and power amps. The LFE is set -2db for correct leveling.

The only speakers that need a delay are the surrounds. The other speakers are perfectly placed with reference to the listening position. All levels were carefully set using an omni directional phantom powered studio microphone.

I do occasional checks to check for any drift. Apart from that I don't touch it.

The point I'm trying to make is that systems should be "holistically" conceived as far as possible. I think bass management should be kept as simple as possible.

I have a strong suspicion that any speakers with reasonable power capability should be set to large. As far as possible the F3 of the front speakers should be in the same ball park.

Set the sub to blend with the front speakers roll off below their F3. This is likely to excite the fewest room problems, and minimize phase and time delay problems. If the front speakers are superior, it will allow them to perform as their designers intended.

I would certainly encourage a trial of this simple arrangement first before going to more complex alternatives.

I believe well conceived speaker systems will be adulterated by auto EQ systems.
 
bandphan

bandphan

Banned
If you want the best sound reproduction go audition the SSP-600.
and how would that be? the source and the speakers would be more in line with the sound reproduction.
As long as the recv/amp does not distort, i agree with tls guy, no effect or tonal adjustment should be applied. I, on occasion, will apply adjustment on an unedited master recording, where the mic/s were not placed correct or were not correct in application themselves.
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
I say a perfect receiver has six HDMI inputs and six 7.1 analog inputs.:D

It would have a completely discrete mono-block design for both the preamp and amp sections - each channel gets it's own power supply/toroidal transformer.

It would not have a tuner, phono, EQ, tone control, balance control, etc. Bass management would be limited to only speaker size and distance setting.

It would have a FR of 20Hz-20kHz +/- 0.00dB, THD of < 0.0001%, SNR > 140dB, Crosstalk < -140dB, Output Impedance of 0.01 ohms, Input Impedance of 100K ohms, Damping Factor of > 1,000, & Slew Rate of > 100 V/micro-sec.

It would produce 200 watts RMS x 7 into 8 ohms, 400 watts RMS into 4 ohms, and 800 watts RMS into 2 ohms.

But a perfect receiver will be different for everyone, so it will never be made.

It will never exist.:D
You are completely mistaken. What you are talking about is not the perfect receiver. What you are talking about isn't even a receiver. To be a receiver, the device must have a preamplifier, power amplifier, and tuner. You are talking about an integrated amplifier.

I also disagree with your concept of what it is to be "perfect". There would be no distortion of any kind in a perfect device. There would be no noise at all, and it would have absolute separation (i.e., no crosstalk at all). It would also be able to output any amount of power that would be required (hence, to be absolutely perfect in all possible situations, it would need infinite power capability). What you are describing might be practically perfect, but it isn't perfect.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I do think there is an advantage in simplicity...As for EQ I have little time for it...I would never agree to let an auto EQ set my system precisely wrong...Since to properly hear SACD, the level and bass management can not be used in a player, receiver or preamp, I use analog leveling. I found this to be much better. I db level changes are too great. An analog infinitely variable controls I have found a great improvement...All speakers are set to full, and the LFE mixed in...So my settings are large to all speakers, with the LFE blended at 80 Hz. All speaker levels are set in the analog domain between pre amp and power amps. The LFE is set -2db for correct leveling...The only speakers that need a delay are the surrounds. The other speakers are perfectly placed with reference to the listening position...I think bass management should be kept as simple as possible....I have a strong suspicion that any speakers with reasonable power capability should be set to large...I would certainly encourage a trial of this simple arrangement first before going to more complex alternatives...I believe well conceived speaker systems will be adulterated by auto EQ systems.
That is exactly my thoughts!

Well, at least the non-technical parts that I could understand.:D

I never thought about the speaker distance/DELAY setting. But I guess DSP is involved whenever you make changes to any settings.

Okay, I'm going to try setting the distance/delay to 'ZERO' to bypass this.:)

I also set all my speaker size to LARGE, crossover to 80 Hz, but all my speakers & LFE are set to 0 dB.

Wouldn't it be "better" to set the LFE to '0 dB' (digital) and adjust the subwoofer output using the subwoofer's OWN (analog) volume/gain control?

On the LFE crossover, if your speakers can handle 40 Hz, would it be better to set the crossover to 40 Hz to minimize the comb filtering?:D
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
You are completely mistaken. What you are talking about is not the perfect receiver. What you are talking about isn't even a receiver. To be a receiver, the device must have a preamplifier, power amplifier, and tuner. You are talking about an integrated amplifier.
I did not realize that the definition of a receiver was carved in stone handed down to Moses by the Almighty?:D

The 11th Commandment: Thy Receiver must, and I repeat, must have a Tuner!:D


I also disagree with your concept of what it is to be "perfect". There would be no distortion of any kind in a perfect device. There would be no noise at all, and it would have absolute separation (i.e., no crosstalk at all). It would also be able to output any amount of power that would be required (hence, to be absolutely perfect in all possible situations, it would need infinite power capability). What you are describing might be practically perfect, but it isn't perfect.
And I thought I was Picky!:D

On this planet and in this mortal life, all that we can ever hope to achieve is "Practical Perfect".
 
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
AcuDefTechGuy said:
I also set all my speaker size to LARGE, crossover to 80 Hz, but all my speakers & LFE are set to 0 dB.
Enjoy your bass humps and nulls, sheesh.:rolleyes:
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
I did not realize that the definition of a receiver was carved in stone handed down to Moses by the Almighty?:D

The 11th Commandment: Thy Receiver must, and I repeat, must have a Tuner!:D

It is simply the definition of the word "receiver". In order to be a receiver, the thing must include a tuner, preamplifier, and power amplifier. It is not a commandment that one must have a device that contains all of these things. But if the device in question does not contain all of those things, then it is not a receiver; it is something else.

To say that a receiver must have a tuner is like saying that a square must have four sides. If someone talks about a "square" that has only three sides, the person is speaking incorrectly. But it is not a "commandment" that squares have four sides; it is part of the definition of a square. One can have something that is a different shape. But a shape that is not a square should not be called a square.


And I thought I was Picky!:D

On this planet and in this mortal life, all that we can ever hope to achieve is "Practical Perfect".
True. Practically perfect is the best you will ever get, if, indeed, one can even get that.
 
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
So why didn't you quote TLS Guy and tell him to enjoy his bass humps and nulls?:D

***hee***hee:D

Why me?:D
His post was too long, I didn't read it.:D

He's even more bullheaded than you!:D Try talking to him about room treatments.;)
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
That is exactly my thoughts!

Well, at least the non-technical parts that I could understand.:D

I never thought about the speaker distance/DELAY setting. But I guess DSP is involved whenever you make changes to any settings.

Okay, I'm going to try setting the distance/delay to 'ZERO' to bypass this.:)

I also set all my speaker size to LARGE, crossover to 80 Hz, but all my speakers & LFE are set to 0 dB.

Wouldn't it be "better" to set the LFE to '0 dB' (digital) and adjust the subwoofer output using the subwoofer's OWN (analog) volume/gain control?

On the LFE crossover, if your speakers can handle 40 Hz, would it be better to set the crossover to 40 Hz to minimize the comb filtering?:D
I don't use a sub! It is an integrated speaker system. The two lines are tuned about 1/2 octave apart. The bass lines have two 10 inch drivers. The upper in addition to the bass also provides diffraction compensation to the 6 1/2 inch drivers. This is active compensation via an active first order crossover. The lower unit augments the other bass driver below 80 Hz. This seems to make the smoothest transition. The LFE is blended in to the amp supplying the lower driver. -2db gives the best balance. There is no sub plate amp. A total of 14 amp channels are used.

The bass really sets this rig apart. Its deep and crisp, effortless and powerful. There is absolutely no trace of boom. The articulation on bass strings and timpani is very realistic, and the bass balances beautifully with the mid and high end.

Everyone who has head it all comment on the bass realism and balance to the mid and high.

Comb filtering is not an issue because the wavelengths are too long at these frequencies.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
Enjoy your bass humps and nulls, sheesh.:rolleyes:
Actually the whole point is to avoid humps and nulls.

If you make an integrated system with two TLs tuned 1/2 octave apart you get broad even support from over 2 1/2 octaves. That produces superbly realistic deep even bass. The center TL is tuned to the smaller left and right lines. The rear backs are very close in tuning to the large fronts.

The only odd ones are the surrounds, which are sealed with an F3 of 52 HZ. However this pair of legacy speakers do not draw attention and are voiced pretty close to the rest, they just do not have the bass reach, but still good. All speakers have second bass roll off.

With TLs there is none of that sudden cutting in of the port. You are totally unaware of port output, it integrates perfectly.

If you ever come this way give it a listen. The realism of the bass reproduction is a very strong suit of this rig. Not lumpy at all, and a lot of work went into making it that way.
 
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
Actually the whole point is to avoid humps and nulls.

If you make an integrated system with two TLs tuned 1/2 octave apart you get broad even support from over 2 1/2 octaves. That produces superbly realistic deep even bass. The center TL is tuned to the smaller left and right lines. The rear backs are very close in tuning to the large fronts.

The only odd ones are the surrounds, which are sealed with an F3 of 52 HZ. However this pair of legacy speakers do not draw attention and are voiced pretty close to the rest, they just do not have the bass reach, but still good. All speakers have second bass roll off.

With TLs there is none of that sudden cutting in of the port. You are totally unaware of port output, it integrates perfectly.

If you ever come this way give it a listen. The realism of the bass reproduction is a very strong suit of this rig. Not lumpy at all, and a lot of work went into making it that way.
I am talking about Bass Management, the marriage between the subwoofer and the speakers.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
I am talking about Bass Management, the marriage between the subwoofer and the speakers.
I don't have a subwoofer! I don't need one. That is the whole point, the combination of the drivers are loaded and supported by the line loading over 2 1/2 octaves, from 20 to 100 Hz. I'm also pretty sure that in a lot of rigs, with a sub, setting the mains and center to full, if they have respectable power handling, and blending in the sub at the F3 of the mains, is likely to result in the smoothest in room response, and the least violence to phase and time.

The other point being that if you have a nice sounding set of towers, with an F3 somewhere around 40 Hz, they are likely to sound their best, especially for music, if you don't put a crossover in at 80 or 100 Hz, and cause phase anomalies right where the designer did not intend. If there is only a crossover to the sub, that will result in least violence to phase and time.

A lot of all this comes about because of slavish adherence to the misguided opinions and superstition of Lucas labs. I'm afraid I disagree with an awful lot they have to say. When I started to do the R & D for my system, I decided that going back to square one with no preconceived notions was going to serve me best. A few sacred cows were slaughtered along the way, and I think that contributed to the success of the venture.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I don't use a sub! It is an integrated speaker system...The LFE is blended in to the amp supplying the lower driver...A total of 14 amp channels are used.

Comb filtering is not an issue because the wavelengths are too long at these frequencies.
Oh, I get it. You don't have a separate Subwoofer, but your system as a whole can produce subwoofer frequencies?

FOURTEEN AMP CHANNELS?

Are we talking about bi-amping/tri-amping here?:D

So Comb filtering is nonexistent below 80 Hz?
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Denon AVR-5808

Okay, I would like to nominate the Denon AVR-5808 for Practical Perfect Receiver - if it ever comes out.:D
 
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
I don't have a subwoofer! I don't need one. That is the whole point, the combination of the drivers are loaded and supported by the line loading over 2 1/2 octaves, from 20 to 100 Hz. I'm also pretty sure that in a lot of rigs, with a sub, setting the mains and center to full, if they have respectable power handling, and blending in the sub at the F3 of the mains, is likely to result in the smoothest in room response, and the least violence to phase and time.

The other point being that if you have a nice sounding set of towers, with an F3 somewhere around 40 Hz, they are likely to sound their best, especially for music, if you don't put a crossover in at 80 or 100 Hz, and cause phase anomalies right where the designer did not intend. If there is only a crossover to the sub, that will result in least violence to phase and time.

A lot of all this comes about because of slavish adherence to the misguided opinions and superstition of Lucas labs. I'm afraid I disagree with an awful lot they have to say. When I started to do the R & D for my system, I decided that going back to square one with no preconceived notions was going to serve me best. A few sacred cows were slaughtered along the way, and I think that contributed to the success of the venture.
That's great, my initial comment was for AcuDefTechGuy, who has a subwoofer.;)
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
Oh, I get it. You don't have a separate Subwoofer, but your system as a whole can produce subwoofer frequencies?

FOURTEEN AMP CHANNELS?

Are we talking about bi-amping/tri-amping here?:D

So Comb filtering is nonexistent below 80 Hz?
I think this system has caught your curiosity.

Now this system is rooted in developments over 70 years. It is not something that I dreamed up out of nowhere. The system actually has a long pedigree.

I will try and hit the high lights. I will also put this information on my system site.

The idea of using a Gedackt, or closed organ pipe, to load a loudspeaker was conceived by the "father" of high fidelity reproduction, Paul Voight back in the 1930s.

Gilbert Briggs, founder of Wharfedale loudspeakers, in his classic book, Sound reproduction, describes his experiments with the Voight Quarter wave pipe. He also has constructional details of a folded quarter wave pipe by Ralph West of Decca. This was designed for the GE metal cone speaker. It was sold by Decca as the Decca, Corner Horn. It is not a horn though, it is a folded Voight quarter wave pipe. It is the first folded pipe loading of a speaker I'm aware of. Paul Voight's major interest was the horn loading of speaker. He founded Lowther, who are still in business and flourishing

The first addition of Gilbert Briggs Book was 1949, I have the third edition of 1953. My copy has been in my possession for 54 years, and is well worn. Some things never change. Gilbert starts his book lamenting the standards, of the average consumer, and the poor quality of much commercial sound!

Anyhow I built a Voight quarter wave pipe. The first driver was a WB 8 inch given to me by a friend of my father. When the Goodmans Axiette, designed by Ted Jordan, appeared I installed one of those and results were much better.

When the Jordan Watts drivers appeared I built a pair of Ralph West's quarter wave pipes for them. These were full range drivers, which I supplemented with a tweeter made for the BBC by Standard Telephones and cables, which later became known as the famous Coles tweeter. I had those speakers a long time and they were excellent.

During the sixties Decca asked one of their team, Dr A.R. Bailey to further develop the TL. He was seconded to Radford, the famous amplifier people who wanted to develop the TL. The team included Irvin Budd M. Fried and John Wright.

A lot of money was spent, and the world's first reverse tapered folded TL appeared.

http://www.t-linespeakers.org/classics/radford.html

Dr A.R Bailey also published a classic design in Hi-Fi news.

Radford lost interest, and Irvin Budd M. Fried formed IMF speakers. John Wright was a part of IMF. The classic IMF TL appeared.

http://imf-electronics.com/

These speakers were produced during the 70s

The BBC had a huge interest in improving monitor loudspeakers, and started a big research project. Jim Rogers, one of the great pioneers of audio, whose company produced a full line of audio equipment was heavily involved. Later Raymond Cooke founder and MOD of KEF was also involved. Many of those BBC in house designers went on to found fine loudspeaker companies. Harbeth, Chartwell and Mordant Short come to mind.
Many famous speakers came out of these developments, with the BBC granting licenses to a number of manufacturers.

Now none other, than the great Peter Walker OBE, founder and MOD of Quad Electro Acoustics was heavily involved in designing and supplying amplifiers to the BBC.

One of the most famous and legendary of the BBC monitors was the Rogers/IMF TL with amplifiers and active crossovers designed and supplied by Peter Walker. These speakers were later modified by KEF I believe. These speakers had a reputation for creating a sound field that floated in space. They were considered the most accurate speakers of the day.

In 1980 John Wight founded TDL. He was a great speaker designer, who I don't think ever deigned a bad speaker. All his offerings were superior. He produced the largest range of commercial TLs the world has seen. He died in 1999.

http://www.stereophile.com/news/10468/

The last speaker John Wright produced before he died was, as far as I know, the world's only commercial dual TL speaker. It was superb, and back then retailed over here at somewhere over 20K per pair. I think it could lay a strong claim to finest speaker using moving coil drivers ever offered to the public.

http://digilander.libero.it/piani/cataloghi_tdl/generale-2.jpg

After I moved to Canada in 1970 I produced a number of TL designs for the Jordan Watts driver.

After coming to the US in 1976, I built the lines which are basically my center backs. They are built around the famous KEF B139, two to each line. Originally they were biamped using the KEF units and four Jordan Watts drivers as a line source. I modified, and built these drivers for the purpose. The problem, was comb filtering! So in 1984 I modified them to dual lines using in addition to the KEF units, three Dynaudio units, a low mid cone driver, an upper mid dome, and an HF dome. The 180 Hz crossover is active, so the speakers are still biamped. The other three units have a first order passive crossover, that took 10 ears to reach their final form. These were my fixed studio monitors until two years ago. When I moved my equipment to Benedict and built my new space, I rebuilt the bass lines to take advantage of the mathematical model of G.L. Ausperger published in 2000. This has made the bass a little tighter. No other changes were made.

At the request of SEAS of Norway, Joe d'Appolito developed the THOR transmission line for their Exel line of drivers. This is a superb speaker. He used Aupurger's TL model.

Now to my current system.

http://mdcarter.smugmug.com/gallery/2424008_RKGvb#127077128

The main left and rights are folded dual TLs with the tuning 1/2 octave apart. The speakers are in fact triamped.

The line containing the 7 inch drivers, uses, and develops Joe's work extensively, although it is a different line. The crossover to the tweeter is passive. These lines are driven by two Quad 909 amps providing 250 watts per channel so there are two amp channels accounted for.

The drivers in the large lines are the 10 inch SEAS Exel drivers. Fs 20 Hz. The upper two in addition to carrying the bass also provide step/diffraction compensation for the smaller drivers above. These speakers are driven by a Quad 405 II providing 100 watts per channel via an active crossover. Another two amp channels, we are now at four.

The lower 10 inch drivers are fed by active crossover at 80 Hz and reinforce the bass from the upper driver. Each is fed by a Quad 405 II. Now we are up to six amp channels. The driver spacing is much less than the wavelengths involved, so comb filtering is not an issue.

The center speaker is a TL using the SEAS coaxial drivers. The tweeter is not connected in the upper driver. The crossover of the lower coaxial driver is passive. The upper driver provides step/diffraction compensation via an active crossover. This center speaker is powered by both channels of another Quad 909. So now we are up to 8 amp channels.

The surrounds are two and a half way sealed speakers using Dynaudio drivers. Crossovers are passive. These speakers are driven by a Quad 405 II. Now we are up to 10 amp channels.

The Center backs as previously stated are biamped at 180 Hz, via active crossover. These speakers are driven by two Quad 405 IIs. So now we are up to the 14 amp channels.

The rear backs are overkill, but these speakers were far too good to part out. So I revised them. On SACD of antiphonal organs they still show there mettle, and have a deep bass reach.

I hope I have satisfied your curiosity, and shown you the speakers pedigree so to speak.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
The Center backs as previously stated are biamped at 180 Hz, via active crossover. These speakers are driven by two Quad 405 IIs. So now we are up to the 14 amp channels.

The rear backs are overkill, but these speakers were far too good to part out. So I revised them. On SACD of antiphonal organs they still show there mettle, and have a deep bass reach.
So the Center backs are basically rear surround speakers (or Surround Back speakers) in a "7.1" system?

Or is it still "5.1"?

I put quotes since you don't use a separate subwoofer.

So your front L is tri-amped, front C is bi-amped, front R is triamped, and Surround L is mono-amped, Surround R is mono-amped, Surround Back L is bi-amped, and Surround Back R is bi-amped.

I noticed you also placed your coaxial center speaker vertically to avoid the comb filtering?
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
So the Center backs are basically rear surround speakers (or Surround Back speakers) in a "7.1" system?

Or is it still "5.1"?

I put quotes since you don't use a separate subwoofer.

So your front L is tri-amped, front C is bi-amped, front R is triamped, and Surround L is mono-amped, Surround R is mono-amped, Surround Back L is bi-amped, and Surround Back R is bi-amped.

I noticed you also placed your coaxial center speaker vertically to avoid the comb filtering?
It is a 7.1 system. On SACD though the surrounds are supposed to be in the rear corners of the room. So for SACD the surrounds are silent and the rear information is supplied by those big lines.

Again comb filtering is not an issue with the centers, because the step/diffraction loss starts at 1/3 wave length of the effective diameter of the drivers. I placed the speakers vertically because they look better that way I think, and it is much easier to slope a front panel. As I pointed out the tweeter of the upper unit is not used, and there is no mid range in the upper unit, otherwise we would have severe comb filtering response irregularities.

You have the amp assignment correct. Thank you for you interest in this unusual system. However in professional circles it is now also unusual, which in my view it should not be. I doubt those fancy systems you see in Hollywood are in the ball park, at least for accuracy. They might give the listeners a shorter half life to deafness though.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

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