The SEPARATES vs. AVR Thread

[Steve81]

He didn't deny the potential benefits either

Indeed, though with the caveat that the benefits for EQ lay below the Schroeder frequency. One of his quotes:

Room EQ. When we measure in a room we use an omnidirectional microphone that ignores the angle of incidence of incoming sound, and, if one is doing steady-state measurements, also the timing. Two ears and a brain are vastly more analytical. What can appear in a measurement as a disastrous comb filter, may be heard as innocent spaciousness – room sound, not part of the loudspeaker. This is the fundamental reason why “room EQ” is such a risky business above a few hundred Hz. There is a significant possibility of degrading a good loudspeaker by achieving a “pretty” room curve. At the present time, all of the highest rated loudspeakers, cone/dome and M2, generate room curves that are well described as gently tilted lines at about -0.4 to -0.5 dB/oct from 20 to 20k, in normally reflective rooms and HTs. In spite of the very real differences among rooms, this relationship has been confirmed by numerous independent measurements. If you measure such a curve, it means that you probably bought the right loudspeaker. If you don’t, equalizing what you have to match that curve guarantees nothing. The definitive descriptor above about 400- 500 Hz is anechoic data showing a flat direct sound and relatively constant or smoothly changing directivity. At bass frequencies a steady-state room curve is definitive, and EQ is one of the tools that can help improve it.

To your point of flat anechoic response, that's true, but Dr. Toole included some caveats too, such as his favorite thing on "off axis" performance. He emphasized that if the speaker performed will in off axis, it will likely perform well in room (presumable not really bad rooms) without the need of EQ.

No doubt, though even then EQ is still useful on the low end,

 

[PENG]

Indeed, though with the caveat that the benefits for EQ lay below the Schroeder frequency. One of his quotes:





No doubt, though even then EQ is still useful on the low end,

No disagreement there at all!

 

[3db]

Dr. Toole advocates for speakers with a flat anechoic response, which isn't the same thing as a flat in room response. AFAIK, he isn't a big fan of most REQ systems.

Thats correct. However its easier to adjust aspeakers to a room's environment when flat compared to speakers that have peaky responses.

 

[Steve81]

Thats correct. However its easier to adjust aspeakers to a room's environment when flat compared to speakers that have peaky responses.

I'm not arguing against the value of a flat anechoic response.

 

[RichB]

Harman advocates good flat on-axis and off axis response. Dr. Toole has sited speakers with ruler flat on-axis response but issues off axis which results is less-than-optimal performance in room. The target is flat "listening window" response.

Here is an except from Kevin Veocks post about the Revel F228be:

As has been noted, the F228Be directivity curves are just sensational, which has been proven to be critically important in countless double-blind listening tests, and in the field. Harman researcher's work on the importance of first reflections--especially the side walls--proved that the speaker's output that contributes to these critical first reflections is as important as the direct sound. The radiation of the F228Be that contributes this reflected output matches that of the listening window extremely well, enhancing both the remarkably uncolored sound quality of the F228Be, and also results in the seamlessness of the transition from the midrange to the tweeter that is rarely found with any speaker, regardless of price. That seamlessness is a big part of making music sound real, rather than sounding like a mechanical facsimile. I have never heard a multi-driver speaker that achieves seamlessness without a properly designed waveguide.

I fall on the side of solving room-mode issues with EQ. Multiple-subs + EQ seems to be the best approach, although not easily done in my room. So far, I have preferred using EQ to REQ, but everything sounds great without either. I reserve the right to change my mind...

- Rich

 

[Zildjianmeister]

The Halo integrated has HT bypass input, did you try it?

I'm sorry. I should have clarified. I meant that I wasn't happy with the result using solely the integrated for movies in pcm. It wasn't horrible but it lost the LFE that I like.

Yes. I used the home theater bypass for the receiver with the integrated powering the left and right and that allowed for the LFE again as well as center channel. I'd still like to try just the AVR sometime.

Z

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Agreed, would like to add that if one prefers neutrality/accuracy then one may have a better chance of liking it (it being REQ that works to produce flatter response without introducing nasty things),or not hating it as much. Not really sure, just my educated guess based on Dr. Toole's finding that apparently if the speakers have flatter response sound better to people, something like that....

@TLS Guy would disagree 100%, and so would I.

We are talking about preferring pure crystal clear dynamic sound - the kind of sound that we are used to hearing in real life, not in an anechoic chamber.

Whichever we decide to use at the end of the day (EQ or not EQ),it’s about getting that crystal clear dynamic sound like real life.

 

[sterling shoote]

Why not just adjust to taste, without consideration of life-like unless having life-like is the goal. After all, it's your music, your ears, and your gear. As Burger King says have it your way. I'm not embarrassed or afraid to say when I'm running iTunes to my HT I often try out the iTunes equalizer. Hey, I don't care what others think about it, it's a matter of taste, not the artist's taste, the engineers taste, or the producer's taste, it's my taste and it's my money. I only need to please myself, not entertain others. The only aid I may need in the matter is how to achieve the results I want. I know that if I ask about such concerns here, I will get awesome advice.

 

[DigitalDawn]

After a listening test at a friend's home between Emotiva and ATI, I was so impressed with the ATI amp that I contacted ATI and picked up the line. It was like night and day. The ATI amp was more expensive, but you get what you pay for.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

After a listening test at a friend's home between Emotiva and ATI, I was so impressed with the ATI amp that I contacted ATI and picked up the line. It was like night and day. The ATI amp was more expensive, but you get what you pay for.

Interesting. Night and day difference. What was your testing methodology?

 

[PENG]

@TLS Guy would disagree 100%, and so would I.

We are talking about preferring pure crystal clear dynamic sound - the kind of sound that we are used to hearing in real life, not in an anechoic chamber.

Whichever we decide to use at the end of the day (EQ or not EQ),it’s about getting that crystal clear dynamic sound like real life.

I think you might have misunderstood the point, big time!!

Nobody here is talking about wanting to hear their speakers in an anechoic chamber, large open field, may be, if one has a large enough outdoor noise free property and powerful enough speakers/amplifiers. Anechoic chamber is only for testing purposes, it is one way of removing the room effect variable. Your room is different than mine, TLSGuy's, and yours.

We, surely including you, me, and even TLSGuy, can agree that a speaker will sound different in different rooms. We are simply citing in some of Dr. Toole's articles (other PhD's too most likely), he mentioned the importance of both on and off axis performance in the test chamber (again, only just to remove the room effects), that if a speaker does well in both on and off axis, it will have better chance performing well in room, not that we want it to sound in our room like it is in an anechoic chamber. It is a little like testing with a pink noise, we want to hear music, but pink noise is an objective way to test/measure a speaker's performance in the audio spectrum.

You may not be kidding, but not surprisingly, Gene has a good article on loudspeaker myths in case you are interested.

https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/loudspeaker-myths-and-truths

 

[Danzilla31]

@TLS Guy would disagree 100%, and so would I.

We are talking about preferring pure crystal clear dynamic sound - the kind of sound that we are used to hearing in real life, not in an anechoic chamber.

Whichever we decide to use at the end of the day (EQ or not EQ),it’s about getting that crystal clear dynamic sound like real life.

I'm not as knowledgeable as some of you but I've been finding that I like running Audyssey to get the subs level matched to the speakers. And to get the distances right. Which I confirmed was accurate by measuring manually. After this I just have fun dialing the subs hot the crossovers to whatever level sounds best and the same with speaker levels to as well till I get the sound dialed in just right to where I like it. The sound I like is exactly what @AcuDefTechGuy stated. Loud dynamic crystal clear and life like. Soo I use it for some of the grunt work then after I just have fun playing around

 

[Irvrobinson]

No doubt, though even then EQ is still useful on the low end,

I agree.

As a former denier of the value of bass EQ and subs, for decades, I can say that bass EQ is often very useful, especially when combined with advantageously placed subs. Not all rooms need it with all speakers. When I auditioned the Salon2s for the first time the dealer apparently had a nearly perfect room for them and probably optimal placement, but I was never able to replicate that marvelous low-end performance in two different homes, no matter how I placed the Salon2s. A sub and bass EQ was the only cure.

The challenge for music systems is that it very easy to get addicted to running the bass octaves way too hot, and becoming a bassaholic. With acoustic instruments 20-50Hz bass is a subtle experience, easily turned into a caricature of the real thing, IMO. Even for fusion jazz, with all of its synthesizers and electric basses, in a live performance the sound reinforcement subs seldom have the bass power or extension we hear with super-subs in our homes. On the other hand, when you've heard (and measured) a Bosendorfer Imperial Grand in a smallish venue (say, roughly 40K cubic feet) you realize that sub-30Hz response really is important, but good reproduction requires delicate balance. Unless you just like caricatures.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I think you might have misunderstood the point, big time!!

Nobody here is talking about wanting to hear their speakers in an anechoic chamber, large open field, may be, if one has a large enough outdoor noise free property and powerful enough speakers/amplifiers. Anechoic chamber is only for testing purposes, it is one way of removing the room effect variable. Your room is different than mine, TLSGuy's, and yours.

We, surely including you, me, and even TLSGuy, can agree that a speaker will sound different in different rooms. We are simply citing in some of Dr. Toole's articles (other PhD's too most likely), he mentioned the importance of both on and off axis performance in the test chamber (again, only just to remove the room effects), that if a speaker does well in both on and off axis, it will have better chance performing well in room, not that we want it to sound in our room like it is in an anechoic chamber. It is a little like testing with a pink noise, we want to hear music, but pink noise is an objective way to test/measure a speaker's performance in the audio spectrum.

You may not be kidding, but not surprisingly, Gene has a good article on loudspeaker myths in case you are interested.

https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/loudspeaker-myths-and-truths

You’re points:
1. REQ equals flat in-room response
2. Flat in-room Response equals accurate real-life Dynamic sound
3. REQ is good

My points:
1, Accurate speakers equals Flat Anechoic response
2. Accurate real-life Dynamic sound does NOT necessarily equal flat In-room response
3. REQ or NOT REQ, the goal is real-life Dynamic Sound. You don’t need some in-Room graphs to tell your brain that the sound is crystal clear real-life dynamic sound.

 

[PENG]

You don’t need some in-Room graphs to tell your brain that the sound is crystal clear real-life dynamic sound.

I agree with that point, and in fact none of my purchase decisions were made based on the in-room graphs I plotted using REW/Umik-1 mic. I ran REW for fun and to satisfy my curiosity. The graphs happened to show what I have been hearing and quite happy about, was relatively flat and smooth in the 16-125 Hz range, except that I do prefer a 2 dB boost in the subwoofer level setting for movies, but not for music.

 

[DigitalDawn]

Interesting. Night and day difference. What was your testing methodology?

Ears !!!

 

[PENG]

Interesting. Night and day difference. What was your testing methodology?

Have you ever met of known of a dealer or professional reviewer who couldn't tell those night and day difference or something of that sort between amps? I haven't..

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Ears !!!

That’s what I figured.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Have you ever met of known of a dealer or professional reviewer who couldn't tell those night and day difference or something of that sort between amps? I haven't..

Good point, so true. It reminds me of a high end hi-fi store I used to frequent back in my old naive audiophile days. I’ll never forget the lines of ‘bull’ they continuously fed the customers. I cringe when I think about it now.

 

[Auditor55]

Guess it would be spl and room dependent. Top flight AVRs don’t have the amp sections they did 20 years ago. Going back to the early 2000s Denon, Yamaha and pioneer had some extremely stout amps. Not sure modern avrs with 9+ channels can claim the same, not that they can’t be more than sufficient under the right circumstances.

That is the most disappointing thing about today's AVRs, amps. It seems like you have to turn them all the way up to max to get some output. I remember my old B&K THX receiver, that thing was built like a tank, heavy with powerful amps. You didn't need to purchase external amps with that thing.