Yamaha and THX ultra2

gene · Aug 2, 2003

<font color='#000000'>Clint;

I agree it would be nice to have manufacturers give an all channels driven at full bandwidth power measurement, but it is really not a realistic test scenario since this type of condition rarely occurs in a typical home theater environment.  In addition, the only way an amp actually delivers near its rated power with all channels driven is if the line voltage is held constant, again this is also not a realistic real world condition.  Assuming the line voltage is held constant, the Denon AVR 5803 will deliver about 120-130wpc x 7 @ 1kHz all channels driven, which is quite impressive for a receiver and in fact probably one of the most powerful ever for a receiver.  

Remember however, sain people (not implying that I am by any means) don't listen to movies or music with all channels driven at full tilt simultaneously.  

Another point people sometimes fail to realize is that very few speaker drivers will actually provide more acoustic energy once you exceed about 250W - they just get hotter, but don't do anything useful. Having said that, speaker "clipping" sounds a lot "less bad" than amp clipping so it is important to have sufficient amplifier headroom.</font>

Yamahaluver · Aug 2, 2003

Bruce : <font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Unless we need permanent deafness, a figure of 120W is more than sufficient for normal circumstances. Not all of us have the priviledge of living in airplane hangars

I must say this gave me the biggest laugh I've had all day, LOL

I hope no one takes that statement seriously.

</font></td></tr></table>
<font color='#0000FF'>As is quite apparent, lack of personal hygiene leading to major earwax build up plus the advancing years and use of really inefficient dead speakers tend to raise the wattage requirements substantially.

Here we go again with the ridiculing just as I thought things have settled down, personal attacks are just the norm here, but I relish it with good dollop of ketchup.

</font>

Guest · Aug 3, 2003

gene : Wait a few more weeks for my review of the Denon AVR-5803 where I dive further into these topics.

Gene,

I don't know, this "5803 Reveiw" is starting to sound a lot like Snuffleupagus

it'll be great as soon as we can see it!

Really tho, I'm sure it will be a great read when it's done (whatever you do don't rush it to press, the review police ARE out there).

Once again, do share any gossip you can on the new Yammy too. (no pressure on the Yamaha rep here at all)</font>

Guest · Aug 3, 2003

<font color='#000000'>Let's take some real world examples instead of ear and airplane jokes.

Let's take an 8 Ohm speaker example with 1 watt input which gives 87 dB loudness measured aprox. 3 feet (1 meter) from the speaker.
For every doubling of amplifier power, loudness will increase by 3 dB.
For every doubling of the distance loudness will decrease by 3dB for near-field setups.
For every doubling of the distance loudness will decrease by 6dB for far-field setups.

Calculating for the listening position with an 87dB @1w input example, (nf=near-field and ff=far field). I'm assuming 6ft and closer is near-field listening:

for 1w input ---> 84dB @ 6 ft(nf) ---> 78dB @ 12 ft (ff)
for 2w input ---> 87dB @ 6 ft(nf) ---> 81dB @ 12 ft (ff)
for 4w input ---> 90dB @ 6 ft(nf) ---> 84dB @ 12 ft (ff)
for 8w input ---> 93dB @ 6 ft(nf) ---> 87dB @ 12 ft (ff)
for 16w input ---> 96dB @ 6 ft(nf) ---> 90dB @ 12 ft (ff)
for 32w input ---> 99dB @ 6 ft(nf) ---> 93dB @ 12 ft (ff)
for 64w input ---> 102dB @ 6 ft(nf) ---> 99dB @ 12 ft (ff)
for 128w input ---> 105dB @ 6 ft(nf) ---> 102dB @ 12 ft (ff)

This leaves no headroom for instantaneous peaks, and in my opinion means 120w is simply not enough power to deliver reference levels (or even less) without distortion for a substantial number of speakers. I'm not even getting into 4 Ohm speakers which tax an amp even more.</font>

gene · Aug 3, 2003

<font color='#000000'>Bruce;

Your calculations are ideal at best. They do not account for room acoustics which usually allows acoustic coupling to make the source sound much louder at the listening position. Nor do you account for multiple sources at once. Each added source (the speaker) adds at least 3dB of SPL. I suggest you take an oscilloscope and connect it to your speaker and measure the peaks, you may be surprised to find that you aren't using as much power as you think. If what you were saying was true, I would never be able to achieve the clean SPL's levels I am getting with all of my 4ohm reference speakers with a receiver. BTW,  most CD's particularly POP and Rock have a mere 6dB of dynamic range for the following reasons:

Current Trends in the Recording Format Arena

Thus your testing should be done with good dynamic recordings such as Classical or Jazz music.

Also, many of todays super receivers have THX Ultra2 certification. In order to pass this test, the receiver has to demonstrate it has sufficient current capability to drive all channels into 3.2ohms simultaneously. Again, some of todays super receivers have amp sections at least equal to many of the lower end dedicated separates.</font>

Yamahaluver · Aug 3, 2003

<font color='#0000FF'>http://www.ultimateear.com/Safelisteningtimes.asp

Take a look at this, takes only 1.9 minutes to go deaf at 109dB, now why would anyone wish to go deaf is an open question. Most movie scenes, especially the ones where lots of action shots dominate would easily attain 100+ dB if we are to go by the wattage rule. Again it is a matter of personal preference but loud neccesarily doesnt mean a happy audience. Most who come to my house to watch movies tell me to turn the sound down, not opposite. Proper speaker selection and placement is way more important for a good HT setup.</font>

gene · Aug 3, 2003

<font color='#000000'>Very good link Yamahaluver.  In fact, I added it to an old FAQ article I did on the very topic:

SPL & Watts and more...

Let's use THX as an example again.  Note, I am not endorsing THX, just citing an example.

THX recommends calibrating a system to 75dB SPL, which is a reference level.  Doing so ensures reasonably safe listening levels during movie playback with more than sufficient headroom to cover the peaks say +20dB or so would allow peaks to be reproduced in excess of +100dB (very loud).  

IMO, most of the power in home theater is needed at the sub since based on the Fletcher & Munson curve, our hearing is most insensitive at low and high frequencies.  Since there is little musical content at very high frequencies (>10KHz) less power is needed at those frequencies compared to the rest of the audio spectrum.  

I understand your situation regarding "turning it down".  It is often the case when I am viewing  a movie with the wife or friends that they complain "its too loud".  Yet they are more than content when blasted with "LOUDER" levels at the theater or at a club, which usually have inferior fidelity to my reference system  

</font>

Guest · Aug 3, 2003

<font color='#000000'>In case anyone failed to recognize it, the link from Yamahaluver reinforces what I've been saying all along, understand what you are measuring:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Within the UK, the law states that an individual can be exposed to a sound pressure level of 85dB(A) for a maximum of 8 hours. </td></tr></table>

Please note the article says and I quote "85dB(A)". The "(A)" stands for "A weighting". Again, as I've said before, "A weighting" is much different than the "C weighting" that is used for most SPL measurements with music sources. "C weighting" will also typically register 10dB lower than "A weighting" on average for the same music signal source.  In music much of the SPL level in the "C weighting" is due to the bass frequencies which the human ears are not as sensitive to.

Why do you think the HT calibration DVDs specifically tell you to use the "C weighting" scale on the SPL meters? Because they also understand the difference between "A" and "C" weighting.</font>

Guest · Aug 3, 2003

<font color='#000000'>Gene,

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> THX recommends calibrating a system to 75dB SPL, which is a reference level. </td></tr></table>

Just to clarify, the reason THX recommends a 75dB SPL calibration level (not reference level), is because the calibration signal is attenuated by 30dB before it is recorded into the receiver/prepro software or onto a calibration DVD like Video Essentials, AVIA, or Sound & Vision. The HT reference SPL level has always been 105dB, even for THX. Thus when you play a DVD the reference volume will truly be capable of reaching 105dB (not 75dB).

This doesn't mean the reference level is 75dB, it's just a convenient calibration level. In fact the AVIA calibration DVD uses a calibration signal that is attenuated by 20dB and instructs you to use 85dB as a calibration level instead. Both systems calibrate to an identical reference level of 105dB. Again, all of this is done with "C weighted" SPL measurements.

My experience with many different systems is that strained sound at reference levels is caused by distortion components from either the amplifier or speaker or both and room reflections from a live room subtly influencing the quality of the sound.</font>

Guest · Aug 3, 2003

gene : <font color='#000000'>Bruce;

Your calculations are ideal at best. They do not account for room acoustics which usually allows acoustic coupling to make the source sound much louder at the listening position. Nor do you account for multiple sources at once. Each added source (the speaker) adds at least 3dB of SPL. I suggest you take an oscilloscope and connect it to your speaker and measure the peaks, you may be surprised to find that you aren't using as much power as you think. If what you were saying was true, I would never be able to achieve the clean SPL's levels I am getting with all of my 4ohm reference speakers with a receiver.</font>

<font color='#000000'>Yes,  further to that, when driven to extremes 9 times out of 10 it will be the speaker itself that starts to create the distortion long before a 120 Watt amp will.

Almost all drivers will begin to distort by exceeding their linearity long before the impedance peak takes place.  Even some of the most expensive mid-bass and bass drivers will do it with as little as 40 watts starting at 120hz with the impedance peak taking place later at 30-60 hz.  Bear in mind even an 87 DB efficient speaker will be pounding out 103-107 DB with 40 watts.

You shouldn't see a lot of "peaking" above that as the impedance contouring is usually a by-product of most crossover designs.  If your system is designed to present a low ohm load, the manufacture usually draws your attention to that point so you get the proper experience from their product.

Many manufactures do not bother to contour the bottom end impedance because it's a waste of money.  As I mentioned above the mechanics of the driver itself will have a far greater impact on audible distortion than the amp ever will.  Most all home theater speaker packages recommend or come with a sub so it's not such a big deal, even if you want to go deaf with "crisp sound".

Of course there are some speakers that are passive and do use large 10-15 inch drivers,  but if your slapping $30 - $50 K down for set of Montana XPs or Grand Slams, you've already got your eye on the Krell mono-blocks to go with them.  (tho these speakers are also very easy to drive)

Certainly not "standard" or even "High End" home theater gear.

Some people have even recommended driving a 15 inch sub (a heavy load) with an older stereo amp which goes to show you don't need 200+ watts to drive your center channel.

Here is a great program you can use for measuring room gain and the acoustic coupling you mentioned (a valid point and common HT knowledge).

I've been using this for five years myself.
http://www.etfacoustic.com

In the end some people just like arguing for the sake for arguing.  It's unfortunate as the value and accuracy of the information becomes secondary to winning the argument.  Worse yet, others might actually place value on in-accurate information.</font>

gene · Aug 3, 2003

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please note the article says and I quote "85dB(A)". The "(A)" stands for "A weighting". Again, as I've said before, "A weighting" is much different than the "C weighting" that is used for most SPL measurements with music sources. "C weighting" will also typically register 10dB lower than "A weighting" on average for the same music signal source. In music much of the SPL level in the "C weighting" is due to the bass frequencies which the human ears are not as sensitive to.</td></tr></table>

The reason for this is C-weighting represents flat frequency response for the entire audio band with filtering outside of the bandwidth while A-weighting applies filtering outside of the midrange audio bandwidth.  

A vs C weighing

how the human ear perceives loudness as a function of frequency is based on the Fletcher & Munson Curve. In actuality, the most damaging musical content at high listening levels to our ears is in the midrange from about 500Hz to 7kHz where we are most sensitive. There is little difference between A and C weighing at these frequencies thus the graphs that Yamahaluver pointed our are still valid.

Here is a link to the Fletcher & Munson Curve I used in a previous article:
http://audioholics.com/techtip....son.gif

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just to clarify, the reason THX recommends a 75dB SPL calibration level (not reference level), is because the calibration signal is attenuated by 30dB before it is recorded into the receiver/prepro software or onto a calibration DVD like Video Essentials, AVIA, or Sound & Vision. The HT reference SPL level has always been 105dB, even for THX. Thus when you play a DVD the reference volume will truly be capable of reaching 105dB (not 75dB).</td></tr></table>

Good clarification here Bruce, I agree, and I should have stated this more accurately. However, there is no reason why a good quality amp section in a high performance receiver cannot allow a user to reach this levels in a typical living room with reasonably efficient speakers, which constitutes most home theater speakers these days, with of course the exceptions such as ESL’s.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
My experience with many different systems is that strained sound at reference levels is caused by distortion components from either the amplifier or speaker or both and room reflections from a live room subtly influencing the quality of the sound. </td></tr></table>

I don’t fully understand your last comment as “Room acoustics” can have the most profound impact on the quality of sound for a system. This is an issue IMO many people fail to address in high performance systems.

[Edited: posted incorrect information about the differences between A and C weighing, corrected]</font>

Guest · Aug 3, 2003

<font color='#000000'>audiouser
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bear in mind even an 87 DB efficient speaker will be pounding out 103-107 DB with 40 watts.</td></tr></table>
Just to be clear, @32w it will be closer to 93db -99dB at any reasonable listening position (6-12 feet).  

Yes, an 87dB efficient  8 Ohm speaker measured at 1 meter (approx 3 ft) with 32w input will measure 102dB (close to your 103), but nobody I know positions their listening chair at 1 meter.

I've also been using ETF measurement software since 1998's version 4 and have spent lot's of time with the acoustic bible, "The Master Handbook of Acoustics" by Everest.

IMHO, the sad part about forum posting is those people who simply pass on falsehoods and inaccurate information.  Thankfully I'm not one of those.</font>

Guest · Aug 3, 2003

<font color='#000000'>Gene,
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The reason for this is A-weighting represents flat frequency response for the entire audio band while C-weighting represents how the human ear perceives loudness as a function of frequency. In actuality, the most damaging musical content at high listening levels to our ears is in the midrange from about 500Hz to 7kHz where we are most sensitive. There is little difference between A and C weighing at these frequencies thus the graphs that Yamahaluver pointed our are still valid. </td></tr></table>

I don't think you have the "A weighting" standard correctly defined.

"A weighting" is designed to filter out the bass and treble, essentially measuring midrange only and is used by the Government for noise regulations. The RS manual has a chart IIRC.

"C weighting" also uses filters but only at the high and low frequency extremes. I consider "A weighting" fairly useless in a musical context, which is also why the HT calibration DVD developers, Dolby, DTS, and THX specify "C weighting".

A truly unweighted SPL measurement scale is the "U weighting scale" which is essentialy unweighted actual dB.

The standard adjustment from C-Weighting to U-Weighting is:
+6.2dB. at 20Hz.
+4.4dB. at 25Hz.
+3.0dB. at 31.5Hz.
+2.0dB. at 40Hz.
+1.3dB. at 50Hz.
+0.8dB. at 63Hz.
+0.5dB. at 80Hz.
+0.3dB. at 100Hz.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">“Room acoustics” can have the most profound impact on the quality of sound for a system. This is an issue IMO many people fail to address in high performance systems.
</td></tr></table>
Yes, I completely agree with you on that point 110%.</font>

gene · Aug 3, 2003

<font color='#000000'>Bruce;

I corrected my last message regarding A vs C weighing.  Sorry for the blunder.  I am trying to respond to messages in the middle of a loud Columbian party and my brain is a little fried right now  

So how much power do you think one really needs?  Using 170wpc receiver, I am able to easly acheive undistorted musical peaks above 105dB with bass peaks (subwoofer) in excess of 120dB.  To me that is loud.  I usually try to avoid long exposure to those SPL levels.  There is no doubt that if you are using low sensitive speakers like in your example, more power can be a good thing, providing the power is clean and not noisy.

Again, the most damaging frequencies to our ears are midrange in which dBA and dBC weighing are very closely matched.  Thus the dBA curves Yamahaluver posted are still valid and should be considered when listening to home theater as a safety guideline, especially for children.

It seems like you enjoy listening to music/movies at very high SPL levels thus your application may warrant a high power separates amp or more efficient speakers.  Just be sure your wall outlet has sufficient current drive to accommodate the extra power requirements.</font>

Khellandros66 · Aug 3, 2003

<font color='#000000'>Don't know about the rest o you guys, but 109dB doesn't quite sound like its right.

I have gone to races including Dirt (Circular track w/15-20 Late Models, Limited Lates, etc.) and Dragraces which are IHRA and NHRA.  I have listened to alcohol fuel dragsters go down the track without hearing protection. (have heard a Top Fueler w/o protection but only for a slip second. I have listened to them idle in pits and burnout though).

Now in considering what I have listened too over the past few years at these races they  produce easily over 105dBs even 120-140 (Top Fuel)  According to Ultimate ear, I should be deaf.

I think next time I go i will bring the Radioshack SPL meter and take both A and C weightings.

:0~

Bob</font>

Yamahaluver · Aug 3, 2003

<font color='#0000FF'>Ears and hearing are one of the most precious assets in a human body and I for one would never lead anyone to voluntarily make people go deaf. Telling people to go the separates route in this day and age of real high quality receivers with audiophile grade built in amplifier section is also another gross campaign of misinformation.

The great Nakamichi made amplifiers with 30W max rating and people lapped them up with great fervor. In terms of wattage, it is the quality that counts, not the quantity. Most tube amplifiers hardly touch the upper 40W range and yet there are die hard followers of these amps who couple them to high quality, high efficiency speakers. In my own personal observation, I have to set my main 260W amp at -10dB to match the rest of my system. My reference calibration point is 85dB which is on the higher side of the recommendation and yet, most who visit my house are telling me to turn it down. Last week I played The Fast and The Furious and most, especially the ladies found the SPL unbearable and threatened to walk out. At 85dB, my MX-1000 amplifier?s VU is showing 90W with rare bursts of 125W at peak. Now this in itself isn?t bad but considering the amp?s capabilities, it is a blatant waste.

Instead of spending big cash on separates, my wholehearted recommendation would be to seriously invest in high quality, proper, timbre matched speakers, a fact overlooked by most that end up with a mega bucks receiver and cheap mismatched poor speakers and then complain that the system sounds bad. Don?t go on the path of the separates route unless you are into serious 2-channel listening and then also, please don?t ignore the speakers, they are the most critical of all components.

Remember, loud isn?t enjoyable, clarity and proper imaging is way more fun in an HT where the wonder factor is the location of the sound effects.

In the end, all I can say is that ears are not worht loosing over anything.</font>

gene · Aug 3, 2003

<font color='#000000'>Yamahaluver;

I agree with everything you say here.  I have seen too many cases where people run out and buy mega receivers or even separates and pair them with mediocre speakers from booze or other "Cubed" systems and just scratch my head and ask "WHY?".  

I personally prefer listening at average levels of 80dB or so in a very quite acoustically tamed room as it brings out all of the subtle details in music that is often missed when played too loudly.  I read a really good article awhile back that talks about the ear and how it distorts and dynamically compresses sound if exposed to SPL levels in excess of 110dB.  If I get a chance I will look it up and post the link.

Here is a quick and funny story that happened to me today.  I was at my wifes families house where they had a huge birthday party.  They are columbian so every party they do is huge, lots of food, drinks, and LOUD LOUD music.  I can't handle as loud as they play it, especially since they have very bad equipment.  My 2 year old feels the same.  Everytime they would crank it, my 2 year old would tell me and them it is too loud, cover her ears, and go to the stereo and lower it.  I was so proud of her.  I taught her to cover her ears when sounds are too loud and now she does it.  Everyone at the party, except for us and my wife, though we were all crazy.  It just goes to show you, that only 3 people in that room had decent hearing to know better  

Personally, I would rather listen for life and lose my hearing with age, not abuse.</font>

Yamahaluver · Aug 3, 2003

gene : <font color='#000000'>Here is a quick and funny story that happened to me today. I was at my wifes families house where they had a huge birthday party. They are columbian so every party they do is huge, lots of food, drinks, and LOUD LOUD music. I can't handle as loud as they play it, especially since they have very bad equipment. My 2 year old feels the same. Everytime they would crank it, my 2 year old would tell me and them it is too loud, cover her ears, and go to the stereo and lower it. I was so proud of her. I taught her to cover her ears when sounds are too loud and now she does it. Everyone at the party, except for us and my wife, though we were all crazy. It just goes to show you, that only 3 people in that room had decent hearing to know better

Personally, I would rather listen for life and lose my hearing with age, not abuse.</font>

<font color='#0000FF'>I had Columbians for my neighbors in Staten Island, NY. Great people, good food, especially the charbroiled stuff which they enhanced nicely and plenty of Aguardiente to go which was an added incentive and necessary as their idea of a good system was MTX 900W amplifier coupled to massive DJ speakers and in this case, everyone?s hands were off limits to the volume control. If there was no Aguardiente, I would have gone deaf by now, mentally and physically. Pity since the music they played was really good.

If you think cubed is bad, out here booze is highly successful in its campaign of deception, they would take people to their acoustically calibrated rooms and have them listen to their AM systems. Then they would also lay the guilt/pride trip on people?s brain by telling them that Dr. Amar Gobind booze is half Indian which is true. That?s all you need to loosen and Indian?s wallet and they are willing to shell out more money for booze than for a speaker package from the likes of Yamaha, JBL etc. It is quite common to see people with DSP-AZ1 or Denon 5803 and couple them with booze AM. Now this is really sad as you can get B&W, Yamaha NSHX and NS-200/300 and all the range from JBL including their Platinum series speakers.

Congratulations on moulding your daughter into a future audiophille, it is hard and rare as the kids just like the adults like the WOW! factor of loudness. In the future, why not let her write an article when she is old enough to do so. It would be really nice to see the perspective from a person of her age and might teach us so-called adults a thing or two about audio.</font>

Guest · Aug 4, 2003

Khellandros66 : <font color='#000000'>Don't know about the rest o you guys, but 109dB doesn't quite sound like its right.

Now in considering what I have listened too over the past few years at these races they produce easily over 105dBs even 120-140 (Top Fuel) According to Ultimate ear, I should be deaf.

I think next time I go i will bring the Radioshack SPL meter and take both A and C weightings.

:0~

Bob</font>

<font color='#000000'>I would say yes, the exposure you talk about will damage your hearing after prolonged or repeated treatments.  You'll notice some guys in the pits are wearing ear protection.

Your losing little bits and pieces, you don't notice it right away, but is does add up over the long run, as medical studies indicate.

I remember a Brooks and Dunn concert that left my ears ringing for 6 hours.  I wanted to leave so badly (it hurt at 20 rows up from the floor) but my wife to be loved their music and wanted to stay.  I had to cover my ears, the guy would rip into a high note and I was in PAIN.  I'll bring ear plugs if I have to go to one again,  I'll still hear everything.

My father is almost deaf from driving farm equipment for the last 50 years.  Farm equipment does not create 105 db, more like a constant 85 to 95 over 18 hour days.
 
Don't take it for granted that your not hurting your ears,  how many times after partying all night that you turn on your car or home stereo and go "wow that's a little too loud" (even without the hang over).  

Using a hearing aid and getting people to "speak up" gets real old real quick, or so I've been told.

That sort of touched on something me and my wife have discussed off and on lately.  I think I might try to start a new thread on how guys and gals hear things.  My wife even agrees it's possible that men hear things differently.  Which would explain why males "do" the audio tech more than females.

I don't know, anyone seen a study on it?</font>

Yamahaluver · Aug 4, 2003

Guest : <font color='#000000'> I think I might try to start a new thread on how guys and gals hear things. My wife even agrees it's possible that men hear things differently. Which would explain why males "do" the audio tech more than females.

I don't know, anyone seen a study on it?</font>

<font color='#0000FF'>This is a very interesting aspect. I have raised this question in other forums with little or no response so I am going to ask it here.

Does people of different races hear differently? Is hearing race oriented? You always hear comments like the Japanese cant make speakers, British speakers sound bass less and tinny, US made speakers are boomy. All this leads me to believe that we do hear things differently, not only due to gender difference, but race has something to play here too. One of the reasons there are so many different speaker manufacturers and each country has its own perception of how sound should be.</font>

Yamaha and THX ultra2

gene

Audioholics Master Chief

Yamahaluver

Audioholic General

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

gene

Audioholics Master Chief

Yamahaluver

Audioholic General

gene

Audioholics Master Chief

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

gene

Audioholics Master Chief

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

gene

Audioholics Master Chief

Khellandros66

Banned

Yamahaluver

Audioholic General

gene

Audioholics Master Chief

Yamahaluver

Audioholic General

Guest

Guest

Yamahaluver

Audioholic General

Latest posts

Sitemap

Sitemap

Site Information

Site Information

HTML