Discussion in 'Arcam Forum' started by DolbyDan, Sep 12, 2008.
... is the presence of a tuner, otherwise it's an amplifier. Get your definitions right!
Each to their own I suppose
Audyssey can only do so much, depending on the room of course
Adding the M&K's & Onkyo, then running Audyssey produced an accurate soundstage that is just a more exciting and enjoyable experience than the B&W 700 series speakers & Arcam
I have a need for both solutions. Quite simple really. No need for the belligerent tone. The fact that it didn't make sense to you is of no real significance.
"what makes a receiver a receiver" has nothing whatsoever to do with Audyssey. At no point did i EVER state that i dislike the idea of a receiver. What a colossally stupid notion. I have posted in many threads that I used both an AV9 and 2 AVR350s. I also stated very clearly in the AVR600 thread that I would be looking to acquire this piece and the upcoming AVP, subject to audition.
Also the thread is about more than a receiver. It touches on Arcams overall thinking and it seems they share the same opinion.
Please move on.
Oh well. Yes, strictly spoken the presence of a tuner makes a receiver a receiver. But these days it's difficult to find integrated amplifiers without a tuner, anymore. Arcam doesn't offer such a device, AFAICS. Don't see any such devices at the Denon, Anthem or Onkyo product listing, either. Maybe I didn't search deep enough. But anyway, receivers have kind of replaced integrated amplifiers, don't you agree? For my understanding a "receiver" is a device which targets to combine all tasks related to audio into one device.
Anyway, this is nothing but a semantic issue...
I'm sorry, it was not my intention to sound that way.
My point is that there are people who prefer to have everything separate, while other people prefer to have an integrated solution. Agreed? For those people who prefer separates, a separate room correction solution makes sense. But IMHO for the majority of people looking for a "receiver" buying an additional room correction device is not an option. That's really all I wanted to say.
Ok, this is my last post on this topic.
No probs. Mine was also simply a personal preference. I do understand that others can and will differ.
My last on the topic too.
This is only my personal experience of the last week but I have gone from an AVR350/PMC combo to an Onkyo 606/B&W M1 solution - purely for aesthetic reasons.
Yes the Arcam sounded better on stereo but I can honestly say that for AV I do not miss it. I feel quite guilty for saying it as I did love my AVR350 but whether its' better positioning of speakers or not the entry level onkyo just sounds really good fun for AV so I do wonder how the bigger Onkyos would sound.
I was quite surprised by how good the sound steering is and the basic settings from the Audyssey bit are quite good.
Having said all that I bet the AVR600 is a cracking amp but now I can have a dedicated stereo and AV system in the same room that do not compromise for probably the same price as the AVR600.
Heretic heretic, mine eyes argggghhhhhh
Well the AVR500 sounds potentially interesting. Franky my feelings are that Audessy up to a certain level is a bit like the old tone controls. You use it to fix things that are wrong in the first place. I have to say I'm happy to not have to pay for it. Its not like it comes free is it, also if you really want it there are seperate options available hence providing more choice of implementation.
I also have to say if I wanted an Onkyo I would have bought one!!!! I wish people would stop going on and on and on and on about them and just accept that Arcam don't believe in onboard EQ (and franky I agree with them); Could we start an Audessy sub forum somewhere as this one will run and run much like the cable argument.........
I'm not extolling the virtues of Audyssey or Onkyo I'm just really quite surprised how £400 kit has moved on since my old Yamaha days
I don't think it's a question of whether you believe in the bells and whistles or not - to a degree you have to match your competitors and to charge more you need to offer something different. If the new AVR's sound awesome then that's half the battle won, these aren't mainstream products so I expect Arcam dotn want to sell huge volumes.
AFAIK Arcam hasn't stated anything about whether they do or don't believe in onboard room correction. Maybe they don't believe in it. Maybe they found Audyssey not good enough. Maybe the license cost was too high. Maybe they wanted to reserve room correction as an exclusive feature for their next prepros. Maybe they wanted to leave room for an improved AVR650 next year. Maybe [...]
When I spoke to them at the What HiFi sound and vision show I spent 20 minutes or so with one of their engineers discussing my room acoustics, problems and solutions to them.
He said that Arcam did NOT have plans to add any room correction to up & coming products and their marketing guy suggested that it wasn't something that went with their company philosophy. The engineer recommend using an RTA and the BFD for the sub channel only (sounds like room correction to me) and advised that he had tried the BFD in line with his main speakers but it was far too destructive in terms of SQ.
I wasn't expecting a room correction solution but was hoping they might have changed their minds...
Had an email back through from Arcam this morning re AVR500 rumours, and currently there are no plans for a lower specification unit.
We've heard nothing about it either, nor any plans to produce a BD player any time soon. It's just speculation by those who can't wait for any official info to be announced, imminent or not.
Arcam is a purist brand. It tends to focus on raw sound quality. If you want room correction, there are other options out there. However arcam opt for the cleanest signal path in their hifi/ht products. This means not having things such as audyssey which intefere with the signal path, and is not a needed feature in a device which is aimed towards the purists rather than those who want all the features.
An integrated surround receiver only requires an amplfier stage, basic digital processing and a radio tuner to be implemented. Even then, I am not sure a radio tuner is on all receivers.
Room correction is a gimmick which IMO when implemented in receivers does not add to sound quality at all.
However conversely rooms can impact upon sound quality too.
Room EQ's don't affect sound quality, they only affect how your room interacts with your system.
Which is the same thing. Rooms always impact sound unless you listen in an open field. Question is if the cure is worse than the disease and the jury is out on current EQ solutions. However, this is quite an improvement over what was available just a few years ago, especially when cost is factored in.
Room EQ has nothing to do with sound quality, only the way you perceive sound.
Actually, you are all right, and all wrong. Equalization (as implemented by companies such as Audyssey) is about attenuating and increasing the frequency envelope of a sound in order to counteract frequency attenuation and resonances imposed by the user's equipment (typically speakers) and room, with a stress on specific listening positions.
It is not a perceptual encoding. As far as sound quality is concerned, it deliberately falsifies the signal in the opposite direction to that imposed "further along the chain". This "correction" is also obvioiusly imperfect since peaks are typically caused be room resonances (reflections), and sound takes 3ms to travel 1m.
That said, I do feel that room equalization is a sad omission. It will cost (all this talk about Onkyo doing it for beer money is irrelevant).
Mark has already elaborated, but I was going to explain it like this:
The quality of the signal comes from the source, and is passed through the system and delivered to you through your speakers. Any degradation at that point is down to electronics. You can't improve that signal. What happens to it from the speaker to your ear is a different matter, and is affected by everything around you. An EQ changes the signal, it doesn't improve it.
Probably not the best place to post, but seeing as this is fast becoming an Audyssey thread can anyone offer a basic explanation of how EQ's such as the Audyssey actually work?
I understand how standing waves at certain frequencies dependant on the room dimensions cause problems in the first place and that the positioning of the speakers effects this. But don't understand what can be done to the source signal to change the response and hence what we hear. Is it something to do with Phase?
I already answered this question in my previous post:
It has nothing to do with phase. Phase correction is about correcting for speaker alignment issues. Normally phase is addressed in the manufacturer of the speaker, but the problem rears it head when using separate subs. Perfect phase is of course impossible using multiple speaker drivers, since the distance between the speaker and your ears also depends on the relative position of your head. One attempt at resolution is to place the tweeter in the woofer (e.g. KEF's UniQ drives), perfection is achieved only by full range (and hence non-dynamic) drives (e.g. Quad ESLs).
I draw your attention to the word "basic" in my post.
I thought phase had an effect. For instance altering the phase of the Sub's output in my setup adds to or subtracts from the level depending on the amount of phase shift applied as it reacts with the other speakers outputs within the room. But if it's not accomplished by altering phase in any way, then it's not, just a thought really.
The sub's phase control is addressed by my final paragraph; the issue here is that your sub is not phase-aligned to the main speaker(s). Altering the phase does not alter the sub's frequencies in any form. Rather it allows your sub's phase to be set to your speaker's phase, which the crossover has altered. Here's a longer explanation of phase with pictures.
Equalization is about frequencies, not phase. Which words did you not understand in my response (you said you'd understood "how standing waves at certain frequencies dependent on the room dimensions cause problems in the first place") and not find suitably explained in a dictionary?
Again, equalization is about altering the frequencies of the sounds in the opposite direction of the peaks and troughs so that the sum of the two falsifications yields a flat response (for any single tone) where feasible. Although standing waves that reinforce can be addressed by a suitable reduction, standing waves leading to cancellation clearlycannot be eliminated by any amount of boost, so equalization is necessarily imperfect. Morever equalization is only really "valid" in the context of a continuous tone as room reflections cause the interference of the bounced signal to be delayed by 3ms per metre (speed of sound). Music rarely consists of a continuous tone, acoustic instruments never do.
Room equalization can yield improvements, but the improvements are imperfect by nature. Room treatement - resolving the problem, rather than trying to compensate for it - yields significantly better results.
Mark I understand Phase. I know it doesn't alter the frequencies. It alters the phase, hence the term phase. Also adjusting phase does more than just counteract the effect of any crossover as firstly, I don't apply the crossover on my Sub I prefer to let the processor do it. I'm assuming this happens in the digital domain before the sound is applied to the different channels and secondly, I get a different response dependant on where in the room it is. This is irrelevant anyway. I simply didn't understand your description and hoped you or someone else may offer a more basic explantion is all.
I think this part mislead me a little into thinking in terms of the phase of the signal,
"it deliberately falsifies the signal in the opposite direction to that imposed "further along the chain"
I also wasn't sure what you were refering to when you wrote,
"Equalization (as implemented by companies such as Audyssey) is about attenuating and increasing the frequency envelope of a sound"
Looking up the terms "frequency" and indeed "envelope" in the dictionary wouldn't have helped either I feel?
I am quite new to the whole scene as you may by now be able to tell. I was just trying to ask a question without directing it at you. It's not that I'm saying there is anything wrong with the way you described it, I just didn't understand the description.
So are you saying that EQ alters the amplitude of the signal at the problem frequencies so that the nodes are supressed?
I understand that boosting the signal can't cure antinodes. I thought the only way to counteract these problems was placement of drivers i.e. putting the driver in an antinode?
"Room treatement - resolving the problem, rather than trying to compensate for it - yields significantly better results"
This is the way I understood it to be and hence wondered how exactly EQ could cure the problem.
Hi, I will try to give another way of describing what EQ does.
The effect of room resonance is to cause peaks and dips in the frequency response of the room if fed with a flat (white) noise source.
The EQ system measures these peaks and dips and trys to improve on them. More processing is done by some systems to try to determine which peaks and dips are room problems and which are speaker response problems. As these need to be treated differently.
To try to improve the sound it changes the frequency response using digital filters. Most systems don't try to fill dips in the response as if you have a cancellation you could end up putting alot of extra power in and still not get any percived improvement in the sound. So normally EQ systems just reduce the peaks by changing the frequency response so less energy is present at the peak. This can help to reduce boom in the room and even out the bass response. Normally these systems only work in the bass region as at higher frequencies it is very difficult to work out what the nodes are and they change alot as you move your head.
The disadvantage of this is that you have to introduce digital filters in the signal path. This will introduce some amount of mathematical rounding error which is determined by the number of bits used and how well the digital filter functions are dithered. So there is a price to be paid for trying to improve the bass response and if not done well it can cause a loss of clarity through the mid and treble.
assuming you have a decent arcam BD player, prepro (with eq) and a 7 ch arcam power amp
the prepro (with eq chip) would take take analogue signal from bd player and mangle it into submission.
id rather make my room physically better acoustically than be lazy and let a DSP decide how your room should should sound
We really do have a comprehension problem, don't we? The word "crossover" was used to mean the crossover in your speaker, not the crossover frequency between the speaker and the sub, which is clearly irrelevant to phase - the phase difference is between the speaker and the sub. Of course, with line level subs (now very common in A/V), phase shifts can also be caused by the amp, as not all amps ensure phase consistency.
Presumably "frequency envelope" was another source of confusion. Merriam Webster explains envelope in this context as "a curve tangent to each of a family of curves". Perhaps that doesn't help you either, although there's nothing audio about your high school maths . Anyway...
Although we keep talking about equalization in terms of room resonances, as I tried to say earlier, equalization is about manipulating the signal to compensage for other sources of degradation further down the reproduction chain. Absorption by furnishings also causes dips that boosting may alleviate. Also most speakers do not have a ruler flat frequency response. Finally, human hearing is also an issue - you'll notice this most after you've had a cold or other ear-nose-throat infection - which is why the automatic EQ setup needs subsequent tweaking. Andy Dutton seems to imply that equalization is about bass frequencies; this is not the case, although some subs do have builtin bass equalization (e.g. Velodyne DD series) as room resonances affect the bass most.
Hi, have a listen to this from the founder of Audyssey and inventor of THX
Why not post such a question in the Room Acoustics forum.
Separate names with a comma.