|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Jan 19, 2015 18:54:48 GMT -5
So I just happened to browse Emotiva's site and I'm not thrilled to see that the $699 unit I purchased 6 months ago is now $449. Anybody have clues as to why this happened? It doesn't make me want to buy from them again if they are going to kill the resale of products for me like this.
In retrospect - i'm glad it worked out like it did because had I kept those JBL speakers I would not have bought the Sonus faber speakers I have now and i'm so glad I do. I LOVE the audio system I have now so whatever pain I went thru to get to this point was all worth it.  |
|
|
|
Post by broncsrule21 on Jan 19, 2015 19:17:57 GMT -5
It depends on your definition of obsolete I guess....I wouldn't get the same enjoyment out of a bluray watching it in non HD video and sound. I'm not saying your AVR doesn't function, but it doesn't work for most people. You brought up Netfix, obviously sound and picture quality are not you first priorities when it comes,to movies. Like I said speakers are different.
|
|
|
|
Post by rossonero3 on Jan 20, 2015 11:05:11 GMT -5
AVRs, Processors, Receivers, etc are obsolete almost immediately. It is the way it works with electronics.
The makers and sellers of consumer electronics are working hard to get us to buy more of / another one of what we already have. How they do that is by constantly re-marketing the same old stuff over and over in different ways. I would argue that this Fusion 8100 has very little in the way of technology that my unit from 20 years ago has and what it does have that is different makes little to no improvement in the sound. If sound quality is your main concern being able to stream low-quality music files from your toothbrush has very little appeal.
I wonder: if makers of AVRs starting painting them a different color every year and saying this color - say this year it's blue - BLUE is better you gotta have blue - would everyone run out and buy a new blue AVR and consider last year's green units to be "obsolete" now? Or would you stand up and say "What makes BLUE better?" I ask that question - what makes 26 speakers "better" when movies and TV shows are all still in 5.1? Is a 3.2 MHz computer "obsolete" just because they release a 3.3 MHz computer? I say not. (I counted 26 signal channels in the Dolby Atmos receiver manual) even though there is NOT ONE movie available that takes advantage of this technology is somehow obsolete. Obsolete is the horse and buggy. The 8-track is obsolete (even though you could still use it you just can't buy new music for it).
My example is preposterous but so is the idea that this Fusion 8100 is obsolete just because it doesn't have "Atmos" or "Audyssey Platinum" or titanium or whatever color they came up with this year. A stereo system from the 1950s is not obsolete. It still works. I can still go buy music on CD and play it on that old system.
Well Said. I'm assuming then you run all separate connections for audio & video? i.e. HDMI to TV from Blu Ray, cable box etc, and optical/coax or analog to AVR |
|
|
|
Post by MusicHead on Jan 20, 2015 11:24:22 GMT -5
The way I see it, the user decides what is obsolete and what is not. Mainstream manufacturers got into a regular release cycle for their products. Take for example Denon and Marantz (but I am sure the same applies to other), every year they release a new generation of their AVRs. However, they do not force anyone of those who bought one the previous year to buy the latest model :-) At the same time, for those getting into the hobby and wanting to start, they have the option to buy the latest and greatest or to buy last year model at a lower price. Either way the consumer wins, whether you want to be on the (b)leading edge or save some money buying into last year technology, that more likely than not is still very much usable.
I for one tend to have long buying cycles. Before purchasing the 8100, I had gotten my previous AVR, a NAD T752, about 10 years ago. It died on me, so I had no choice but get another one, however I would have probably changed it anyway, mainly to get HDMI capability. Sound-wise I really can't say the 8100 sounds better because it is newer. For sure it sounds at least as good, it is more compact while delivering virtually the same power, it comes with HDMI and the latest CODECs for multi-channel audio. It was entirely up to me to decide when the T752 had become obsolete, depending on my needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by prestonrich on Jan 24, 2015 17:21:30 GMT -5
I just bought my 8100 directly from Emotiva, and it came in yesterday.
|
|
|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Jan 24, 2015 18:45:22 GMT -5
It depends on your definition of obsolete I guess....I wouldn't get the same enjoyment out of a bluray watching it in non HD video and sound. I'm not saying your AVR doesn't function, but it doesn't work for most people. You brought up Netfix, obviously sound and picture quality are not you first priorities when it comes,to movies. Like I said speakers are different.
If what you mean is that you could not enjoy movies in 3.1 - i'm assuming from your setup you're at 5.1 ? - so those 2 speakers off to the side or behind you - without those 2 extra speakers you could not enjoy it? In that case yes you would not like my AVR. But I do not see how not having those 2 speakers you can say that I do not care about sound and picture quality. How do you make that conclusion? I must be missing something. I do not understand your point. |
|
|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Jan 24, 2015 22:59:21 GMT -5
The way I see it, the user decides what is obsolete and what is not. |
|
|
|
Post by broncsrule21 on Jan 25, 2015 1:14:09 GMT -5
It depends on your definition of obsolete I guess....I wouldn't get the same enjoyment out of a bluray watching it in non HD video and sound. I'm not saying your AVR doesn't function, but it doesn't work for most people. You brought up Netfix, obviously sound and picture quality are not you first priorities when it comes,to movies. Like I said speakers are different.
If what you mean is that you could not enjoy movies in 3.1 - i'm assuming from your setup you're at 5.1 ? - so those 2 speakers off to the side or behind you - without those 2 extra speakers you could not enjoy it? In that case yes you would not like my AVR. But I do not see how not having those 2 speakers you can say that I do not care about sound and picture quality. How do you make that conclusion? I must be missing something. I do not understand your point.My bad, when you said Netflix, I assumed you were talking about streaming, not the physical media. I never said you don't or can't enjoy your movies. My point was....that TrueHD and DTS-Master codecs that are played through newer AVRs isn't some kind of fad or gimmick, but is a higher SQ than your older AVR can produce. That is my point. Hope that helps |
|
|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Jan 30, 2015 19:52:56 GMT -5
I still don't understand your point. I think what you're trying to say is that you like having more speakers than what I have and you're calling that higher sound quality - is that an accurate statement? If I take a TrueHD disc and play it in my universal-disc player how is that different from you playing it in your player? The only difference I can find is that you have 2 extra speakers that I do not have. You're equating 2 extra speakers to higher sound quality. IMO "sound quality" is so much more than the number of speakers.
Actually, if I didn't have a sub or a center it would not sound as good to me as it does with them - even with good speakers. I need the center. So if you feel the absence of surround speakers is something you cannot tolerate ok I get it. Is that your point?
My universal disc player and my TiVo both downmix everything to Surround Sound - the old codec my receiver understands. I've found that for a 3.1 setup it sounds exactly like Dolby Digital - I cannot tell the difference. For old TV shows with stereo soundtracks my system uses the exact same algorithm that new AVRs call Pro Logic II Movie to manufacture a center. It sounds the same to me as what the new AVRs are producing. And I feel like my old receiver has a higher quality amp inside of it than what receivers today are packing. The Emo was the first receiver i've ran across so far that comes close to its sound quality. I'll post my review of the Fusion 8100 in another thread soon.
I've listened to people saying to me for years that the new AVRs can produce a better sound quality than what I have. I bought the new AVRs and I did NOT get a better sound quality from them. That's the reason I still have my old receiver. My point: the quality of the equipment has more to do with the sound quality of the system than the number of speakers making noise.
|
|
|
|
Post by broncsrule21 on Jan 30, 2015 20:10:58 GMT -5
The new codecs played via HDMI are lossless. That is what you are missing regardless of how many speakers you use. Many people involved in this hobby can hear a difference. We will probably never get each other's point...so be it.
|
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Jan 30, 2015 20:16:24 GMT -5
B-613 Command,
The point has nothing to do with the amount of speakers. When you play a blue ray through your old receiver you are using Dolby digital or DTS. The newer codecs (Dolby TrueHD and dTS:HD) have a higher fidelity capability built into them. These can only be transmitted over HDMI. Even though you can select TrueHD or DTS:HD on your player they are automatically down sampled to standard DTS and Dolby Digital. That is the gist of the argument. Whether or not you need that extra bandwidth or whether or not you would appreciate that improvement are up to you.
But specification wise a receiver that can decode True HD or DTS:HD should be sounding or at least has the technical advantage in the fight, when it comes to the raw codecs that are being processed. As far as the amp sections, this obviously alters the overall sound.
Good luck in your decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Jan 30, 2015 21:33:01 GMT -5
I just don't get the importance of DTS:X or Atmos either one. Maybe i'm too old to grasp this but - ok help me out here. First they said you need 5 speakers 2 isn't enough. ok. then it was 7. then 9. then 11. now we're up to what 26? maybe i'm too practical - maybe this is a generational thing but my reaction is to ask the audio industry - why do you need 26 speakers to give me an enjoyable experience? that's not a practical solution. in fact 5 speakers is not even practical for some people.
Okay let's just say the audio industry is just trying to sell products so they keep adding speakers as long as people keep buying them and if you want 26 speakers you got it. maybe that's cool to you maybe you like that ok I can respect that. but I do not see where the sources are keeping up with the technology.
in 1985 the "CD Player" came out - at least that's when I bought one and my friends started having them they may have been available far sooner but 1985 to me was the intro of the CD player. it was better than analog cassette. not better than vinyl but vinyl is not practical for your car or a headset. the CD player replaced the cassette tape. eventually music stores carried nothing but CD and cassette was no longer available. new music was on CD starting in 1985.
I do not see that type of thing happening with all this Dolby DTS stuff. My cable TV service broadcasts everything in Dolby Digital 5.1 or 2.0. Almost every movie i've ever rented was Dolby Digital. I think i've rented maybe 4 movies in my entire life that were in DTS. It's not like all the new movies and TV shows will be in Atmos or DTS:X. You can go buy the 26 speakers but there is no material that will give you 26 channels of sound. So is it really "better"? That's the point i'm trying to make. All this TrueHD stuff just might be considered "better" someday if you could actually get your money's worth out of the investment. Even if you can name 3 or 4 movies that are in TrueHD or whatever i'll bet you anything that I can still get it on NetFlix in Dolby Digital.
Another point i'm making here is that if you decide enough is enough and you decide to stay with say 5.1 then what good is all these new codecs? Why do you care if there's 50,000 discrete channels of sound on the disc if you only have a 5.1 setup? I've decided to stick with 3.1 so I personally do not care about 9 or 26 channels of sound it's all going to be downmixed into my fronts. I'm not missing any sound its just not coming from behind me. that's it I do not have sound behind me just in front and beside me.
Hey - I live in the Washington DC area - I do not want to hear gunfire or explosions coming from behind me if I do i'm hitting the ground and grabbing my steel.
Let's be practical for a minute. Ina movie soundtrack you have 2 types of sound: the voices and the critical sounds - things you must hear in order to understand the movie - and noise - all the background sounds including the earth-shattering kaboom - the photon torpedo - the dog barking the phone ringing from the side - it's cool but it's background noise and although it may be important it's not as crucial as the voices. Right? So technically the center channel is for the most part the voices - the crucial sounds - and all the rest of the speakers are the noise - the more speakers you have the more you spread out the noise. if you're an old man like me - or if you live in a condo/apartment etc - you need to keep the voices up and the noise down. In the old stereo systems i'd have to turn the volume up so I could hear what they're saying and back down so the photon torpedo is not so loud. a center channel speaker solves that problem. since I got a center channel speaker I do not have to turn it up and down. it's like the center is the voices volume and the fronts are my noise volume. all the surrounds - all those extra speakers are just more noise - meaning you have to turn the volume up that much higher to hear what they're saying - meaning you have a hard time hearing what they're saying over all the noise. that's why I do not use surrounds - too much noise - but that's just me.
I see that with DTS:X they FINALLY added some control over the voices. If they had asked me I could've told them 20 years ago they needed to add that. It's nice they finally added something actually useful. I imagine with all the noise you'll get from 20 or 30 or 50 or however many speakers they think they can get you to go out and buy you'll need something so you can hear what they're saying just in case you actually want to hear that part of the soundtrack. THAT - to me - is better. Letting me hear what I want to hear is better. More noise is not. I can get noise without buying 50 speakers I live in DC I am surrounded by noise that you cannot reproduce with any number of speakers. I'm trying to get away from noise not create more of it.
Most people would be better off to buy 2 really good speakers than a room full of cheap ones anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Jan 30, 2015 21:41:03 GMT -5
B-613 Command, The point has nothing to do with the amount of speakers. When you play a blue ray through your old receiver you are using Dolby digital or DTS. The newer codecs (Dolby TrueHD and dTS:HD) have a higher fidelity capability built into them. These can only be transmitted over HDMI. Even though you can select TrueHD or DTS:HD on your player they are automatically down sampled to standard DTS and Dolby Digital. That is the gist of the argument. Whether or not you need that extra bandwidth or whether or not you would appreciate that improvement are up to you. But specification wise a receiver that can decode True HD or DTS:HD should be sounding or at least has the technical advantage in the fight, when it comes to the raw codecs that are being processed. As far as the amp sections, this obviously alters the overall sound. Good luck in your decision.
The newer codecs have the capability of producing a better sound. I agree with you on that. |
|
|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Jan 31, 2015 0:16:42 GMT -5
The new codecs played via HDMI are lossless. That is what you are missing regardless of how many speakers you use. Many people involved in this hobby can hear a difference. We will probably never get each other's point...so be it.
So if I offered to give you a million dollar system with the best tube mono-block amplifiers made (technology common in the 1960s) and the top turntable (technology from the 1950s) with Wilson or Magico speakers - your pick - but it does not have TrueHD - you would not take it ? because you care about sound quality? That's what you're saying?
|
|
|
|
Post by broncsrule21 on Jan 31, 2015 0:49:29 GMT -5
Wow. Just Wow. You are not going to get my point. Since you are special and only hear what is in front of you….3.1 will do. Now respond with a short story and tell me what my point is...
|
|
|
|
Post by teaman on Jan 31, 2015 2:29:54 GMT -5
B-613 Command, you don't need to get yourself rattled. I think the point of the discussion was only that you need HDMI to properly transfer the lossless sound from the Bluray original recordings. I have a couple of older Panasonic SA-HE200 AVR's that sound really good. They are ten years old or so, and they still sound capable when up against most budget receivers of today. Audio is being passed via toslink...however due to lack of HDMI these receivers are not passing the soundtrack to its full capability. Simply a restriction it encounters in the processing dept. They are set up in my two daughter's rooms and they fill the rooms with good clean sound. I am sure your AVR does this as well. Unfortunately because technology has evolved only HDMI passes all of the correct information to be relayed to the speakers via your Bluray source material.
It does not matter if you have three, five, seven or twenty six speakers... heck even a soundbar can bring plenty of A/V enjoyment. I don't think anyone is trying to discourage you from enjoying your current set up. They are simply stating the limitations of the older technology. I know first hand. Sort of like True HD originally recorded into a 7.1 mix, being played through five speakers. Still enjoyable, just lacking a bit of effect as was originally intended. No harm no foul!
|
|
|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Feb 25, 2015 0:46:28 GMT -5
Sorry for sounding like i'm taking my frustrations out on you. I've been hearing this point over and over and over - about how the modern equipment with HDMI digital connections and room correction etc. are SO MUCH better. But I have purchased or borrowed a total of 5 different receivers with digital connections - with Audyssey and other "Room Correction" systems like it - with all the modern "improvements" included - and they do not sound as good as my old analog receiver.
Not even close.
So I get annoyed hearing people say that I need to buy the new products because they are "better." My ears have told me that this is not true. The only people who believe this are the younger folks who just simply do not know better. You mention equipment from 10 years ago. Have you heard equipment from 30 years ago? 20? It was around the late 1990s that the quality of the amps in receivers dropped off a cliff.
The explanation is this: the goal of equipment makers is not to maximize the sound quality of the product (at this price point) but rather to maximize the profitability of the product. So every time an improvement comes along - like digital connections - they seized upon this as an opportunity to cut costs somewhere else - mostly in the amplifier section. When you know your customers are all going to buy a powered sub you know you can cut back on the current capability of the amp and get away with it.
Try to understand this: a bug light / bug zapper, a taser and an electric chair all work from the same principles - they're effectively the same thing - they use transformers to increase voltage and store some electrical charge in a capacitor bank which they then discharge upon demand. Sound familiar (think amp)? Anyway - all 3 of those devices produce a charge of between 500 and 2000 volts. So all 3 of them - if they were home-theater receivers - would claim to have the same power ratings even though it should be obvious they are quite very different. One will burn your finger, another will knock you down and the last one will kill you. What's the difference? Current. The amount of total current each can deliver. Same voltage. More and more current.
Take a 190lb. Krell monoblock. 300W into 8ohms. 600W into 4ohms. 1200W into 2ohms. you get my point. This is the electric chair of amplifiers. Take the Emotiva XPA-5 - this is the taser of amplifiers. Take ANY home-theater receiver made since 1998 - these are bug zappers. They do not produce adequate current to deliver good strong bass. The difference is that the lower-current amps in HT receivers cannot move your woofers in and out the full distance required to produce strong bass. But you know your customers will all go and buy a powered sub also - so let the sub handle all the bass that requires current - everything below about 80Hz - and let us cut costs and boost profits on the amps.
The makers of affordable loudspeakers - those made for use on HT receivers (think Klipsch Reference) - use oversized magnets, deep boxes and tuned ports to magnify the bass. In the end you have speakers with over-blown bass connected to low-current bug-zappers that somehow with alot of help from a sub creates some resemblance of bass. It's not very accurate but it's loud enough. The younger generation has never heard anything else.
My Sonus faber loudspeakers do not participate in the overblown bass game. You cannot get a good sound out of those speakers with any HT receiver made since 1998. Go buy a pair of Diamond 804 or Paradigm Signature, Avalon, Wilson Watt/Puppy - any top-end loudspeaker and i'll bet you any amount of money you want to donate that you cannot get good strong bass out of it with any HT receiver made today. I'll bet money you'll have to buy Emotiva XPA-series amps or better to even begin to get your money's worth out of your speaker purchase. I'm not trying to brag about my speakers. I'm trying to get you to understand that matching speakers and amps is an important part of building a good audio system. My speakers do not match well with HT receivers. Yes they have "HDMI connections." But that's not enough to make up for the crappy amplifier inside of them. I need an amp with higher current delivery. The old receivers had that. My old receiver from 1995 is a taser. It sounds more like the XPA-5 than it does any receiver made today at any price.
And for the record - the highest-quality audio systems i've ever heard in my life - the ones that you really really want to own - they do have HDMI connections - but it's not the HDMI connections that makes them high-end. It's a very long list of things.
Do HDMI / digital connections offer an improvement in sound quality? yes. it's also true that CD-quality digital music is higher in quality than the AAC (ffmpeg) files you get from iTunes. But that does not mean you cannot get a fabulous sound with good old-fashioned analog. i've been blown away by audio systems with turntables using stereo analog connections to purely analog equipment. It's all analog in the end.
Consider the fact that modern equipment - being modularized as it is - with the Dolby product over here and the DTS product over here (products the maker of the AVR cannot modify in any way) and the Audyssey product over here - and all these gadgets converting the audio to digital, manipulating it and then converting it back to analog to pass it onto the next processing stage that repeats that process. Consider all the manipulation of sound going on inside modern equipment. Now think about what you can gain in sound quality by NOT converting it again and again and again. That's old-school analog. Which is STILL the best to this day.
I understand your point. Do you understand mine?
|
|
|
|
Post by teaman on Feb 25, 2015 2:46:58 GMT -5
B-613, I do understand your point but I still only partially agree with you.
I have several 73 lb Sherbourn SR-120 AV receiver that I would gladly put up against any modern receiver, and a lot of amps for that matter. As far as power, clarity and quality go I have found few that rival this beast. So you know, I am no yougster. I am in my mid forties and have been a die hard audio guy since the early eighties. My old school Infinity SM 150's and 152's pump through a one inch tweeter, two four and a half inch mids and a fifteen inch woofer. They are 102db sensitive and they rock the house with very little power. My Emotiva XPA-2's provide them with ample power and I never regret saving the extra $5000 it would have taken me to pick up the latest rendition of the Bryston 4B or what have you.
I will be the first to admit the last twenty years of receiver craftsmanship has been lacking. Most manufacturers offer lots of gimmicky surround modes and venue choices, etc yet the actual quality of the music being passed is not worthy of the high price tags. I had a $1500 Yamaha receiver that failed to impress me even when new and I find that most of these AV receivers today fall into the same category. Over rated and under performing. There are however the exceptions to the rule. When you find one, you will know it.
As far as analog goes, my buddy had a Technics SA-1000 powerhouse of a receiver that impressed me so much when I was a teen that I never strayed from the brand for twenty years. I even remained loyal to Panasonic once it dropped the Technics line simply because of the impression left from that one quality piece. Even today when you see that receiver come up used on Ebay or wherever they fetch top dollar. At 330 wpc of real power, it has very few rivals. By that standard, I don't come across many modern receivers that hold a candle to that one. It was built like a tank and sounded great for years to come.
Sometimes a pairing of a receiver or amp does not blend well with a certain type of speaker, but works well with others. It takes patience to pair the two elements and find the bliss you seek. I have heard The latest Klipsch reference line and loved the way they sounded in both multi channnel and stereo. Once again, the material and the source have a lot to do with it. As long as you are enjoying what you have, that is all that matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by B-613 Command on Feb 25, 2015 9:45:56 GMT -5
We're saying the same thing. I do not disagree with anything you said. The only thing that rattled me was the point that I do not care about sound quality because I do not use HDMI to connect my devices. I bought Sonus faber loudspeakers because I do not care about sound quality? Seriously? And I apologize for sounding like i'm preaching. It's just that most of the time I get into a discussion of this nature it's with someone college age or younger whom has never heard anything but multi-channel systems - it's a different expectation - a different sound - let's just say my definition of good audio differs from the younger generation. Nobody is wrong - that definition is always subjective it's just that we seem to always be talking apples and oranges.
Trying to make a point: that you can achieve great sound without HDMI connections or Room Correction systems - and I know you can because i'm listening to it everyday - I missed a few points you were making.
I could improve the sound I have now if I were to buy gear that takes advantage of every advancement in sound science available to me. True. But unless you've spent a million bucks on your audio system then everyone is guilty of that. There will always be something out there that you and I could buy that would make your audio sound better. If I choose to not spend the money on every new advancement that comes out that does not mean that I do not care about sound quality. Can we agree on that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hair Nick on Feb 25, 2015 9:53:48 GMT -5
Sound is subjective. End of argument. Back to the topic please.
|
|
