|
|
Post by rtg97229 on Sept 17, 2015 14:37:22 GMT -5
I think you missed my point about LFE. I know what it is for any why. My question was why some people where so persistent in having only one LFE or one split LFE. For making the setup simple for the end user I think having more than one LFE with each applying their their own factors and delays is better than having to split the same LFE chan. Also notice that I said ideally all channels would be assignable but I don't know of a way to make that user friendly. I don't want to sound pedantic, but there is only LFE. You mean multiple subs. Ok fair enough but I think everyone knows what was intended. |
|
|
|
Post by jdskycaster on Sept 17, 2015 14:41:25 GMT -5
I wouldn't completely disregard all $299 AVR's as crappy sounding. My dad (75) has a very modest setup and fixed income. His AVR (10 year old $399 Pioneer) died last week. I picked up a refurbished Yamaha AVR from a popular online outlet for $299 and was absolutely impressed with the sound quality for such little money. Is it "audiophile" caliber? Of course not, for that it has to cost at least $20K to even be taken seriously but I left the house wondering just how much more money he would have had to spend in order to achieve a noticeable improvement in sound quality.
JD
|
|
|
|
Post by rtg97229 on Sept 17, 2015 14:51:24 GMT -5
jdskycaster, is that fully anechoic chamber in your picture for mobile device / wireless testing? I have a similar looking semi anechoic chamber for testing to FCC and CISPR standards.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs 
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Sept 17, 2015 15:44:52 GMT -5
I wouldn't completely disregard all $299 AVR's as crappy sounding. My dad (75) has a very modest setup and fixed income. His AVR (10 year old $399 Pioneer) died last week. I picked up a refurbished Yamaha AVR from a popular online outlet for $299 and was absolutely impressed with the sound quality for such little money. Is it "audiophile" caliber? Of course not, for that it has to cost at least $20K to even be taken seriously but I left the house wondering just how much more money he would have had to spend in order to achieve a noticeable improvement in sound quality. JD Very true. In audio, electronics count for maybe 10% of the sonic result. Good recording, decent speakers and the room are paramount. |
|
|
|
Post by rtg97229 on Sept 17, 2015 16:04:13 GMT -5
I wouldn't completely disregard all $299 AVR's as crappy sounding. My dad (75) has a very modest setup and fixed income. His AVR (10 year old $399 Pioneer) died last week. I picked up a refurbished Yamaha AVR from a popular online outlet for $299 and was absolutely impressed with the sound quality for such little money. Is it "audiophile" caliber? Of course not, for that it has to cost at least $20K to even be taken seriously but I left the house wondering just how much more money he would have had to spend in order to achieve a noticeable improvement in sound quality. JD Very true. In audio, electronics count for maybe 10% of the sonic result. Good recording, decent speakers and the room are paramount. Yeah but for most people the electronics are 90% of their spending.  |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 17, 2015 16:39:55 GMT -5
Without going into details - the main "issue" is simply that Atmos is designed to allow a huge amount of flexibility in terms of rendering surround sound information correctly with a wide variety of playback configurations - including large numbers of speakers at both standard and non-standard locations. And, specifically, it adds height information into that equation. However, for someone who has only 5.1 channels, with the speakers in the standard locations, and no height speakers, it simply doesn't add anything new. (Atmos can do a great job of positioning each sound object in the correct location; but, with a 5.1 system, and standard speaker locations, you can get the same result with a standard 5.1 channel mix.) None of the benefits of Atmos (which are real and legitimate) really makes any difference to someone with a simple 5.1 channel speaker setup. The second group is the sort of people who buy whatever AVR is on sale for $299 at Best Buy.... (And, for those, next year's $299 special will have Atmos and DTS-X, and it'll sound just as crappy as this year's $299 special.) The $299 AVR is too expensive, they are out of date in a year. People in that market would do better to get a UMC-200 and keep if for the next 4 to 5 years. Anyway I think the reason people are happy about DTS-X is that you don't need to have more than 5.1, it is scalable to your setup. Dolby said the same thing about Atmos but people don't seem to believe them. |
|
|
|
Post by jdskycaster on Sept 17, 2015 16:41:52 GMT -5
And to be clear I am not taking a shot at anyone that likes to spend big dollars on gear. I used to be one of those as good sound is simply a hobby for many, including myself, so whatever anyone has to spend and wants to spend is totally cool. It has just been awhile since I setup a modest AVR and was amazed at how good his basic 5.1 system sounded.
I have yet to head down the multi-multi channel path and am still 5.2 myself. The impact I get from my system still impresses and it will take something that really knocks my socks off to want to start tearing into the walls of my dedicated HT.
JD
|
|
|
|
Post by skippy1977 on Sept 17, 2015 18:27:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't completely disregard all $299 AVR's as crappy sounding. My dad (75) has a very modest setup and fixed income. His AVR (10 year old $399 Pioneer) died last week. I picked up a refurbished Yamaha AVR from a popular online outlet for $299 and was absolutely impressed with the sound quality for such little money. Is it "audiophile" caliber? Of course not, for that it has to cost at least $20K to even be taken seriously but I left the house wondering just how much more money he would have had to spend in order to achieve a noticeable improvement in sound quality. JD Very true. In audio, electronics count for maybe 10% of the sonic result. Good recording, decent speakers and the room are paramount.I agree 100%. |
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Sept 18, 2015 5:04:30 GMT -5
Typed separately but still formatted together  Wont quote a quote again ;simple is best  edit ; did it again |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 18, 2015 7:07:24 GMT -5
Very true. In audio, electronics count for maybe 10% of the sonic result. Good recording, decent speakers and the room are paramount.I agree 100%. Garbage in , garbage out. Being an audiophile has nothing to do with spending gobs of money, although one certainly can do that. It has more to do with keeping up to date with new developments (although that also not necessary) and reading reviews, listening to different equipment, trying to find the best performing pieces and most especially the best affordable excellent performing pieces. You can freeze your interest at any specific level (mono, stereo, multi, vinyl, tape, dvd, bluray, streaming music, near field speakers, full range speakers, subwoofers, room full of subwoofers, or whatever), AND still be considered an audiophile, or these days, a videophile. If you choose to freeze at a certain point, that is your choice, don't criticize those of us who try to stretch to improve our systems as much as we can. If you don't understand a new audio or video device, read, and if it doesn't set you on fire, don't buy it, but certainly don't criticize those that do venture there. After all it is a hobby. A prerequisite to becoming an audiophile or videophile is wanting to enjoy music and entertainment in your own home in the most presentable manner possible to your means. |
|
|
|
Post by jdskycaster on Sept 18, 2015 10:37:15 GMT -5
Garbage in , garbage out. Being an audiophile has nothing to do with spending gobs of money, although one certainly can do that. It has more to do with keeping up to date with new developments (although that also not necessary) and reading reviews, listening to different equipment, trying to find the best performing pieces and most especially the best affordable excellent performing pieces. You can freeze your interest at any specific level (mono, stereo, multi, vinyl, tape, dvd, bluray, streaming music, near field speakers, full range speakers, subwoofers, room full of subwoofers, or whatever), AND still be considered an audiophile, or these days, a videophile. If you choose to freeze at a certain point, that is your choice, don't criticize those of us who try to stretch to improve our systems as much as we can. If you don't understand a new audio or video device, read, and if it doesn't set you on fire, don't buy it, but certainly don't criticize those that do venture there. After all it is a hobby. A prerequisite to becoming an audiophile or videophile is wanting to enjoy music and entertainment in your own home in the most presentable manner possible to your means. Again, I simply responded to the general comment that $299 AVR's have crappy sound. I wanted to defend anyone that may only have $299 to spend on an AVR (like my 75y/o dad) with a little recent experience with one. Audiophile really means nothing these days but it also has many definitions depending on who you ask. If you are old school the brand and price definitely means something. Emotiva has always had a goal of bringing maximum performance for the dollar to those that cannot afford, or simply have no more interest in, the esoteric and insanely expensive. I personally love that about the company. Apologize for any derail. JD |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 18, 2015 11:15:57 GMT -5
Just for the record, I wouldn't discount ALL $299 AVRs as being awful either - but a lot of them are. My main point there is that I have a problem with the priorities involved.... The really crappy ones this year will have more channels next year, so they can display the "Atmos" and "DTS" logos, but they won't spend any of that development budget on actual improvements in sound quality. (One wonders whether, if there weren't any new whiz bang features to sell next year, a lot more low end stores and manufacturers might have to actually start considering sound quality to be a selling point  ) However, as new systems come out, with ever more channels, the divide between good and crappy will become wider. Quite simply: Eleven good speakers cost twice as much as five good speakers, and eleven good channels of amplification cost more than five channels. Or, to turn it around, if you spend the same amount on eleven channels as you spent on five before, then you will have less budget for EACH channel. Or, it'll be a lot harder, or less likely, to get eleven good channels for $299 that it is to get five good channels for $299 (which is already not that easy). (And that will also be true at any price/performance level.) I wouldn't completely disregard all $299 AVR's as crappy sounding. My dad (75) has a very modest setup and fixed income. His AVR (10 year old $399 Pioneer) died last week. I picked up a refurbished Yamaha AVR from a popular online outlet for $299 and was absolutely impressed with the sound quality for such little money. Is it "audiophile" caliber? Of course not, for that it has to cost at least $20K to even be taken seriously but I left the house wondering just how much more money he would have had to spend in order to achieve a noticeable improvement in sound quality. JD |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Sept 18, 2015 13:57:01 GMT -5
I am not really interested in $299 AVR's.
I am really interested in a certain reference surround processor sporting sixteen high brew channels...
|
|
|
|
Post by skippy1977 on Sept 18, 2015 15:44:50 GMT -5
Garbage in , garbage out. Being an audiophile has nothing to do with spending gobs of money, although one certainly can do that. It has more to do with keeping up to date with new developments (although that also not necessary) and reading reviews, listening to different equipment, trying to find the best performing pieces and most especially the best affordable excellent performing pieces. You can freeze your interest at any specific level (mono, stereo, multi, vinyl, tape, dvd, bluray, streaming music, near field speakers, full range speakers, subwoofers, room full of subwoofers, or whatever), AND still be considered an audiophile, or these days, a videophile. If you choose to freeze at a certain point, that is your choice, don't criticize those of us who try to stretch to improve our systems as much as we can. If you don't understand a new audio or video device, read, and if it doesn't set you on fire, don't buy it, but certainly don't criticize those that do venture there. After all it is a hobby. A prerequisite to becoming an audiophile or videophile is wanting to enjoy music and entertainment in your own home in the most presentable manner possible to your means. How is agreeing that " Good recording, decent speakers and the room are paramount." is criticizing those that buy the latest gear? I'm guilty of buying some of the latest gear (Prepro, amps, universal player etc.) but I still feel it's the speakers and the room that has the biggest impact on how ones system sounds. |
|
|
|
Post by rtg97229 on Sept 18, 2015 17:05:45 GMT -5
Just for the record, I wouldn't discount ALL $299 AVRs as being awful either - but a lot of them are. My main point there is that I have a problem with the priorities involved.... The really crappy ones this year will have more channels next year, so they can display the "Atmos" and "DTS" logos, but they won't spend any of that development budget on actual improvements in sound quality. (One wonders whether, if there weren't any new whiz bang features to sell next year, a lot more low end stores and manufacturers might have to actually start considering sound quality to be a selling point ) However, as new systems come out, with ever more channels, the divide between good and crappy will become wider. Quite simply: Eleven good speakers cost twice as much as five good speakers, and eleven good channels of amplification cost more than five channels. Or, to turn it around, if you spend the same amount on eleven channels as you spent on five before, then you will have less budget for EACH channel. Or, it'll be a lot harder, or less likely, to get eleven good channels for $299 that it is to get five good channels for $299 (which is already not that easy). (And that will also be true at any price/performance level.) I think it is more likely that the big box stores will be selling products to the masses based on the new Amazon / Hulu / Netflix / Airplay interface, new promises about HDMI 2.whatever.g and the trendy new rose gold company emblem than sound quality. |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Sept 18, 2015 19:13:54 GMT -5
Any spec updates?  |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 18, 2015 19:36:22 GMT -5
Garbage in , garbage out. Being an audiophile has nothing to do with spending gobs of money, although one certainly can do that. It has more to do with keeping up to date with new developments (although that also not necessary) and reading reviews, listening to different equipment, trying to find the best performing pieces and most especially the best affordable excellent performing pieces. You can freeze your interest at any specific level (mono, stereo, multi, vinyl, tape, dvd, bluray, streaming music, near field speakers, full range speakers, subwoofers, room full of subwoofers, or whatever), AND still be considered an audiophile, or these days, a videophile. If you choose to freeze at a certain point, that is your choice, don't criticize those of us who try to stretch to improve our systems as much as we can. If you don't understand a new audio or video device, read, and if it doesn't set you on fire, don't buy it, but certainly don't criticize those that do venture there. After all it is a hobby. A prerequisite to becoming an audiophile or videophile is wanting to enjoy music and entertainment in your own home in the most presentable manner possible to your means. How is agreeing that " Good recording, decent speakers and the room are paramount." is criticizing those that buy the latest gear? I'm guilty of buying some of the latest gear (Prepro, amps, universal player etc.) but I still feel it's the speakers and the room that has the biggest impact on how ones system sounds. You can stop reading my post after "Garbage in, garbage out". If the source material itself or the small signal to large signal electronics are poor, no speaker or properly acoustically treated room can make it right. |
|
|
|
Post by skippy1977 on Sept 19, 2015 14:14:27 GMT -5
How is agreeing that " Good recording, decent speakers and the room are paramount." is criticizing those that buy the latest gear? I'm guilty of buying some of the latest gear (Prepro, amps, universal player etc.) but I still feel it's the speakers and the room that has the biggest impact on how ones system sounds. You can stop reading my post after "Garbage in, garbage out". If the source material itself or the small signal to large signal electronics are poor, no speaker or properly acoustically treated room can make it right. Maybe you missed " Good recording" in the earlier posts. Your above post does not answer my earlier question. That question is where in my post that you quoted remotely criticizes those that buy the latest gear. On the flip side the best source material or the best small signal to large signal electronics are not going to overcome poor speakers or a room with poor acoustics. In my opinion entry level electronics will do just fine with mid to high level speakers that are placed in a room with good acoustics. |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Sept 19, 2015 19:23:14 GMT -5
Still... going over the top is sooooo cool! Despacio systemThese guys built 8 stacks of 5-way speaker systems powered by McIntosh amps... |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 19, 2015 22:20:07 GMT -5
Still... going over the top is sooooo cool! Despacio systemThese guys built 8 stacks of 5-way speaker systems powered by McIntosh amps... And a disco ball for the cherry on top! |
|
Wont quote a quote again ;simple is best 
)
