Stereo Speaker Choice

[sarge_in]

BTW the Audyssey MultEQ and Dynamic Eq. implementation on my Denon 2310 is pure crap. I used it to balance channels and found them significantly off, and redid everything manually (probably because the mike they provided is some dollar store special and because they have to stuff some much into one box for the given price compromising the sound). Found the same thing on a friend's 4310 as well. Maybe Onkyo implements this better than Denon.
Cheers,
Sid

^+1. Onkyo is no better at all. Exact same issues as you listed with Denon. Hated what Odyssey did in my 707 and so I calibrated everything manually.
While the basic premise of Audyssey as stated by sdurani is logical and not wrong at all, the outcome of using it is far from satisfying, at least in the AVRs in this price range.

Like everyone (well, almost ) mentioned, specs in these things - AVR, amps, even speakers - should be taken just as a starting point to identify any glaring holes/issues and for a high-level comparison between products. Using them to claim much beyond that - one way or another - is naive. There is no substitue to listening for yourself and judging based on that. Sadly, it is not as easy in India with almost no return options (as far as I know).

 

[sdurani]

So kindly guide me to any specification sheet of any amplifier that shows based on inter channel phase and level correlation:

Manufacturers don't put it on a spec sheet, but reviewers do measure it. For example, look at the first graph in this Stereophile Magazine review and you'll notice that the left and right channel have almost half a decibel of level difference. So if you're listening vinyl on this Marantz integrated amp, the image is going to be shifted a little to the left (all things being equal).

The alternative is to simply accept someone's subjective view, because you believe that parts of an electronic circuit in a box (integrated amp) cannot be measured or quantified. So if someone subjectively experienced better imaging, then you have to accept it. If that same person experience the Loch Ness monster...

When I said these cant be measured, I did not say absolutely. I meant in the context of this thread where specs. like cross talk, THD are being bandied about.

You have to work with what you have in the real world, and those are the specs that manufacturers provide. So if someone claims that shelf A is stronger than shelf B, but shelf B is spec'd to hold three times the weight of shelf A, then that claim cannot be supported. Likewise, if someone says that stereo amps have better sound quality than AV receivers, yet none of the specs we have to work with demonstrate that, then there is nothing to support that claim. Unless you're willing to accept it on faith.

BTW are you not contradicting yourself by saying that these cant be measured and...

Yes, I should have phrased that better by pointing out most of those were items are typically not on a spec sheet, excepting "dynamisn" (assuming it meant dynamic range).

In-fact recently when I was auditioning the Harbeth SHl5, the dealer stated that in his room the soundstage depth was measured at upto 8' behind the speaker baffle. I don't recall seeing that specification in the Harbeth manual or any of the accompanying equipment manuals.

Soundstage depth is function of several things: room acoustics, speakers, source material, your hearing, etc. (doors666 got the priorities right). How would Harbeth know the specifics of your dealer's showroom, let alone what he heard?

I am not trying to disprove you maybe you are right and all the thousands of $ I spent on my stereo equipment was in vain:sad: - I should simply buy the best multichannel receiver there is

You should buy what makes you happy. I don't understand why you are making this so personal. This thread isn't about you or your equipment (nor me and my gear) but helping the thread started find something to drive his speakers. Which is why I based my recommendation on objective capabilities/qualities, so he wouldn't have to take my word for it (i.e., rely solely on my subjective opinion, biased by my personal preferences).

personal listening bias (can we measure & quantify that?)

Subjective listening results minus blind listening results equals bias error, typically expressed as a statistical deviation. However, if you're more comfortable believing that listening bias is an immeasurable intangible, then ignore the previous sentence.

BTW the Audyssey MultEQ and Dynamic Eq. implementation on my Denon 2310 is pure crap. I used it to balance channels and found them significantly off, and redid everything manually (probably because the mike they provided is some dollar store special and because they have to stuff some much into one box for the given price compromising the sound). Found the same thing on a friend's 4310 as well. Maybe Onkyo implements this better than Denon.

They should be the same implementation (doubt Onkyo gets a special version of Audyssey that Denon can't have). Guess I've never had the bad luck with Audyssey that you've experienced, nor have others in my local HT group. Channel balances are typically fine, as are distances (including latency of other devices in the signal path). The main complaint is too little bass (Audyssey's target curve is measured flat, when it should be perceptual flat). But raising the subwoofer level or bass level fixes that. If it didn't yield a net positive most of the time, then it wouldn't have caught on with several manufacturers.

BTW, it may be worth downloading the Audyssey set-up guide at the end of this post and giving it one more try.

 

[sidvee]

Manufacturers don't put it on a spec sheet, but reviewers do measure it. For example, look at the first graph in this Stereophile Magazine review and you'll notice that the left and right channel have almost half a decibel of level difference. So if you're listening vinyl on this Marantz integrated amp, the image is going to be shifted a little to the left (all things being equal).

The alternative is to simply accept someone's subjective view, because you believe that parts of an electronic circuit in a box (integrated amp) cannot be measured or quantified. So if someone subjectively experienced better imaging, then you have to accept it. If that same person experience the Loch Ness monster...You have to work with what you have in the real world, and those are the specs that manufacturers provide. So if someone claims that shelf A is stronger than shelf B, but shelf B is spec'd to hold three times the weight of shelf A, then that claim cannot be supported. Likewise, if someone says that stereo amps have better sound quality than AV receivers, yet none of the specs we have to work with demonstrate that, then there is nothing to support that claim. Unless you're willing to accept it on faith. Yes, I should have phrased that better by pointing out most of those were items are typically not on a spec sheet, excepting "dynamisn" (assuming it meant dynamic range). Soundstage depth is function of several things: room acoustics, speakers, source material, your hearing, etc. (doors666 got the priorities right). How would Harbeth know the specifics of your dealer's showroom, let alone what he heard? You should buy what makes you happy. I don't understand why you are making this so personal. This thread isn't about you or your equipment (nor me and my gear) but helping the thread started find something to drive his speakers. Which is why I based my recommendation on objective capabilities/qualities, so he wouldn't have to take my word for it (i.e., rely solely on my subjective opinion, biased by my personal preferences). Subjective listening results minus blind listening results equals bias error, typically expressed as a statistical deviation. However, if you're more comfortable believing that listening bias is an immeasurable intangible, then ignore the previous sentence.

sdurani - let us agree to disagree. I really do not have the time or patience to try to refute and discuss every point in great detail as I attempted to do in the prior post, but to summarize - strictly IMO - for what it is worth - specs./reviews/innuendos/suggestions/comparisons/shoot outs - whether they are made by a lay person or a professional reviewer in Soundstage:lol: magazine or the manufacturer himself don't mean a thing unless one hears the electronics in question with their own two ears. The listener has to decide whether specs. are going to make his decision or he is going to spend his hard earned $,Rs. by trusting his own ears. And no I am not taking this personal, pardon if I came across that way, but just trying to put my humble lay persons opinion across.
Cheers,
Sid

 

[captrajesh]

Of course there are measurements for soundstage and imaging, whether it be in human hearing (binaural localization), speakers (dispersion, apparent source width), or electronics (inter-channel phase and level correlation).

Wonder why manufacturers don't publish these specifications for the benefit of discerning customers like you. (No pun intended)

If the two channels aren't in exact phase (polarity, not timing), then the image will broaden.

How? Could you elaborate?

Your turn. That's the question I'm asking. Unfortunately, no one has been able to offer any tangible or quantifiable reason. Merely asking for something (anything) objective seems to be kryptonite for audiophiles.

Are you implying that thousands of people who are choosing Integrated amps over the AVRs are buying them without a valid reason? By stating so, are you not pitting yourself against the world? The only reason I can fathom is, they are trusting their own ears than falling for the numbers game.

Anything? In that case, on what basis is someone supposed to accept your claim that stereo amps sound better than AVRs?

I should've phrased it better. What I meant is, specs do not portray the full picture. If at all, they can just convey the outline.

Because you said so?

What was that sarcasm for? Are we at war? (of words)

 

[sdurani]

Inyour own terms, nothing of this is audible??

Huh? When did I say none of that is audible? For example, the first one of those amps to run out of headroom at high volumes would produce audible distortion. The specs show which one that will be.

How I wish you were in India? You should have got an invite already from some members with non-quantifiable setups which defy reason.

That's OK, I'll stick with reason, and you guys can defy reason all you want. Besides, once levels are matched and the identities of the gear under test is hidden, listening comparisons usually end up like this.

 

[sidvee]

They should be the same implementation (doubt Onkyo gets a special version of Audyssey that Denon can't have). Guess I've never had the bad luck with Audyssey that you've experienced, nor have others in my local HT group. Channel balances are typically fine, as are distances (including latency of other devices in the signal path). The main complaint is too little bass (Audyssey's target curve is measured flat, when it should be perceptual flat). But raising the subwoofer level or bass level fixes that. If it didn't yield a net positive most of the time, then it wouldn't have caught on with several manufacturers.

BTW, it may be worth downloading the Audyssey set-up guide at the end of this post and giving it one more try.

I spent a lot of time with it and my conclusion as I stated in the previous post is that while the codec/software itself maybe fine, the mike they bundle with the sub $1000 receivers is (and this is putting it very nicely) very inaccurate. IMO the $40 radioshack db meter (while inaccurate in lower frequency measurement is more accurate overall). This is a view shared by many people I have interacted with in my circle - when I lived in the US - I helped a bunch of my friends and their acquaintances set up home theaters as I am doing here in India. I have also seen suggestions that this may be the case in some magazine reviews as well.
Cheers,
Sid

 

[captrajesh]

once levels are matched and the identities of the gear under test is hidden, listening comparisons usually end up like this.

As stated earlier, I'm a game. Shall we take this forward?

Edit:
Can't resist saying this(on a humorous note): If only specs were to be relied upon, Indian cricket team would've still been No. 1 in test ranking. Like bat and ball does the talking there, lets get our ears talking.

 

[sdurani]

Wonder why manufacturers don't publish these specifications for the benefit of discerning customers like you. (No pun intended)

I'm not a discerning customer, and even if I were, manufacturers would be catering to the greater market instead of me.

How? Could you elaborate?

Rather than take my word for it, you can demonstrate it for yourself. Play a mono source through both your speakers and you should get a distinct phantom image at the centre of the soundstage. Now flip the wires on one of your speakers (red wire to black connector, black wire to red connector). With the speakers 180 out of phase, you shouldn't hear any precise imaging, the sound should be spread out and indistinct.

Recording gear in studios allows you to dial in the amount of phase shift between two channels (30 degrees, 90 degrees, etc) allowing you to broaden the centre image from precise/tight to broad/fat. Ambient information (e.g., concert hall reflections) is typically recorded out of phase, so it gives a sense of being around you instead of locked to the middle of the soundstage (which would sound unnatural). As I mentioned, Dark Side of the Moon has some vocals that image wide/fat.

Are you implying that thousands of people who are choosing Integrated amps over the AVRs are buying them without a valid reason? By stating so, are you not pitting yourself against the world? The only reason I can fathom is, they are trusting their own ears than falling for the numbers game.

Pitting myself against the world? No, just a certain subjectivist audiophile mentality. As for trusting your own ears, our hearing is easily influenced by what we see. It's called the McGurk effect. Our senses are very fallible. This is why companies like Harman (makers of Infinity, JBL and Revel speakers) and Paradigm do their speaker testing double-blind, and also why wine tasting competitions are done with the labels covered.

What I meant is, specs do not portray the full picture.

No one said they did. But in lieu of beep buying several integrated amps (Cambridge Audio, Norge, Marantz) and an Onkyo receiver, and doing his own level-matched blind listening comparison, is there anything objective that he can base his purchasing decision on besides specs? Or is he supposed to accept the subjective opinions of other people based on their (not his) personal preference?

Imagine someone told you that cola is healthier than juice. But that claim wasn't borne out by the labels (specs), since you noticed that juice has more vitamins than cola. What should you do? Dismiss the labels and go by that person's word? Accept on faith that cola has health properties that are intangible and cannot be measured?

If people claim that stereo amps have better sound quality than AVRs, but cannot point to one audible spec to support that claim, what should you do?

As stated earlier, I'm a game. Shall we take this forward?

Absolutely. How do you wish to proceed?

 

[hydra]

Somewhat OT:

@sdurani, while I appreciate your scientific approach, I personally feel that music, like love or beauty, is really something that cannot be quantified or broken down into components for analysis. It is something emotional, and it needs a very personal approach.

Here, I'd like you to consider for a moment that "music" is different from "sound".

"Sound" can be broken down for analysis, comparison and learning in quantifiable terms like frequency response, THD etc. etc. "Music" goes beyond just sound and sometimes it may be that approaching music we like approach sound might lead to confusing results like 2 + 2 = 5, or 2 + 2 = 1.

Depending on how you look at it, our equipment can produce sound, or it can produce music.

Very OT: Some things are best expressed through art. If you are able to, please watch the short Polish movie by Krzysztof Kieslewski "Dekalog, jeden" (1989). It is the first episode in the 10-episode series. This short movie tries to give us all a perspective on how we approach things -- in a coldly scientific & logical way or an emotional & fallible human way. It does not take sides or give answers, but it gives us a lot to think about.

 

[sidvee]

Guys - these assertions - "Specs. are everything", "if it measures right then regardless of cost it will sound right" is not new to Audio. The late Julian Hirsh (Hirsh Houck labs) who contributed to the now defunct "Stereo Review" magazine held steadfastedly to this rule to much ridicule from "Experts" on the other side, though Hirsch in his own right is an acknowledged expert and has come up with many of the measurement techniques currently used in Audio. And AFAIK this argument has raged on ever since in forums, meetings, magazine editorials etc. Although mostly various printed magazine editorials various on-line magazine editorials tend to suggest that an audition is a must before purchase regardless of how good it measures and it is something I suggest as well if some one wants my advice. Thought I would add this FWIW.
Cheers
Sid

 

[sdurani]

Depending on how you look at it, our equipment can produce sound, or it can produce music.

Thanx hydra, I appreciate your new age thoughts. For me, sound comes from the hardware I buy, music comes from the software I buy. And I try not to confuse the two, because one of them is purchased based completely on emotion.

 

[hydra]

My approach would be hardware + software + listener => various degrees of music that is enjoyable or music that is not enjoyable, but then that is just me

 

[sdurani]

Guys - these assertions - "Specs. are everything", "if it measures right then regardless of cost it will sound right" is not new to Audio.

Who made those assertions in this thread? Seriously, can you quote the post where someone said "specs are everything"?

The late Julian Hirsh (Hirsh Houck labs) who contributed to the now defunct "Stereo Review" magazine held steadfastedly to this rule to much ridicule from "Experts" on the other side, though Hirsch in his own right is an acknowledged expert and has come up with many of the measurement techniques currently used in Audio.

Indeed, ridicule was all they could hurl at him; it's not like they could actually counter his findings. His crime, in their eyes, was demystifying sound reproduction, so it was accessible and understandable to the everyone. BTW, Hirsch never held to the assertions you quoted. As the person who came up with the very standards that make it easier for us consumers to compare audio equipment, he was acutely aware (more than most of us) of the limitations of measurements.

Hirsch simply tried his best to stay as objective and unbiased as humanly possible when reviewing audio equipment. He wanted the readers to decide whether the gear was worth auditioning or a good fit for their needs, rather than deciding for them based on his personal preference. So let's not paint ol'Jules as some cold numbers guy, when in reality he was passionate (life-long) about music and high fidelity. His magazine, Stereo Review, didn't go defunct; it merged with Video magazine and is now called Sound & Vision mag.

 

[sidvee]

Who made those assertions in this thread? Seriously, can you quote the post where someone said "specs are everything"? Indeed, ridicule was all they could hurl at him; it's not like they could actually counter his findings. His crime, in their eyes, was demystifying sound reproduction, so it was accessible and understandable to the everyone. BTW, Hirsch never held to the assertions you quoted. As the person who came up with the very standards that make it easier for us consumers to compare audio equipment, he was acutely aware (more than most of us) of the limitations of measurements.

Hirsch simply tried his best to stay as objective and unbiased as humanly possible when reviewing audio equipment. He wanted the readers to decide whether the gear was worth auditioning or a good fit for their needs, rather than deciding for them based on his personal preference. So let's not paint ol'Jules as some cold numbers guy, when in reality he was passionate (life-long) about music and high fidelity. His magazine, Stereo Review, didn't go defunct; it merged with Video magazine and is now called Sound & Vision mag.

Please don't take it personal. Just my interpretation of what I have been reading so far (and I have been know to be wrong from time to time:lol. And what I reported about Mr. Hirsh is not my sole opinion - it is the general opinion of many Senior people in the field who do this for a living as opposed to a hobby(any google search should reveal it). I agree about Stereo Review - the name went defunct - is what I should have said.
Cheers,
Sid

 

[sdurani]

Not taking it personal, just setting the record straight. Worth reading his obit at Audioholics.

 

[deepakgang]

My logic tells me that like its obvious that there is a difference between a 1k Amp and a 50k Amp, there should be a difference between a 50k Amp and a 50k AVR. But if I cannot make any difference out between them and others can .. the problem is with me.


http://listverse.com/2007/09/16/20-amazing-optical-illusions/

I see but its not the truth. Similarly I hear but it might not be the truth - always!

 

[sidvee]

My logic tells me that like its obvious that there is a difference between a 1k Amp and a 50k Amp, there should be a difference between a 50k Amp and a 50k AVR.

IMO deepakgang it is not even a topic of debate. The 2 are not even meant for the same target population and hence are not even comparable. It is somewhat akin to the Porsche cayenne vs the 911, do some of the performance measures overlap, possibly - but can they be compared. Not at all, each one has a different purpose and hopefully will excel in that.
cheers,
Sid

 

[manoj.p]

Wow. Opened this thread after a day and its total bloodbath. No other words to describe it.

I was going to post some opinion. But since heads have cooled down little, so don't want to fan the fire. Just want to say, enjoy your music and sounds too.

 

[venk61176]

Hi,

lets take my practical example of buying denon 2310 and cary integrated amp at same price.

Anyday I can vouch for the difference in terms of sound. Sometime specifications listed by manufacturers are not true indication or measure.

At same price level a stereo amp can be so much better over AV receiver mainly not on the basis of specs, but because of components used.

You will have much better circuitry/less interference in terms of transformers, capacitor, diodes, relays , output stages etc.

Take my word both Oppo 83 and Marantz CDPs use similar DAC CS 4398 or 96. Anyday the sound from Marantz is much better.

Room correction and automatic audessey setup is not going to solve everything. Agreed it configures speakers more easily.

The specifics of it is to get better soundimaging for movies with focus on Centre channel and not music. Every time in my Denon I need to adjust Sound levels the moment I switch over to music and it is really harsh.

So in summary unless you are investing in Arcam or Krell sort of home receivers dont expect it to match performance of a stereo amplifier at lesser price.

I can prove the difference anyday/anytime with my setup in same room.

Above all some specifications for most of AV receivers are hyped up unless/until it is THX certified.

If thats not case then there is no need for pioneer to have pioneer elite vs pioneer

Moreover at that budget level they are not designed for higher current delivery needed for floorstander.

Leben CS 300 is rated at 15w something, in terms of sound levels it can beat my Cary Integrated rated at 200w at 4 ohms.

Since you are in chennai, please visit Decibels and you can hear the difference yourselves.

Also try to get a copy of AVmax august for bookshelf reviews and wait for september release for floorstanders.

It will help you to make better informed choice in terms of speakers.

Thanks
Venkat

Edit:
I am ready to challenge on the basis of specs, if you can get Onkyo or other AV receiver manufactures to list details as Krell

Power Supply

The Evolution 600e is equipped 2 2,200 VA transformers and 108,000 F. This power source is the backbone for the output of the Evolution 600e. With this foundation, the Evolution 600e delivers 600 watts into 8 Ohms, 1,200 watts into 4 Ohms, and 2,400 watts into 2 Ohms. The FTC mandates that power ratings are quoted using a 1,000 Hz sine wave into a fixed 8 Ohm resistor with final power specification stated at 1% distortion. Krell engineering considers this specification too lenient and not indicative of what an amplifier is required to provide. Krell designs to a much stricter standard. Our power tests use a 20-20,000Hz signal into 8, 4, and 2 Ohm loads with our final specifications stated for .1% distortion.

Internal high-current line conditioning circuitry effectively blocks RF noise entering via the AC line and compensates for any asymmetry or DC offset in the power waveforms. The amplifiers' low level and gain stages are powered via multi regulated rails that provide total immunity from supply fluctuations and assure noise-free circuit operation. Primary rail voltages are quasi-regulated, enabling an "on-demand" supply of power that is highly responsive to dynamic load

Thanks
Venkat

 

[doors666]

Hi,

lets take my practical example of buying denon 2310 and cary integrated amp at same price.

Anyday I can vouch for the difference in terms of sound. Sometime specifications listed by manufacturers are not true indication or measure.

They almost never are, most of the manufacturers lie through their teeth in their specs and almost everywhere else.

At same price level a stereo amp can be so much better over AV receiver mainly not on the basis of specs, but because of components used.

You will have much better circuitry/less interference in terms of transformers, capacitor, diodes, relays , output stages etc.

It better be so much better than an AVR because at the same price point, an AVR offers you so much more in terms of features and flexibility. But sadly thats not the case it seems.
Most of the integrated amps dont even allow me to use a subwoofer properly.
Most of the AVRs come with pure direct mode where all the unnecessary circuitry is switched off, so there is no extra interference.
You dont need exotic capacitors etc, just capacitors that are of correct spceifications.

I can prove the difference anyday/anytime with my setup in same room.

Above all some specifications for most of AV receivers are hyped up unless/until it is THX certified.

If thats not case then there is no need for pioneer to have pioneer elite vs pioneer

And its ok for integrated manufacturers to have multiple lines.

Moreover at that budget level they are not designed for higher current delivery needed for floorstander.

And who says FS need higher current? For the same set of drivers, FS are more efficient than BS hence BS should need more current.

Leben CS 300 is rated at 15w something, in terms of sound levels it can beat my Cary Integrated rated at 200w at 4 ohms.

And what has wattage got to do with it? These are two different kind of amps serving different kind of speakers. one for highly efficient speakers and one for highly non-efficient speakers.

Also try to get a copy of AVmax august for bookshelf reviews and wait for september release for floorstanders.

Do yourself a favor, save 200 bucks, go buy old monk and enjoy more than avmax. their opinion is not worth the paper its writen on.