New set-up does not sound the way it should.

I just purchased a Yamaha RX-V673 A/V receiver, a pair of PSB G1 speakers, and a set of anticable speaker wires, for a stereo set-up. The problem I am having is that the sound does not come out sounding particularly "full". I have a feeling that it may have something to do with the bass. Could it have something to do with the bass cross over? I don't even know if that plays a role in a stereo set-up. Right now I have it set at 80hz. What would make the bass sound "fuller" raising or lowering it. Is it even disable with my speakers? I did the YPAO automatic set-up and played with various settings to no avail. My speaker stats are below if that helps. Any advice on enhancing my sound would be greatly appreciated.

Frequency Response: Lf Cutoff -10 dB, 32 Hz; (-6 dB) 38 - 23,000 Hz
Sensitivity (1w (2.83V) @ 1m, IEC-filtered Pink Noise, C-weighted): Anechoic Chamber, 86 dB; Typical Listening Room, 88 dB
Impedance: Nominal, 6 Ohms; Minimum, 4 Ohms
Input Power (RMS,Clipping < 10% of the Time): Recommended, 15-200 Watts; Program, 100 Watts
Crossover: 2,200 Hz, B3
Internal Volume Design Type: 0.50 cu ft (14 liter)
Dimensions: 8-1/2" wide, 15-3/8" high, 11-1/2" deep
Weight: 18.5 lbs. each

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheReturnOfJj

I just purchased a Yamaha RX-V673 A/V receiver, a pair of PSB G1 speakers, and a set of anticable speaker wires, for a stereo set-up. The problem I am having is that the sound does not come out sounding particularly "full". I have a feeling that it may have something to do with the bass. Could it have something to do with the bass cross over? I don't even know if that plays a role in a stereo set-up. Right now I have it set at 80hz. What would make the bass sound "fuller" raising or lowering it. Is it even disable with my speakers? I did the YPAO automatic set-up and played with various settings to no avail. My speaker stats are below if that helps. Any advice on enhancing my sound would be greatly appreciated.

Frequency Response: Lf Cutoff -10 dB, 32 Hz; (-6 dB) 38 - 23,000 Hz
Sensitivity (1w (2.83V) @ 1m, IEC-filtered Pink Noise, C-weighted): Anechoic Chamber, 86 dB; Typical Listening Room, 88 dB
Impedance: Nominal, 6 Ohms; Minimum, 4 Ohms
Input Power (RMS,Clipping < 10% of the Time): Recommended, 15-200 Watts; Program, 100 Watts
Crossover: 2,200 Hz, B3
Internal Volume Design Type: 0.50 cu ft (14 liter)
Dimensions: 8-1/2" wide, 15-3/8" high, 11-1/2" deep
Weight: 18.5 lbs. each

---

What you need to do is set your bass management to full range. You don't have a subwoofer, and by setting the bass management to 80hz, your are sending your bass into nowhere.

Bass management is only to be used in the presence of a subwoofer.

Ditto! You are running a 2ch rig not a multichannel home theater set up. Therefore you do not want to cut off the bass and you do not need the YPAO set up. In addition, those speakers will need a period of time to break in to sound their best. Probably some where between 20-100 hrs of play time.

How am I cutting off the bass?

Deep, satisfying bass with most rock/popular/jazz music goes down to around 30-40Hz, and even lower with pipe organ music. When you set a crossover frequency as high as 80Hz, you're rolling off all that deep bass. "Rolloff" means the level of low frequencies decrease as you go downward in frequency range. One other thing, according to the speaker specs you listed, the LF cutoff is -20dB @ 32Hz, meaning the bass level is down 20 decibels at 32Hz. That is a pretty significant bass rolloff. You can try placing the speakers closer to the rear walls to help reinforce the low frequencies.

Does that mean I should go down to 60hz maybe even 40hz? 80hz was the default from the a/v.

Yes go down to 40Hz, or 30Hz if available. Experiment.

Learn to love your owners manual. Every receiver is different and nobody here knows the intricate ins and outs of every one.

That being said, find the appropiate menu/setting and set your subwoofer to "No" or "Off". This will route all the signal to your main speakers.

If that doesn't work, as a previous poster stated, set the crossover to as low a number as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheReturnOfJj

I just purchased a Yamaha RX-V673 A/V receiver, a pair of PSB G1 speakers, and a set of anticable speaker wires, for a stereo set-up.

---

Just curious: Is there a particular reason why you chose the Yamaha AVR over an integrated amplifier for your 2 channel rig?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheReturnOfJj

Does that mean I should go down to 60hz maybe even 40hz? 80hz was the default from the a/v.

---

Like Sir T said, forget the crossover altogether. Using it to any degree simply rolls of bass.

Set speakers to "full range" with no cutoff frequency.

On Page 64 of the Yamaha RX-V673 user manual, it states, in the LFE effects menu setup to select "front" speakers, so that all bass sounds are directed to the right and left front speakers.

I do not really know anything about amps. Plus, I like to have the possibility of upgrading my system down the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheReturnOfJj

I do not really know anything about amps.

---

Now would be a very good time to learn, what with all this good advice being thrown at you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheReturnOfJj

Plus, I like to have the possibility of upgrading my system down the road.

---

And you think other units will be less complex?

Like I said I don't know. And yeah, it is greatly appreciated.

Did you get the problem solved?

Not really, I am considering trying the speakers on a different receiver. To see if there is something wrong with my equipment. I do appreciate all the help though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheReturnOfJj

Not really, I am considering trying the speakers on a different receiver. To see if there is something wrong with my equipment. I do appreciate all the help though.

---

May I suggest that your expectation of bass quantity may be out of line with what the speakers can actually reproduce This speaker is -6 at 38hz, and -10 at 32hz which means the output of this speaker is falling quickly below 40hz. If you have them in a medium to large size room(or open space), the "knee" of the roll off would be much higher, and the falling off much faster as well.

If you want more bass, perhaps a subwoofer would be in order here. You could go back to the 80hz crossover, and potentially have more bass below that frequency. You could also set up the main speakers for best imaging, and the subwoofer for the best bass.

On your remote there is a button that say's "Pure Direct". This sends everything to your front speakers bypassing all the other circuitry, including subs or any other speakers you have. This is strictly for 2 channel. In essence, your receiver becomes an integrated 2 channel amp.

If this still doesn't do it for you, I might suggest a sub running off of your Left and Right Front Pre outs. (This is for "Pure Direct" mode only) Do not use the Sub Pre Outs in this configuration. If you do, switching to "Pure Direct" will cut the sub out of the circuit.

Your other option with a sub, is to connect the Sub to the Sub Pre Outs and select the "Straight" button on your remote. This mode allows access to speaker configuration and tone controls, which you may have to adjust. The advantage of this configuration is that it works equally well for surround when you get your other speakers.

I hope this helps.

Setting the mains to full range through bass management, and going pure direct will accomplish exactly the same thing - it will send a full range unfiltered signal to the main speakers.

The OP ran Yamaha's auto equalization program, and that will benefit the overall sound of the system even if it is just two channel. If you use pure direct, that equalization will be defeated, and the OP will hear a less refined sound. While the auto EQ is not the best, it is better than nothing at all.

If you are going to use a sub, it is much more simple and easy to use the sub out or LFE out with bass management controlling the crossover point. Running a sub off the pre outs of the L/R mains(and old school two channel mentality) is overly complicated, and not necessary at all. Going this direction causes you to lose the precise high/low pass filters in the receiver which helps subwoofer to main speaker integration. Why make the setup more complicated than necessary, and still not get the best sound?

Those PSB GB Speakers need time to break in. I would run them continuously for 8-12 hours a day for about a week and let the woofers break in. They are not going to give you deep bass. What they will give you is nice tight mid bass. Also, the GB's should have bass ports, make sure that the ports do not have plugs in them. Many speakers with Ports including some PSB models come with foam port plugs that you can use to tighten up the bass but they also decrease the bass. Removing the plugs will give you more prominent bass.

If you have all the settings correct with the Onkyo receiver, it could be that the receiver just does not put out much bass or it could be your music source such as your CD, DVD player, computer or mp3 player. Also try speaker placement. Moving them to the corners of the room will help with bass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

If you are going to use a sub, it is much more simple and easy to use the sub out or LFE out with bass management controlling the crossover point. Running a sub off the pre outs of the L/R mains(and old school two channel mentality) is overly complicated, and not necessary at all.

Going this direction causes you to lose the precise high/low pass filters in the receiver which helps subwoofer to main speaker integration. Why make the setup more complicated than necessary, and still not get the best sound?

---

@ TheReturn0: In response to T's suggestion...

If you're just interested in 2 channel audio, then using the "Pure Direct" button and the L/R Pre-out for a sub, is the much simpler way to go (one button - 2 wires - no menu adjustments). Although I would suggest a sub with a sharp crossover slope. Many of the cheaper subs have a gradual slope and that makes it hard to integrate with your mains. An 18db slope should work well. Stay away from subs with a 6db slope.

If you are running your main speakers full range (Large), there is very little to gain by letting your receiver handle the bass. In fact, it might even make it worse since the sub's crossover point (with the control on the sub) can be more finely adjusted compared to what a receiver usually allows you to do. The only other thing is that going through the receivers circuitry you need to set your speakers up correctly. There is a slight learning curve here, but once you got it, you got it. The advantage of using the receivers circuitry for bass management is that it also allows you to use the tone controls. I should mention too that I have a Yamaha and while its auto adjust works well enough, I tend to adjust the EQ by hand for my preference.

Either setup will work well enough and we are splitting hairs on this issue.

Using the receiver to handle bass and setting your mains to "small" will set the crossover for both the sub and the mains, which is what T is speaking about. Whether it sounds better that way is a determination that only you can make. There is an added advantage of doing it this way and that is bass is removed from the mains allowing them to play a little louder, or lowering the amount of power the receiver needs to feed them during normal play.

With one set of speakers I have, I set the mains to small and used the receivers circuitry to split the bass. With the speakers I am using currently, I run them full range (large).

The bottom line is, what sounds the best to you...

We keep talking about a sub that you don't have. Without the sub gives you two choices for the present configuration. Run the receiver in "Pure Direct" mode or in "Straight" (On your remote) mode which allows you to use your tone controls. There are other options, but you can look into those later. I think "Straight" just bypasses your DSP effects.

As for your setup, go into your menu (if you haven' already done so) and shut off all of your speakers (including sub) except the mains (front). Then set the Front speakers to large. I assume you've already done this. Adjust your EQ (if you want) and you should be finished. There are other adjustments for movies, but this is all you need for music.

I noticed that your EQ is parametric... Great! If you already have everything set up and you're still not happy with the sound, try adjusting the EQ manually. This should really help.

There are many ways to do the same thing or variations, so there are will be omissions in what I've written. Otherwise, it would be confusing.

Good luck!

BTW, The only reason I brought this up in reference to T's suggestion is that there are many ways to skin a cat and many times the results are different. You're the boss here and only you can decide what works best for you.

I have a surround system set up one way. My 2 channel system is set up another way.

Assuming you've done all that is suggested, like sending a full-range signal to those speakers, that woud lead me to question what you think it "should" sound like as opposed to what it "does" sound like.

I don't have those particular speakers but I do have a small bookshelf of the same class* and they do put out quite nice sound for what they are, given the realities of physics. In fact, They're one of my all time favorite speakers.

As others have said, mine will do a very, very credible job with music over most of the audiable range for music but when it gets down to the low lows, it peters out. Likewise, it won't produce chest thumping mid/upper-bass that some larger speakers will. That's to be expected from a passive speaker of this size. This means that for HT use or even the sub-bass notes some synth music produces, a subwoofer is going to needed to bring on the dinosaur stomps.

So, what do you mean by "the way it should" and what are you comparing it with?

* 6 1/2" 2 way Sound Dynamics RTS 3's being driven by 2 50 watt cannels of an old DPL receiver.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

What you need to do is set your bass management to full range. You don't have a subwoofer, and by setting the bass management to 80hz, your are sending your bass into nowhere.

Bass management is only to be used in the presence of a subwoofer.

---

^ this

Steven is correct, what Sir T said makes sense, but sometimes real world results don't make sense, all the Yamaha AVR's I've heard benefit greatly in "pure direct" mode for music. The break in period is a real event as well. I'm not familiar with PSB, I wonder if this receiver can drive them adequately. The expectation point is valid as well.

Yamaha aside, every time I've heard the auto set up programs used it resulted in a flatter response, I like this personally but I know others who will not turn it on preferring more of a bass hump, I try to explain to them your sub shouldn't be heard on a simple closing of a door but we also try to tell kids that their car stereo should have other frequencies than bass as well which mostly fall on deaf ears :).

I just recently set up my Artison sub where the amp has an EQ built in with microphone. I have one of the Carver CD's with a full frequency sweep. Before the EQ was ran I thought the sub sounded good but I could hear variations as the CD went up in frequency, after the EQ was ran I was amazed at how smooth that track sounded as it went up in frequency, it was quite a noticeable change.

While I understand the idea behind pure direct, I also understand the reality of room acoustics. Putting a receiver in the pure direct mode is one way to skin a cat. But that cat skinning will result a less optimum result when room acoustics are taken into consideration. Bypassing a receivers video circuits is only helpful if those circuits are poorly shielded. We have no evidence that is the case with Yamaha receivers. What we do know is most rooms are not set up acoustically for good sound, and most people do not understand room acoustics enough to grasp how important it is. Hence why they brush aside its importance in favor of a direct mode, which has yet to prove it improves the sound. There is no doubt that taming peaks in modal frequencies(below 200hz) does improves the audio. That is the area where the room is louder than the direct output, and why the direct mode is less beneficial in that area.

Personally, I would rather go for the set up that produces the best sound, than one who's audibility is dubious at best. We are not talking about skinning cats, we are talking about getting the best sound from thus set up.

The importance of this is far from splitting hairs. It is only splitting hairs if you do not have a good understanding of room acoustics, and the role it plays in getting the best sound from your equipment.

Here's a review on the GB-1's showing how speaker placement for these speakers can make a difference in sound-

AudioEnz - PSB G-Design GB1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

While I understand the idea behind pure direct, I also understand the reality of room acoustics.

---

It's been my experience that room acoustics are best treated mechanically first (with absorbers, diffusers, bass traps, and speaker positioning) and then, if needed, electronically. In fact, in some cases if the room isn't treated properly, no amount of EQ can fix the problem. A standing wave would be an example.

The other thing is that not everyone prefers a flat response. Many people hear it as dull. Considering that every speaker system sounds different and different in different rooms, there is no reference that can be achieved, so accuracy is a moot point. We do the best we can with what we have.

The very best sound I've heard is from good speakers, room treatment, and no EQ. I'm not saying that EQ can't improve that, but often enough, it can make it worse if not properly applied using testing gear in the process. This is beyond the scope of most home systems and their owners.

I should also add that using an equalizer to correct room reflections may correct it in one sitting position, but throw it off in another position.

The bottom line is that room abnormalities should be corrected by mechanical means and speaker abnormalities with EQ. This isn't a hard set rule since each affects the other from the listening position.

MrPeabody likes the results of AutoEQ in his system. When I run AutoEQ on my Yamaha, I find the bass is too strong so I tend to lower the bass to my liking. It's all a matter of preference and and I assume the equipment. I suspect that AutoEQ on my system is less than perfect, especially in the bass region. I do prefer a flatter adjustment compared to the smiley face EQ and any adjustments I make are usually very small.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

It's been my experience that room acoustics are best treated mechanically first (with absorbers, diffusers, bass traps, and speaker positioning) and then, if needed, electronically. In fact, in some cases if the room isn't treated properly, no amount of EQ can fix the problem. A standing wave would be an example.

---

Nobody would define room treatments as mechanic. They are passive in nature. You would be surprised at the sophistication of current auto-EQ programs. From at least one seating position they can tame the effects of a room born standing wave more precisely than a corner trap can.

Quote:

---

The other thing is that not everyone prefers a flat response. Many people hear it as dull. Considering that every speaker system sounds different and different in different rooms, there is no reference that can be achieved, so accuracy is a moot point. We do the best we can with what we have.

---

Your comments here do not stand up to research. A flat frequency response is perceived as too bright, not dull. Why? Because of something called the Robinson-Dadson curve, which shows our hearing is less sensitive at very low, and very high frequencies.

Robinson

Fortunately the best EQ programs offer at least two curves, and some several. The reference is to start off flat, and choose a curve of your choice after that. Experience with these programs rather than guessing what they do is helpful.

Quote:

---

The very best sound I've heard is from good speakers, room treatment, and no EQ. I'm not saying that EQ can't improve that, but often enough, it can make it worse if not properly applied using testing gear in the process. This is beyond the scope of most home systems and their owners.

---

Which is why we have auto-EQ doing this work for us. It just requires a calibrated microphone(included with the processor), and a camera or microphone stand to hold it.

Passive room treatment is great for non modal regions, but completely ineffective in the modal region where the room dominates what we hear. If this is the best you heard, then you need more experience with active eq combined with passive correction. Passive room correction in the non model region, and active electronic EQ in the modal region will lead to the best results. Dr. Floyd Tool, Sean Olive, and Dr. Geddes have all done white papers that confirm this.

Quote:

---

I should also add that using an equalizer to correct room reflections may correct it in one sitting position, but throw it off in another position.

---

The same can be said for passive room correction as well. Also you would be very surprised how well Audussey MultiEQ XT pro, ARC, and Trinnov does on multiple seats. It can't make all seats perfect, but it makes them measure better than not using anything at all(or even all passive correction). Passive(mechanical is incorrect as wall based treatments don't move) treatment is very imprecise. You can put a absorber on the wall, and soak up frequencies that are not a problem. Passive room correction removes energy from a room imprecisely, and that is a fact. Auto-EQ and Parametric EQ can target a peak, and lower or eliminate it. Passive EQ cannot.

Quote:

---

The bottom line is that room abnormalities should be corrected by mechanical means and speaker abnormalities with EQ. This isn't a hard set rule since each affects the other from the listening position.

---

You cannot correct poor speaker response with EQ, that is a fact. Trying to do so will effect the phase and transient response of a speaker. Not even auto-EQ can do that.

A smart person in A/V pulls from a wide tool belt, not a narrow one. Passive and electronic room correction is better than just passive alone, especially in the presence of broadband signals. The benefit of active EQ cannot be dismissed. It has the ability to tackle very specific frequencies, while leaving non offending frequencies alone. Passive room correction(panels, foam etc) cannot do that PERIOD - hence why it is better to use both, than just one.

Quote:

---

MrPeabody likes the results of AutoEQ in his system. When I run AutoEQ on my Yamaha, I find the bass is too strong so I tend to lower the bass to my liking. It's all a matter of preference and and I assume the equipment. I suspect that AutoEQ on my system is less than perfect, especially in the bass region. I do prefer a flatter adjustment compared to the smiley face EQ and any adjustments I make are usually very small.

---

I think a lot of folks like auto-EQ which is why it is so popular, and found on so many receivers and processors. Yamaha's implementation of auto-EQ is decent, but not the best. However, it is better than nothing at all, and certainly better than a non precise all passive way of room correction. The reason it is so popular and widespread is because it does not require a broad extensive education in small room acoustics, which is much too complex for most folks to grasp. When it comes to correcting a room, the more tools you have, the better the results will be. All passive correction is not enough, and certainly not precise enough. Enough research and testing by Toole, Olive, and Geddes has proven this.

Mechanical or Passive is semantics, not worth mentioning.

Quote:

---

A flat frequency response is perceived as too bright, not dull.

---

That doesn't agree with my experiences nor that of many other peoples opinions. If you're saying that Flat lacks excess bass and that is what you are calling bright, then it is again semantics. I've never heard of anyone saying that flat sounds bright, until now.

Quote:

---

You cannot correct poor speaker response with EQ, that is a fact.

---

EQ's cannot correct every aspect of speaker performance. That's not what it's for. There are unit's that can adjust all those parameters, but not a regular EQ. Everyone knows that.

Quote:

---

I think a lot of folks like auto-EQ ... certainly better than a non precise all passive way of room correction... All passive correction is not enough, and certainly not precise enough.

---

All this is common knowledge, but hardly applicable to most people. Most people don't use "Passive" treatment, nor are they too concerned with EQ except to make their system sound the way they like.

Do you really think that most people, if they had tone controls and a "Flat" button that they would choose "Flat" most of the time? I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it. Why do you think Bose is so popular. He gave people what they wanted, not what some engineer thinks they should have.

I don't know why you're blowing this way out or proportion. I doubt that the person who started this post has any interest in this, let alone you and I going back and forth.

The fact is that the things you are saying are valid in a studio and in a high end home system, but has very little value for the average home owner. I would also suspect that adjusting an average system to the degree that you speak about would hardly be noticeable in most homes with most systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

Mechanical or Passive is semantics, not worth mentioning.

---

Perhaps it is just that you don't know the difference because there is one. A mechanical device has to have moving parts, and/or requires some level of voltage to operate. I have never heard of anyone plugging in their room treatments
A passive device does not move or require any voltage to operate. Much like room room treatments. It is worth mention when you understand the difference.

Quote:

---

That doesn't agree with my experiences nor that of many other peoples opinions. If you're saying that Flat lacks excess bass and that is what you are calling bright, then it is again semantics. I've never heard of anyone saying that flat sounds bright, until now.

---

Then you have probably been doing more talking than listening. Your personal experiences are not transferable and therefore not a reference for anything but a personal opinion. There is a right way, and a wrong way to use auto EQ, and some auto EQ programs are FAR better than others. In your case, it could well be user error and a lack of EQ precision - Yamaha's is not exactly an equal to Trinnov, ARC, or Audyssey when it comes to accuracy.

A flat frequency response is just what it states..flat. That means little or no deviation with the frequencies it is designed to work with - in this case 20-20khz. When you combine Robinson/Dadson's research with that fact(its called connecting the dots), then you can plainly see that there is no emphasis in the bass, it is flat. Our hearing becomes less sensitive at low frequencies, so that would mean a flat curve would be bass shy, and therefore perceived as bright, not dull. A dull system would not measure flat(it would have more bass), and there would be a noticeable de-emphasis on the high end. Measured flat is linear, and our ears are very non-linear in perceiving a linear measurement. It might be helpful for you to read Fletcher Munson/Robinson and Dadson curve rather than dismissing it.

Equal_Loudness_Contours

Notice these words

The curves are lowest in the range from 1 to 5 kHz, with a dip at 4 kHz, indicating that the ear is most sensitive to frequencies in this range. The intensity level of higher or lower tones must be raised substantially in order to create the same impression of LOUDNESS.

All of this is science not semantics. It is easy to dismiss it as semantics when you don't understand the science.

Quote:

---

EQ's cannot correct every aspect of speaker performance. That's not what it's for. There are unit's that can adjust all those parameters, but not a regular EQ. Everyone knows that.

---

I don't think you can say EVERYONE knows this. This is a diffusive none scientific response of ever saw one. You would have to test the knowledge of everyone that has a sound system to verify this kind of vague diffusive response.

Quote:

---

All this is common knowledge, but hardly applicable to most people. Most people don't use "Passive" treatment, nor are they too concerned with EQ except to make their system sound the way they like.

---

So this becomes a contradictory statement. If this was common knowledge, EVERYONE to some degree would be using both passive treatments and EQ. This is applicable to everyone that desires the best out of their system. Most people don't understand acoustics PERIOD, hence why passive treatments and EQ are not used in every system out there. We have not even discussed myths that are propagated as fact.

Quote:

---

Do you really think that most people, if they had tone controls and a "Flat" button that they would choose "Flat" most of the time? I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it.

---

Flat would not sound very good to many, and some folks don't like the crude effects of tone controls. So your question is unanswerable.

Quote:

---

Why do you think Bose is so popular. He gave people what they wanted, not what some engineer thinks they should have.

---

He did not give people what they wanted, he shaped their perceptions using marketing to make them believe they were getting something they weren't. If he gave "people" what they wanted, then everyone would own a Bose system. You really don't understand what makes Bose so popular. It is a pinch of ignorance, all in one convenience, renaming and claiming technology that already existed, and effective marketing to non audio and videophiles. In other words, ignorance is bliss.

Quote:

---

I don't know why you're blowing this way out or proportion. I doubt that the person who started this post has any interest in this, let alone you and I going back and forth.

---

Lots of people other than the OP will read this, and probably learn something in the process. Just because you are not, does not mean everyone won't. Why are you afraid of this discussion? Could it be not so sure footing on the issue?

Quote:

---

The fact is that the things you are saying are valid in a studio and in a high end home system, but has very little value for the average home owner.

---

I think the average home owner would have to decide that, not you based on your assumptions whether they will or not. I know some average home owners that love great sound.

Quote:

---

I would also suspect that adjusting an average system to the degree that you speak about would hardly be noticeable in most homes with most systems.

---

And you would be wrong entirely. Do you really think the average system would not benefit from improved room acoustics? Do you really think the average system would not sound better properly placed within the room? Do you really think the average person would not notice a bass peak that is removed from the seating position, or that imaging just improved because the speakers angles have been adjusted? I would say yes they would, I have seen it enough times to know you are completely wrong on this.

Anyone that has sound system whether it is in a studio, or somebody's living room could always use more knowledge about how to improve it. That is why people come here, to get knowledge on how to do so. The idea that you need to be in the studio, or have a high end system to benefit from acoustical improvements flies in the very face of Dr. Floyd Tools research on what sounds good to the average listener. One of his conclusion stated that if a person knew how (got educated) to make their system sound better, they would strongly pursue that goal. Apparently there are some average folks interested in great sound, or companies like Auralex, RPG Acoustics, and several other acoustical manufacturing companies would not be as large and profitable as they are. There are not enough studios or high ends installs to do that alone.

This conversation is so stupid!

Quote:

---

A mechanical device has to have moving parts, and/or requires some level of voltage to operate

---

A car muffler is a mechanical device, has no moving parts and uses no current. It's whole purpose is to reduce noise.

As for the rest of your diatribe, you keep bringing up the obvious like it's some revelation or secret. All this information is common knowledge. As for it's importance, it's hardly meaningful in most home environments.

I'm not going to play this silly game with you. You are getting way too far off subject and this tit for tat adds nothing to the thread subject. All the author of this thread wanted was to know how to get more boom from his box.

If you want to start another fight, go somewhere else. I'm not biting.

If you want to start another subject, re-post your last reply in another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

A mechanical device has to have moving parts, and/or requires some level of voltage to operate. I have never heard of anyone plugging in their room treatments
A passive device does not move or require any voltage to operate. Much like room room treatments. It is worth mention when you understand the difference.

---

A car muffler is a mechanical device, has no moving parts and uses no current. It's whole purpose is to reduce noise. Therefore, you are wrong.

Quote:

---

Then you have probably been doing more talking than listening. Your personal experiences are not transferable and therefore not a reference for anything but a personal opinion. There is a right way, and a wrong way to use auto EQ, and some auto EQ programs are FAR better than others. In your case, it could well be user error and a lack of EQ precision - Yamaha's is not exactly an equal to Trinnov, ARC, or Audyssey when it comes to accuracy.

---

Personal experiences is the reason why many of us come to sites like this. We can read the marketing that promises the world, but has little value. We can read theory, which is freely available all over the net, but has no value to the average person. For instance, I don't need to know how a car works to decide which car to buy. If I approached buying a car like you approach audio, I would have to have an understanding of chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and material sciences just to get started understanding the basics. Except for people who make a living designing cars, none of this is important. The man on the street just wants to know, does it look good, is it comfortable, does it drive and handle well, what gas mileage does it get, and how much does it cost. To find the answers to these questions, we don't ask scientists or engineers, we ask people who actually drove these cars and listen to their opinion about their experience. To the average owner, all the science and technology that goes into every car is the last thing on their mind. The same applies to audio systems.

Quote:

---

A flat frequency response is just what it states..flat. That means little or no deviation with the frequencies it is designed to work with - in this case 20-20khz. When you combine Robinson/Dadson's research with that fact(its called connecting the dots), then you can plainly see that there is no emphasis in the bass, it is flat. Our hearing becomes less sensitive at low frequencies, so that would mean a flat curve would be bass shy, and therefore perceived as bright, not dull. A dull system would not measure flat(it would have more bass), and there would be a noticeable de-emphasis on the high end. Measured flat is linear, and our ears are very non-linear in perceiving a linear measurement. It might be helpful for you to read Fletcher Munson/Robinson and Dadson curve rather than dismissing it.


Equal_Loudness_Contours

---

This is again common knowledge for anyone who has been in this hobby for any length of time. We are all aware of how our hearing perceives the loudness of different frequencies at different loudness levels. That is why older receivers had “Loudness” buttons on their front panels. While, in most cases, it wasn't the best implementation, it did demonstrate an awareness of this phenomena. Do you really believe that in the absence of an EQ that the sound that comes out of our speakers is anything like these curves? These curves only relate to our ears ability to determine loudness and have nothing to do with anything else. In real life we hear sounds at levels that the curves show. We record and play back these sounds at the same levels as real life. We do not have to add some artificial curves to the playback unless there is a deficiency in the audio chain, such as poorly designed speakers. The reason why many of us like “Flat” is because it keeps harmonics at realistic levels relative to the fundamental frequencies that created them, hence sounding more like the instruments that created the sounds. Some people don't care about that, they just want to feel the bass thumping on their chest.


As you're fully aware of, if we play back our music at lower levels, we loose a great deal of the bass and treble. This is the reason why receivers had those “Loudness” buttons, it was meant to be used at times like this. Because our hearing is not linear, at lower volumes, the bass and treble are reduced, sometimes below the threshold of audibility while sound in the approximate range of 500 to 5k remains audible. While in a properly EQ'ed system, this sound is accurate relative to what live would sound like at this volume, our brains tell us that it's not right. So what do we do? We adjust our tone controls to what our brain says is more realistic, or we push that “loudness” button. It may not be technically correct in the pure sense, but it does sound a whole lot better to a lot of people.


There is also another issue that throws EQ out of whack and that is speaker dynamics. Some speakers keep their output linear at lower volumes and some do not do this very well. Also, heated voice coils don't react the same as they did before they got hot. So it's foolish to throw all your eggs in the same basket and think that EQ solves all the problems. There are many mechanical and electrical problems, and room effect problems with speakers that degrade the sound. In a decent speaker EQ is not a panacea that corrects all those ills.

Quote:

---

Notice these words


The curves are lowest in the range from 1 to 5 kHz, with a dip at 4 kHz, indicating that the ear is most sensitive to frequencies in this range. The intensity level of higher or lower tones must be raised substantially in order to create the same impression of LOUDNESS.


All of this is science not semantics. It is easy to dismiss it as semantics when you don't understand the science.


I don't think you can say EVERYONE knows this. This is a diffusive none scientific response of ever saw one. You would have to test the knowledge of everyone that has a sound system to verify this kind of vague diffusive response.


So this becomes a contradictory statement. If this was common knowledge, EVERYONE to some degree would be using both passive treatments and EQ. This is applicable to everyone that desires the best out of their system. Most people don't understand acoustics PERIOD, hence why passive treatments and EQ are not used in every system out there. We have not even discussed myths that are propagated as fact.


Flat would not sound very good to many, and some folks don't like the crude effects of tone controls. So your question is unanswerable.

---

Knowing something and caring enough to do something about it are two different things. How many people want their living room to look like a recording studio or have a dedicated room just for that? Look at photos of systems that the members on this site have posted. You will notice that except in rare cases, none of these even remotely come close to being set up ideally perfect. In fact, most of them are not even remotely close. None-the-less, their owners are happy campers. So tell me again how important all this idealism is.

Quote:

---

He did not give people what they wanted, he shaped their perceptions using marketing to make them believe they were getting something they weren't. If he gave "people" what they wanted, then everyone would own a Bose system. You really don't understand what makes Bose so popular. It is a pinch of ignorance, all in one convenience, renaming and claiming technology that already existed, and effective marketing to non audio and videophiles. In other words, ignorance is bliss.

---

Apparently you did not read about how he made his decision to go the route he did. To refresh your memory, he set up demo's using the most linear speakers he could get his hands on at the time and speakers that were far from linear. After running trials with many people, he concluded that most people preferred the sound that he based his entire line on and not on the most accurate sound. Go figure!, but it paid off in spades. I will concede that marketing has played a large role in his success, but it wouldn't have worked if people thought his speakers sounded bad. It seems that most Bose owners love their speakers, regardless of how inaccurate as they are.

Quote:

---

Lots of people other than the OP will read this, and probably learn something in the process. Just because you are not, does not mean everyone won't. Why are you afraid of this discussion? Could it be not so sure footing on the issue?

---

Yes. Hopefully they will learn what's really important and what's overkill.

Quote:

---

I think the average home owner would have to decide that, not you based on your assumptions whether they will or not. I know some average home owners that love great sound.

---

They have decided. That's why their systems don't dominate their homes and their lives.

Quote:

---

And you would be wrong entirely. Do you really think the average system would not benefit from improved room acoustics? Do you really think the average system would not sound better properly placed within the room? Do you really think the average person would not notice a bass peak that is removed from the seating position, or that imaging just improved because the speakers angles have been adjusted? I would say yes they would, I have seen it enough times to know you are completely wrong on this.


Anyone that has sound system whether it is in a studio, or somebody's living room could always use more knowledge about how to improve it. That is why people come here, to get knowledge on how to do so. The idea that you need to be in the studio, or have a high end system to benefit from acoustical improvements flies in the very face of Dr. Floyd Tools research on what sounds good to the average listener. One of his conclusion stated that if a person knew how (got educated) to make their system sound better, they would strongly pursue that goal. Apparently there are some average folks interested in great sound, or companies like Auralex, RPG Acoustics, and several other acoustical manufacturing companies would not be as large and profitable as they are. There are not enough studios or high ends installs to do that alone.

---

Granted, every system could be improved, but not everyone is a fanatic about sound. I've heard a good many systems that hurt my ears to listen to them, but their owners were proud of what they had. People like yourself and other fanatics (like myself) are the only ones that care about these things. Frankly, I don't care about theory, or about equipment that is cost prohibited, or about turning my home into a recording studio. What I care about is good sound, at a good price, that doesn't dominate my home or my life. That is the real world.


You seem to think that everyone should tweak their systems to the nth degree and you also seem to think that everyone's audio goal should be the same. That's not dealing with reality.


I've played the game, tweaked the room, tweaked the equipment, and bored my friends and neighbors obsessing about this, but all this was for naught. The tweaks improved things to a small degree, but it wasn't earth shattering. I've listened to some of the finest equipment made for the home owner and in the end, I've realized that compared to live, reproduced audio is only a shallow reproduction of the real thing. Sometimes and in some instances, it gets close, but only for a moment. I've learned that my brain can close the gap somewhat between real and reproduced.


You seem to think that we're all a bunch of no nothings that require your expertise. That is hardly the way it is. While some of your posts are interesting, they are hardly earth shattering and are a constant repetition of what we already know. Once in a while you throw something into the mix that is new news, but not too often. This doesn't mean that I and others don't appreciate your contributions, we do, but many times you seem to be more concerned about being right than anything else. You are not always right, there I've said it.


When we were discussing turntables, you wouldn't listen to anything anyone had to say. You reported your thoughts on the issue which didn't coincide with my findings. I just received a new vinyl album and like all the albums before it, it sounds much better than the CD versions. Blame it on my equipment, my hearing, or anything else that pleases you, but if I had listened to you I would not be enjoying this new found treasure. That's why I don't believe everything you say. When it come to the real world, you are not always right.


Tell you what. Let's test your expertise. If you had $1,000 to spend on a complete 2 channel system, what would you buy? If you had $2,000 for a complete surround system, what would you buy? These are the types of questions that people mostly want the answers to. My questions are not rhetorical. What equipment would you buy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

A car muffler is a mechanical device, has no moving parts and uses no current. It's whole purpose is to reduce noise. Therefore, you are wrong.

---

Sorry, but you are wrong. A car muffler is a passive device much like acoustical materials are. An example of a mechanical muffler would be a noise cancelling one, of which there are little or none around. Just to understand how much a muffler is like room treatment read this:

Dissipative mufflers use absorptive materials that dissipate the acoustic energy into heat. Sounds like acoustical treatments to me, as they do exactly the same thing.

Mechanical muffler:

Active mufflers attenuate unwanted noise by adding sound to counteract it. The disturbances add algebraically, resulting in a cancellation of the unwanted sound. An active muffler consists of sensors (such as microphones), a controller, and actuators (such as loudspeakers).

Read more: muffler: Definition from Answers.com

Not as up on mechanical versus passive as you would like folks to believe.

Quote:

---

Personal experiences is the reason why many of us come to sites like this. We can read the marketing that promises the world, but has little value. We can read theory, which is freely available all over the net, but has no value to the average person. For instance, I don't need to know how a car works to decide which car to buy. If I approached buying a car like you approach audio, I would have to have an understanding of chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and material sciences just to get started understanding the basics. Except for people who make a living designing cars, none of this is important. The man on the street just wants to know, does it look good, is it comfortable, does it drive and handle well, what gas mileage does it get, and how much does it cost. To find the answers to these questions, we don't ask scientists or engineers, we ask people who actually drove these cars and listen to their opinion about their experience. To the average owner, all the science and technology that goes into every car is the last thing on their mind. The same applies to audio systems.

---

Personal experience vary from person to person, and can hardly be relied on for anything but personal opinion. So your advice seems to be "rely on your lack of technical knowledge, and remain ignorant about how the things you purchase actually work". Buying a car, and buying a sound system are so different in nature that they cannot be compared in the way you are trying. It is a very poor example at best, and completely off the chart at its worst.

Quote:

---

This is again common knowledge for anyone who has been in this hobby for any length of time. We are all aware of how our hearing perceives the loudness of different frequencies at different loudness levels. That is why older receivers had “Loudness” buttons on their front panels. While, in most cases, it wasn't the best implementation, it did demonstrate an awareness of this phenomena. Do you really believe that in the absence of an EQ that the sound that comes out of our speakers is anything like these curves?

---

Actually no, but what we hear from the loudspeakers does. The problem here is you cannot seem to separate a loudspeaker from an ear. A loudspeaker is a reproduction device, and our ears are capture devices. Different functions clearly. If you are SO aware of how the loudness curve works, then how did you get it so wrong. Flat equals dull? Not hardly, and totally contrary to Dr. Toole listening research. You keep saying this is common knowledge, but how come so many people (including yourself) seem to know so little about the subject, and how come so little is discussed on the subject on most forums? Because not many people understand, or are even educated on this topic of equal loudness, and room acoustics. You are bending the truth here...a lot.

Quote:

---

These curves only relate to our ears ability to determine loudness and have nothing to do with anything else.

---

You forgot something here. It does not determine just loudness, it determines loudness versus frequency. I thought this was common knowledge?

Quote:

---

In real life we hear sounds at levels that the curves show. We record and play back these sounds at the same levels as real life. We do not have to add some artificial curves to the playback unless there is a deficiency in the audio chain, such as poorly designed speakers. The reason why many of us like “Flat” is because it keeps harmonics at realistic levels relative to the fundamental frequencies that created them, hence sounding more like the instruments that created the sounds. Some people don't care about that, they just want to feel the bass thumping on their chest.

---

You have a penchant for skipping detail, detail that is supposed to be common knowledge. Have you ever heard of something called a "house curve"(based on your responses, or course not) It is a curve applied to a subwoofer(preferably) at it's lower end to compensate for what our ears perceive as a falling response(or flat response). That counters the effect of the equal loudness curve at lower frequencies, and keeps the speaker system sounded "flat" to the ears down to the lowest frequencies of hearing. Even the finest systems on earth need this curve, it is a ear issue, not a speaker issue. This is something you dismiss as a poorly designed speaker because you don't seem to understand Just how the ear/brain perceives sound at low frequencies.(or high frequencies for that matter).

This idea that a "flat" frequency response "keeps harmonics at realistic levels" is pure unscientific nonsense. Even with a non-flat speaker, the harmonics will never be louder than the fundamental. I know of no instrument whether amplified or acoustics that produces a louder harmonic than the fundamental. According to Dr. Toole's research of 10,000 listeners, our ears love speakers a flat frequency response from 40-12khz, with a rising response below 40hz, and a falling response above 12khz. This is why a house curve is "not some artificial curve" applied to playback, it is a desirable curve based on listening tests.

I thought this was common knowledge? I guess not.

Quote:

---

As you're fully aware of, if we play back our music at lower levels, we loose a great deal of the bass and treble. This is the reason why receivers had those “Loudness” buttons, it was meant to be used at times like this.

---

Unfortunately manufacturers didn't pay much attention to hearing research, or they would have probably not designed their "loudness" response effects at 50 and 10khz - the frequencies that most "loudness" button effect. 50hz is too high to counter the effects of the equal loudness curve, and so is 10khz. They should have set them at 30hz and above 4khz.

Quote:

---

Because our hearing is not linear, at lower volumes, the bass and treble are reduced, sometimes below the threshold of audibility while sound in the approximate range of 500 to 5k remains audible.

---

You are still off. The threshold for insensitive in the lower range is near 100hz.

Quote:

---

While in a properly EQ'ed system, this sound is accurate relative to what live would sound like at this volume, our brains tell us that it's not right. So what do we do? We adjust our tone controls to what our brain says is more realistic, or we push that “loudness” button. It may not be technically correct in the pure sense, but it does sound a whole lot better to a lot of people.

---

Since I don't use tone controls(they are completely ineffective, and they sound unnatural) I cannot argue this point.

Quote:

---

There is also another issue that throws EQ out of whack and that is speaker dynamics. Some speakers keep their output linear at lower volumes and some do not do this very well.

---

It does not matter if a speaker is linear at its lower end, our ears are not - hence why a house curve is necessary. That is not a EQ or not situation, that is a hearing situation.

Quote:

---

Also, heated voice coils don't react the same as they did before they got hot.

---

This is a red herring statement if I ever read one. Woofers do a magnificent job of cooling themselves by the pumping action of the driver, and the heat absorbing properties of the stuffing behind the driver. The only driver that can be effected by heating is the tweeter, and you would have to drive the tweeter at near deafening levels before the heating of the voice coils changes its response.

Quote:

---

So it's foolish to throw all your eggs in the same basket and think that EQ solves all the problems. There are many mechanical and electrical problems, and room effect problems with speakers that degrade the sound. In a decent speaker EQ is not a panacea that corrects all those ills.

---

I think one is even more foolish to dismiss EQ in the way you have. There isn't a single publishing acoustician that I know that would make a simple, silly statement such as this. No EQ is far worse than EQ'ing what needs to be. Dr. Geddes, Dr. Toole, Dr. Olive, Todd Welti all state that at least the subwoofer MUST be EQ'd to counter room modes at lower frequencies. I have stated nowhere in my posts that EQ alone was the answer to anything. I said WIDE TOOL BELT, meaning EQ, effective traps, and passive room treatments ALTOGETHER.

Quote:

---

Knowing something and caring enough to do something about it are two different things. How many people want their living room to look like a recording studio or have a dedicated room just for that?

---

This shows just how far behind the times you actually are. A properly treated room does not have to look like a recording studio. Passive treatments these days can look like a fine painting, or make you think you are looking out of a window. In most of my rooms, you don't even notice they are there, because either it has been painted, or the fabric matched to the color of the walls. They can be installed in living rooms, and easily pass the WAF. You need to catch up, the world of acoustical treatments has passed your "experience" right by.

Quote:

---

Look at photos of systems that the members on this site have posted. You will notice that except in rare cases, none of these even remotely come close to being set up ideally perfect.

---

Your fishbowl is way too small. This website is a VERY poor example to make any point on.

Quote:

---

In fact, most of them are not even remotely close. None-the-less, their owners are happy campers. So tell me again how important all this idealism is.

---

That idealism separates a well designed and implemented system from a system set up by an uneducated, unknowledgeable amateur. That idealism separates mediocre performance from truly excellent performance. That idealism is the difference between the way you set up your system(with all of its pre-built in compromises), from a person who knows what he or she is doing, and has few compromises. One mans floor is another mans roof. I want to make sure that if I am somebody's floor, that floor would have to be on the edge of space.

Quote:

---

Apparently you did not read about how he made his decision to go the route he did. To refresh your memory, he set up demo's using the most linear speakers he could get his hands on at the time and speakers that were far from linear. After running trials with many people, he concluded that most people preferred the sound that he based his entire line on and not on the most accurate sound.

---

Since we have no detail of his testing methodology, the equipment he used, or of the music preferences of the listeners, we don't know if he skewed listeners towards his designs by compromising the other design do we? But we do know that later testing done by the Canadian Radio Society(which had a huge sample size) conducted by Dr. Toole flies in the very face of Dr. Bose's design. Dr. Bose was looking for an effect, not good sound. The basis of his design was flawed from the beginning, as we do not hear reflections in our rooms like we do in concert halls. The paths are too short in small rooms, and the reflections are more dense because of that. The concert hall is the exact opposite.

Quote:

---

Go figure!, but it paid off in spades. I will concede that marketing has played a large role in his success, but it wouldn't have worked if people thought his speakers sounded bad.

---

With his line of speakers, how can one address its sound? It more room than speaker

Quote:

---

It seems that most Bose owners love their speakers, regardless of how inaccurate as they are.

---

They love the convenience and simplicity. There is no evidence they love them for their sound quality. If sound quality was the driving force of Bose, they would allow speaker to speaker comparison in brick and mortar stores, they would not be afraid to publish their speaker specs(try finding them anywhere), and they would not threaten to sue a magazines because of poor reviews of their speakers. All evidence here points to marketing driven sales, not great reviews of his equipment.

Quote:

---

Yes. Hopefully they will learn what's really important and what's overkill.

---

Or what is over your head. We sometimes call things "overkill" when we don't really understand it, or uneducatedly think it is not important.

Quote:

---

They have decided. That's why their systems don't dominate their homes and their lives.

---

Once again, a fishbowl perspective. Go to AVSforum.com and check out the systems there. Go to Hometheaterforum.com and check out the systems on that website. Go to Audioholics.com and check out the systems there. YOU have decided YOU don't want YOUR system dominating your house. Others don't care if it does.

Quote:

---

Granted, every system could be improved, but not everyone is a fanatic about sound. I've heard a good many systems that hurt my ears to listen to them, but their owners were proud of what they had. People like yourself and other fanatics (like myself) are the only ones that care about these things. Frankly, I don't care about theory, or about equipment that is cost prohibited, or about turning my home into a recording studio. What I care about is good sound, at a good price, that doesn't dominate my home or my life. That is the real world.

---

Hence why you came here to complain about directional dialog(and blamed it on the source), then the dynamic range of the sources(when you listen too low, and have a high ambient level room), and then the loudness of the effects(oh really, at a peak level of 80db!! are you kidding?). It seems to me that your theory less unscientific approach has not served you well with all of these complaints.

Quote:

---

You seem to think that everyone should tweak their systems to the nth degree and you also seem to think that everyone's audio goal should be the same. That's not dealing with reality.

---

Doesn't everyone want to get the best sound out their equipment? If not, why would they be here. They could just follow your wild wild west approach to it, and get the same poor results you got. Once again, there are some like yourself that like mediocrity, and there are folks like myself that love the best sound we can get out of our investment, and do mind going to the nth degree to get it.

That is the reality.

Quote:

---

I've played the game, tweaked the room, tweaked the equipment, and bored my friends and neighbors obsessing about this, but all this was for naught.

---

Probably because you didn't know what you were doing in the first place. Since you don't like theory(you said this yourself), and it is VERY apparent you don't know the science of good reproduction - then all the great tools in the world are not going to help you one bit. Those tools only work if a person knows how to use them. In those hands, nothing is for naught.

Quote:

---

The tweaks improved things to a small degree, but it wasn't earth shattering. I've listened to some of the finest equipment made for the home owner and in the end, I've realized that compared to live, reproduced audio is only a shallow reproduction of the real thing. Sometimes and in some instances, it gets close, but only for a moment. I've learned that my brain can close the gap somewhat between real and reproduced.

---

Your brain can do this IF the gap between the two is not that wide. Unless you compare a system to the live event at the same time, comparing a live event to your system reproduction capabilities is a useless exercise. Secondly, even expecting your system to sound like a live event is senseless and stupid from the get go. Our home systems give us one perspective. A live event comparison depends on how close or how far you sit from the sources. If you sit too far, you are not hearing the sources at all, but the room as a whole.

Quote:

---

You seem to think that we're all a bunch of no nothings that require your expertise. That is hardly the way it is. While some of your posts are interesting, they are hardly earth shattering and are a constant repetition of what we already know.

---

Well Steven, you are hardly a person to judge this. What we have seen from you is that you don't even have a basic understanding of room acoustics, speaker room interaction, the loudness curve, how to get clean clear dialog without using two center speakers(which does not work), the difference between what the front speakers do, and what the surrounds do in HT, and this epic fail here;

http://forums.audioreview.com/home-t...ter-38849.html

Quote:

---

Once in a while you throw something into the mix that is new news, but not too often. This doesn't mean that I and others don't appreciate your contributions, we do, but many times you seem to be more concerned about being right than anything else. You are not always right, there I've said it.

---

All of this posturing is very telling. Once again, you are attempting to belittle my knowledge, and also pretending that you are more knowledgeable. Since I have already poked enough very large holes in your comments to drive a truck through, the reality is much different. You don't really know as much as you would like folks to believe, and you try and hide that by deflecting, or making statement that are vague and sometimes nonfactual. If you are going to posture in this way, at least be factual about it.

Some examples of this posturing;

http://forums.audioreview.com/genera...n-37742-2.html

Start at post #29

or this gem of responses

http://forums.audioreview.com/home-t...ers-37265.html

Post #18 is particularly telling, but your response at #22 was even more telling. Couldn't debate the information, so it went personal.

During this discussion, you were wrong in several ways, but tried to make it look like you knew what you were talking about.

Quote:

---

When we were discussing turntables, you wouldn't listen to anything anyone had to say. You reported your thoughts on the issue which didn't coincide with my findings. I just received a new vinyl album and like all the albums before it, it sounds much better than the CD versions. Blame it on my equipment, my hearing, or anything else that pleases you, but if I had listened to you I would not be enjoying this new found treasure. That's why I don't believe everything you say. When it come to the real world, you are not always right.

---

When it comes to this world, you haven't been right yet. So it is pretty difficult for you to make any statement about right and wrong. We weren't discussing turntables, we were discussing CD versus vinyl. From a recording and mixing engineers perspective, my points are well understood. On a personal level, everything is very subjective. I even supported my comments with links. What did you support yours with? Your opinion, which is different from person to person.

Quote:

---

Tell you what. Let's test your expertise. If you had $1,000 to spend on a complete 2 channel system, what would you buy? If you had $2,000 for a complete surround system, what would you buy? These are the types of questions that people mostly want the answers to. My questions are not rhetorical. What equipment would you buy?

---

This is the dumbest thing I have read in a while(well not that long ago). This does not show ANY expertise at all PERIOD! I am astonished that you would post this to demonstrate expertise(well may I am not astonished). This is a matter of personal choice, not expertise. Do you know what expertise is?

I would not spend $1000 on a two channel system, it wouldn't be enough money to get the performance I want. $2000 dollars on a HT system is also not enough to suit my needs.

So back at ya;

1. Where is the proper starting placement of a subwoofer in a small room?

2. What is the best NC level for hometheater?

3. What are the worst acoustical problems for small rooms?

4. What it the ideal RT time of a HT room?

5. How does one get even bass over the entire room?

6. Can you read the results of a RTA measurement of a room if I give you an example?

7. Can you tell a nearfield measurement from a far field one?

8. Can you tell me how soundtracks are created?

9. Can you tell when its better to use diffusion or absorption based on measurements?

10. What is the proper delay time for the surround speakers relative to the front speakers?

Since I am sure you will be busy trying to google most of this, I'll give you some time. Some of this you won't find on google, but I am sure that since most of this is "common knowledge", you won't have any problems answering it.

Hi JJ! Yup, putting it all together is really nutbusting. The people that have replied to you are giving you some great info. Most importantly, is to familiarize yourself with your new equipement. Go over all your manuals page by page, and give your system some time to break in! There is no way that with what you have, you are not able to produce a decent bottom end for your speakers. Speaker placement and room size have alot to do with this. Take the time to experiment. Do not get frustrated, it will cloud your pattern of thoughts, be patient, it will all come together. Also I noticed that your speakers have a 88db sensitivity and run from 6-4 ohms. Check the specs on your receiver to make sure you have enough amperage to run these babies. Understand that it is not all about watts per channel. This plays a small role. Wish I could be of more help. Good luck!

A great discussion to be sure, but I'm guessing that we lost the OP somewhere along the way. Ha ha!

Small observation here, and something I have suspected for quite a while. I notice that when online psychology is present, and certain individual jumps with both feet and hands. When subjective opinion is propagated, that same individual jumps in with the whole body. However, when things require objectivity, education, logic, and science, and the art, all we get is the crickets chirping so loudly, it is deafening.

Does not seem all that posturing works so well when those topics are discussed.

What?????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????? :)

Terrence, his question is valid as people in my particular position have these limits. $2000 for a 5.1 system is definitely realistic. Not for you, but for the average consumer. We're looking for advice within our budgets.

I'd like to know what you would recommend, personally.

Hey, Hotlanta, I lived in Lithonia for a couple years back in the 90's. I forgot the name of the stereo store but I bought my first surround processor in GA, I think the store was close to Tucker. I bought a Yamaha Pro Logic processor with built in amps for center and surround. I enjoyed my time there except for the humidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JStudrawa

Terrence, his question is valid as people in my particular position have these limits. $2000 for a 5.1 system is definitely realistic. Not for you, but for the average consumer. We're looking for advice within our budgets.

I'd like to know what you would recommend, personally.

---

If you want equipment recommendation from me Josh, your budget would have to be a lot larger than $2000. The pre-pro I would choose cost more than $2000.