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

[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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

[blackraven]

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.

[TheReturnOfJj]

How am I cutting off the bass?

[Glen B]

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.

[TheReturnOfJj]

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

[bobsticks]

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

[Mr Peabody]

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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

[blackraven]

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

[StevenSurprenant]

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.

[JOHNNY DRASTIC]

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!

[BadAssJazz]

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?

[TheReturnOfJj]

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

[markw]

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.

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

And you think other units will be less complex?

[TheReturnOfJj]

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

[blackraven]

Did you get the problem solved?

[Glen B]

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.

[StevenSurprenant]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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;

A great example of what NOT to do in hometheater

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;

How loud do you listen?

Start at post #29

or this gem of responses

Monopole or Dipole surround speakers?

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.

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.

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.