Presence speakers - What do you think?

[StevenSurprenant]

I have a Yamaha RX-V1800 and one of its features is that it allows you to run 2 additional speakers mounted above and outside the mains. What they do is add ambiance information derived from Yamaha's DSP functions to simulate the spacial effects of different rooms that Yamaha has recorded. I understand that other receivers offer this same feature.

I tried the DSP both through the main speakers and through the extra presence speakers. The difference is huge and there is no comparison between sending the DSP to the mains as compared to using extra presence speakers. I also compared each to straight feed through the Dolby decoder. Running the 2 extra presence speakers gave me the most bang for the buck, so that will be where I concentrate this post. By running the extra 2 speakers for presence, I loose the ability to run 7.1, which is okay in my case because I don't have the room for those speakers in the back of my room.

The main thing when running in this configuration compared to straight Dolby is that the front wall seems to disappear and the soundstage gets very deep. It's like the screen is sitting in the middle of the soundstage. It also gives more separation to the recorded sounds in a big way. It doesn't seem to change anything coming from the center channel so the voices are still anchored to the screen. When I switch back to Dolby, the room seems to close in and everything sounds dull in comparison.

The more technically minded might point out that sound aberrations might occur from using this feature, but I cannot detect anything worth mentioning. The added spacial imagery is worth the price of admission. Of course, it might be different if your room is huge to begin with, I don't know.

I did show this to several people and all preferred using the extra channels.

So, have you tried it? If so, what is your take on this?

[GMichael]

I tried it. It was ok, but I liked having the extra two speakers in the rear instead. I think that the new RX-A3010 lets you run all 9.1 (or 9.2) at the same time. My RX-A3000 won't unless I add an external amp.

[StevenSurprenant]

I tried it. It was ok, but I liked having the extra two speakers in the rear instead. I think that the new RX-A3010 lets you run all 9.1 (or 9.2) at the same time. My RX-A3000 won't unless I add an external amp.

I never tried running 7.1 since I don't have the room. I suppose I could if I lay speakers on the floor behind the couch or mount them on the ceiling. But you like that better than the presence speakers. It would be nice to hear a complete setup with 7.1 and the presence speakers.

Anyway, you got my curiosity and I might just try it.

Thanks.

[GMichael]

I never tried running 7.1 since I don't have the room. I suppose I could if I lay speakers on the floor behind the couch or mount them on the ceiling. But you like that better than the presence speakers. It would be nice to hear a complete setup with 7.1 and the presence speakers.

Anyway, you got my curiosity and I might just try it.

Thanks.

My room is a bit longer than it is wide. (14x26)
That may be why I prefer the one over the other.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Presence speakers are not needed, not supported, and not beneficial for audio or soundtrack reproduction. It is gimmicky, and was rejected by the studios who preferred 7.1 "on the ground" instead of 9.1 "in the air".

Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way. It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system. You don't need ten speakers when eight will do just fine. We only need eight in the studio, and you only need eight at home.

[StevenSurprenant]

Presence speakers are not needed, not supported, and not beneficial for audio or soundtrack reproduction. It is gimmicky, and was rejected by the studios who preferred 7.1 "on the ground" instead of 9.1 "in the air".

Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way. It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system. You don't need ten speakers when eight will do just fine. We only need eight in the studio, and you only need eight at home.

I only have a 5.1 system at home, and I much prefer how it sounds compared to a movie theater. I'm not saying that a movie theater doesn't have its strengths, but given a choice of duplicating a movie theater in my home or to use more conventional speakers of high quality, I would hands down go the home route. First off, horns just don't do a good job. They're great for loudness and dynamics, but fall short on the level of details. No offense intended to horn lovers, it's just a personal preference and I'm sure there are some great horns out there.

Horns are mainly used in theaters because they take less power to run and they get loud. It's a compromise of quantity over quality. For their purpose, they are perfect, but in the home, there is better.

As for DSP, well that too is a personal choice. Every room is different and the same system in a small room will sound much different than in a large room. Why should I deny myself something that I feel improves the sound? Why should I let some recording engineer dictate what I should like. Why don't recording engineers do a better job so that we don't have to resort to DSP?

The fact is, that in your world, everything you do makes sense to you, but in the real world outside the studio, it gets much more complicated, the equipment is different, the rooms are different, and peoples expectations are different. There is no one shoe fits all.

Strangely enough, I would never use DSP for my 2 channel system, but for surround, it seems to be useful.

[jjp735i]

"Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way.It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system."

This has to be the biggest load of BS I have ever heard. If you don't like the presence speakers fine, but to say they don't sound correct or artificial is BS. I also have a full Yamaha surround system and use the presence speakers in the back instead of the front, Yamaha gives you this option and I love the way it sounds. Adds so much more to the movie. And they don't make up for deficiencies in the speaker system. If you don't have nice speakers then presence speakers are not going to help.

I post very little on this site because of post just like this. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not good.

[jjp735i]

Presence speakers are not needed, not supported, and not beneficial for audio or soundtrack reproduction. It is gimmicky, and was rejected by the studios who preferred 7.1 "on the ground" instead of 9.1 "in the air".

Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way. It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system. You don't need ten speakers when eight will do just fine. We only need eight in the studio, and you only need eight at home.

It's all in what you like and what your ears enjoy. I love my presence speakers and always use them. An it's not for the lack of my speakers. You can never compare a theater set up to home theater set up. There are to many varibles in the home to change the sound.

I say if you like it keep it. Just because the "studio " didn't record it that way doesn't mean it doesn't sound good. I also use Yamaha and I love some of there DSP programs. Thsi subject has been gone over before and you will also have people jumping in to saying it's not needed. Use what you like and enjoy, that is what home theater is all about.

I have to agree with you on that the presence speakers add a nice depth around the screen, AND it doesn't make anything sound Artificial.

[GMichael]

(Mike pulls up a seat and some popcorn)

Wow! Look at that fuse burn! I wonder how long it will be till the big boom/bang.

(Sets a cooler down and opens a beer)

[StevenSurprenant]

(Mike pulls up a seat and some popcorn)

Wow! Look at that fuse burn! I wonder how long it will be till the big boom/bang.

(Sets a cooler down and opens a beer)

LMAO!

I couldn't stop laughing at what you said! I could actually visualize you sitting there with your popcorn and beer.

Sir T likes to be right and I know nothing I can say will win this discussion. Still, it has a certain amount of entertainment value.

BTW, I have no ill feeling toward Sir T. I like him well enough, but the one thing in audio I learned a long time ago is that opinions are opinions and unless you're open minded about all this, heads will butt. In this case, I'm being just as bad as Sir T, but I know he enjoys it as much as I do. In his limited (constrained) way, he is trying to do the right thing. I think he means well.

Kind of reminds me of the discussions in the wire forums many years ago.

I feel embarrassed acting this way. In real life, I never argue with people. I figure life is too short to to get upset over such minor issues.

If it gets to the point of name calling, the fun ends and I'll move on to more constructive endeavors.

Many years ago, my sister disagreed with me and in a moment of weakness, she called me a "butt head" (strong words for her). We still laugh about that after all these years.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I really hate it when people speak as if you are not in the room.

Sir T likes to be right and I know nothing I can say will win this discussion. Still, it has a certain amount of entertainment value.

There is something you can say to participate(this is not about winning, but presenting accurate information) in this discussion. How about some truth, facts, and science, and a little less of the anecdotal and BS.

BTW, I have no ill feeling toward Sir T. I like him well enough, but the one thing in audio I learned a long time ago is that opinions are opinions and unless you're open minded about all this, heads will butt. In this case, I'm being just as bad as Sir T, but I know he enjoys it as much as I do. In his limited (constrained) way, he is trying to do the right thing. I think he means well.

There are opinions, and there are fact Steven. You are long on opinions, and VERY short on facts, and that is your problem. For me, this is not personal, it's about the information you present. Open minds are good, but they are also open for misinformation and outright BS. I have an open mind for accurate information, experience, and educated opinions. My mind is closed to crap I know is not truthful(like your ears were perfect in balancing your speakers), and anecdotal opinions that are totally unscientific.

Kind of reminds me of the discussions in the wire forums many years ago.

This is nothing like what happened in the wire forums many years ago.

I feel embarrassed acting this way. In real life, I never argue with people. I figure life is too short to to get upset over such minor issues.

Audio is a minor issue outside an audio forum. Inside an audio forum it rises to a major issue because that is why we are here. If we allow this website to be dominated by uneducated anecdotal opinions that have no basis in science, then this website loses its value.

If it gets to the point of name calling, the fun ends and I'll move on to more constructive endeavors.

Many years ago, my sister disagreed with me and in a moment of weakness, she called me a "butt head" (strong words for her). We still laugh about that after all these years.

For me, its not about you, I have no interest in that. It is about your words, and your words only. If your words are stupid, I am going to say they are stupid. If your words are wrong, then I am going to say they are wrong. Steven as a person does not interest me one bit.

[StevenSurprenant]

I really hate it when people speak as if you are not in the room.

For me, its not about you, I have no interest in that. It is about your words, and your words only. If your words are stupid, I am going to say they are stupid. If your words are wrong, then I am going to say they are wrong. Steven as a person does not interest me one bit.

I wasn't talking to you at the time.

As for the last part, you're just being mean. It would have been better to use the term ignorant, not stupid.

Let me tell you about "experts"...

The word is at best, ambiguous. It doesn't meant that that person knows everything about a subject, only that they know a great deal about it. The world is full of experts that diametrically disagree with each other. Given this "fact", whom you choose to believe is a matter of a persons personal sensibilities. It also implies that there is more than one way to interpret the same thing. You, being an "expert", should be able to question your positions when presented with contrary opinions. If someone says it sounds better this way or that way, even if it goes against what you think, it is a valid statement. I have no doubt that DSP would screw up the steering that you have mentioned so often, but is steering the most important aspect of what we hear at home? Apparently not if we feel that DSP improves the sound. DSP is not perfect, stereo is not perfect, and surround is not perfect.

Audio hasn't been around for that long to declare it perfect. When audio began, mono was considered the cats meow, but that wasn't good enough. Stereo made its debut and it was declared state of the art, then surround popped up and now it's the standard by which we judge audio. In 10 years or a hundred years, perhaps our entire wall will be a speaker comprised of thousands of point sources like a TV screen. The point is that it keeps getting better and when we look back at what used to be the standard, we would shake our heads in disbelief that we thought what came before was good sound. We can argue all we want about present day technologies, but compared to what is to come, it is grossly inferior. We will develop new theories and new technologies that haven't been imagined yet. Many of the theories that we base our present day understanding on will be wholly inadequate. So I ask you, what is the point of arguing about this? We should just enjoy what we have and not worry about perfection, which doesn't exist.

[StevenSurprenant]

There are opinions, and there are fact Steven. You are long on opinions, and VERY short on facts, and that is your problem. For me, this is not personal, it's about the information you present. Open minds are good, but they are also open for misinformation and outright BS. I have an open mind for accurate information, experience, and educated opinions. My mind is closed to crap I know is not truthful(like your ears were perfect in balancing your speakers), and anecdotal opinions that are totally unscientific.

Audio is a minor issue outside an audio forum. Inside an audio forum it rises to a major issue because that is why we are here. If we allow this website to be dominated by uneducated anecdotal opinions that have no basis in science, then this website loses its value.

What facts?

There are so many speaker configurations, so many amplifier topologies, so many room affects, so many ways to record an event, so many... Well you get the point. When you mix this all together, where is the science? You can make two speakers that spec out almost identically, but they sound totally different. You can use amplifiers that spec out almost identically, yet, they too may sound different. You can use an amp that specs out worse than another, but sounds better. When you mix something on your console, you mix according to what you hear on your speakers so by the time I get it, it sounds different because my speakers are different. I will agree that "science" will get you in the ball park, but it's our ears that make the final determination.

There is no way for "science" to accurately predict what our ears will hear, at least not yet. If someone states that what they hear is good, it's not anecdotal, it's a fact, to "them". You cannot quantify that in scientific terms. Isn't that what this is all about? How does it sound? The emotional response of an individual to the quality of a recording or an audio system cannot be put into numbers, yet that is the final goal. Mr. Bose amassed a fortune, not by pursuing science, but addressing the human factor.

When I watch a movie, I sometimes wonder why the front soundstage is so compressed toward the speakers. It doesn't have depth like it would in real life. In a real scenario I can tell if someone is closer or further away, even if only by a couple of feet, but I don't hear this in movies except on rare occasions. I know this is a result of how they mic the movie, but that's hardly accurate. Sometimes I may be watching people talking during a rain storm and all the rain is heard in the front. Some recordings use the surround speakers to bring the rain into the room to make it more realistic. We are at the mercy of the recording engineer. This isn't science, it's a decision of the engineer to try and make the movie sound as realistic as possible. Sometimes, when a door opens off screen, the engineer steers the sound hard right or left, which sounds unrealistic. I could go on and on about how the sound of many movies could be produced better, but the point is that it's not science.

I love science, but science is not everything when your throw in the human factor.

When you admire that shiny new car, is that science? You get the point.

If you were speaking about the spaghettification of matter near the event horizon of a black hole, that is pure science, but when there is a human factor involved, such as how we perceive sound, everything changes.

One more thing...

My mind is closed to crap I know is not truthful(like your ears were perfect in balancing your speakers)

You should be able to do this better than I. My hearing is not perfect, but I can tell when something is louder than another. Quite frankly, if I can do it, then I would suspect that most people could do the same. As for you thinking I wasn't truthful, what gives you the right to judge me? What purpose would it serve to not be honest? Quite frankly, I was amazed when I found the system to be spot on. Why do you think I bought the db meter? It wasn't to prove I was perfect, it was to, on your advice, to correct the system accurately because I didn't believe I could do it by ear. To be honest "again", I trust the meter more than I trust my hearing. Frankly, if you find it difficult to balance speaker levels by ear, what does that imply about your eq or mixing abilities? A musician doesn't have to use a meter to adjust their guitar strings. Are you saying that they actually can't do it without a meter? I'm being mean here, but you deserve it for what you said.

Let's not jack around anymore. Name some of your work and I will buy it and critique it and let you know how you are doing from an end users view point. I would love to do this for you and I will be fair and unbiased. Seriously! It will be fun. If you think I will criticize you just to be mean, I won't. I imagine that others will listen to your stuff too and if I am off track, they will let me know and besides, I don't want people to think I'm just being a jerk and that "would" make me look stupid.

[Hyfi]

What facts?



If you were speaking about the spaghettification of matter near the event horizon of a black hole, that is pure science, but when there is a human factor involved, such as how we perceive sound, everything changes.

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

[Mr Peabody]

As an example of horns that do not sound like horns take a listen to the JBL Array or LS series or the Klipsch Paladium. They still may not disperse like domes but if you didn't look you couldn't tell they were horns by listening.

[StevenSurprenant]

As an example of horns that do not sound like horns take a listen to the JBL Array or LS series or the Klipsch Paladium. They still may not disperse like domes but if you didn't look you couldn't tell they were horns by listening.

I'm going to make a point to listen to these and perhaps others. You've peaked my interest. I would love to change my opinion because horns have two qualities that I admire, dynamics and efficiency.

Thanks.

[bfalls]

When I worked in CBS's tape facility we used a 500Hz tone to set levels every morning on our tape duplicators. As a newby I had to run each tape through a computer dedicated for reading levels and EQ. Daily for over a year I listened, tested and set levels on 150 cassette and 20 8-Track duplicators.

I also performed EQ on our QA and A/B test rooms weekly. I would know a 500Hz tone. I would also know 1KHz, 2KHz, 6.3KHz, 10KHz, 12KHz and 16KHz (standard test frequencies on TEAC test tapes).

Our A/B test engineer had a better ear than I. I was the tech responsible for her hardware. Once she said her 500Hz level test tape was distorted. I couldn't hear it, but when tested it had 2% distortion. Normal spec was +/- .5%.

Most of us listen for pleasure. From my experience those who listen more critically, don't enjoy the music as much. With tape it was very difficult, there's so much that can go wrong bias distortion, scrape flutter, sibilance, wow. Knowing what to listen for at times spoiled the music for me. My condolences to reviewers who's job it is to find fault in different designs. They're always comparing to a reference and finding differences. In the case of tapes, ignorance is bliss.

[bfalls]

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
Bfalls has already done that.
Sorry, but he knew it was a 500hz test tone in the first place. He did not just guess the frequency.

I should clarify. Having performed so many EQs using TEAC test tapes, I can tell a difference. If asked to tell the difference between two tones, knowing the ranges, I can tell if one's say 6.3KHz instead of 10KHz. Given a 10KHz tone and an 11KHz tone, I doubt I could. Possibly 50% of the time if I flipped a coin. I really doubt I could tell subtle differences in level. I wouldn't try setting up a system by ear.

For the record, I do have a Yamaha RX-V2095. I used to run the front "presence" speakers. They filled in the front some, but the difference wasn't fulfilling or clarifying. I no longer use them and haven't for many years.

I also don't necessarily like DSP and used it only rarely to enhance stereo TV programs. Then it's a trick to find a suitable one. Most have too much echo. I find the "club" DSP modes acceptable at times. Anything related to "concert" or stadiums sound WAC. It's the same with all my processors/receivers.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
Bfalls has already done that.
Sorry, but he knew it was a 500hz test tone in the first place. He did not just guess the frequency.

I should clarify. Having performed so many EQs using TEAC test tapes, I can tell a difference. If asked to tell the difference between two tones, knowing the ranges, I can tell if one's say 6.3KHz instead of 10KHz. Given a 10KHz tone and an 11KHz tone, I doubt I could. Possibly 50% of the time if I flipped a coin. I really doubt I could tell subtle differences in level. I wouldn't try setting up a system by ear.

For the record, I do have a Yamaha RX-V2095. I used to run the front "presence" speakers. They filled in the front some, but the difference wasn't fulfilling or clarifying. I no longer use them and haven't for many years.

I also don't necessarily like DSP and used it only rarely to enhance stereo TV programs. Then it's a trick to find a suitable one. Most have too much echo. I find the "club" DSP modes acceptable at times. Anything related to "concert" or stadiums sound WAC. It's the same with all my processors/receivers.

Bfalls, thanks for this clarification, and for making my point.

[bfalls]

Just being honest. It's just the way the chips fell. Being in the industry, I understand much of what you're stating. I work with authoring labs all the time, we used to have our own authoring studio in-house before they moved it to LA and New York. I work with them moreso asking when my images will be ready for protecting. I wish I knew more about the authoring side.

I was certified by ISF in Video and Audio setup several years ago, so understand a lot of the standards. It was pre-HDMI so not much experience with 7.1. The knowledge has enhanced my home system setup. I also have Electronics and Computer Hardware degrees, so can usually tell the difference between snake oil and solid performers. I don't have cryogenicaly-treated fuses in my systems or magic stones sitting on my speakers. These have to be proven by something other than a few listening experiences. You'll have to show me the science.

[GMichael]

You guys fight like an old married couple.

[E-Stat]

You guys fight like an old married couple.

I'm thinking more like



rw

[StevenSurprenant]

You guys fight like an old married couple.

I'm thinking more like

Very funny guys!

I'm thinking about divorcing him, but I'm afraid he'll get the house and I'll have to support his children. Audiophiles, you can't live with them and you can't shoot them. What's a guy going to do?

[GMichael]

Who kicked up all this dust?

[Hyfi]

When asked about how Dynaudio speakers are developed and tested, Wilfred Ehrenholz said this
"Be aware that besides all technology, all measurements, all computers, and all theories; The human ear is so much more sensitive than ANY measurement instrument in the world"

He went on to say how they spend 200-300 hours of HUMAN listening to the speakers they develop to tweak them after they meet the specs.

Anyone want to argue with the Pres of one of the top speaker MFGs in the world?