Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: HT systems vs two-channel for music listening (Read 27389 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #75 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Quote from: theriverlethe on
Quote from: Rich B on
I'm confused about something. It was said earlier that some AVR's can't completely disable DSP as some stereo integrated amps have a HT bypass function. So then that means they may sound different?


Most receivers have a "pure direct" mode that bypasses all DSP.  However, you will lose bass management and your sub won't work in stereo unless you have it wired and crossed over externally from the receiver.  There should also be a less "pure"  direct mode that still includes bass management, channel delays, EQ, etc.


Ajinfla said on page 2 :

Quote
Some AVRs apparently cannot fully bypass the "correction" circuits despite "bypass" et al modes. While this may not equate to "bad", it certainly can represent a change to the soundfield, that would not be there with your integrated.


So I was wondering what that was all about. If what he says is true then that means that it could affect the sound in some way? I assumed the Pure Direct bypassed all the circuits, but he's the expert.


I don't know which AVR's he's referring to or how he reached that conclusion.  My Pioneer receiver has an analog direct mode that completely bypasses the AD/DA conversion and all digital filtering.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #76 –
I'd like to know why he is pretending he hasn't already had this conversation (too):
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=108596

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #78 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: mzil on
Born again?

Yes, one time subjectivist audio bling salesman turned crusading zealot of righteousness, smiting those who may dare add a $300 external amp audiophoolery, or heaven forbid, use their already owned AVR for biamping. The horror. Sound familiar?

I once was a salesman part is true however the rest of what you wrote about me was never true, at any point whatsoever. I was never a subjectivist and I'm not sure what would make you think that unless you are confusing me with some other forum member or think it is impossible to sell audio without being a subjectivist. I didn't learn audio from my career, mind you, I was an expert before I started, so there was never any "turning point" or change. My views now are very much the same as they were when I was 16.

Do I think McIntosh amplifiers, "bling" I guess you deem them, sound any different than a cheap Yamaha receiver kept within its operational range? No. Does that mean I can't appreciate their design, construction, sexy power meters, etc. or sell them with a good conscious to others? No. Would I love to own one myself? Yes. Did I ever at any point tell customers a lie that they "sound better" [caveat, caveat, caveat...] No. [Although there were many instances when interacting with venodors, manufacturers, trade show personnel, and customers there was a need to "bite my tongue" at times and keep my mouth shut.] I guess many if not most of them thought more expensive gear automatically "sounds better" [At least I'd assume that's their general bias.] and I never sat any of them down and explained with an hour tutorial concepts they've never even been exposed to like expectation bias, level matching, double blind testing with randomized assignment, and statistical significance at a p value of .05, but frankly they often buy for reasons that have very little to do with sound quality; they are more concerned with impressing their friends, fitting in and mimicking their neighbors' decisions, and looks, for instance.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #79 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
[For now conceding there just might be something to adding a non-clipping/distorting amp...and biamping.
"Conceding"? Passive bi-amping should never be carried out by any individual, anywhere, at any time. [Except when conducting a properly designed double blind test to see if it has any audible benefits, which nobody in the over half century that we have had speakers which could be wired this way has ever shown.]

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #80 –
Quote from: mzil on
Passive bi-amping should never be carried out by any individual, anywhere, at any time.

Perfect. Thanks. 

Ok, any edicts on 2 vs MCH for music?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #81 –
Huh? 2ch vs multichannel music?  Unlike passive bi-amping, I'm unaware of anyone questioning if they are audibly distinguishable from each other. Or was that not what you meant?

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #82 –
Nice edit. 

Quote from: mzil on
OK, here: Yes, over driven, audibly distorting amps are audibly distorting.

Passive bi-amping should never be carried out by any individual, anywhere, at any time.

Ok, so full ranged AVR clipping is audible, but woofer ch only AVR clipping isn't.
Got it. Make sense.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #83 –
Passive bi-amp silliness should be addressed in the proper thread, not this one.

Nice edit? I didn't make any edits. I already wrote "Huh?", indicating I was not entirely sure what you meant, so why don't you spell it out for me. I also wrote in that post:
Quote
Or was that not what you meant?

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #87 –
Trolling?

Nah, I'm just trying to shame you into keeping your redundant posts down.  Others can be the judge of who's guilty of trolling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx7WEdHxn2Y

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #88 –
Quote from: mzil on
I see. When there is a concurrent visual element to the sound, only then will there be deep bass, requiring a sub. IMO that's a ridiculous notion. Subs are used and are actively working with most music.
[...]
Wow. What an incredibly convoluted argument. To paraphrase:
"Sound reproduction when there is a concurrent visual image must ideally have deep bass extension, via a sub, which isn't needed and may even be detrimental to sound reproduction without a concurrent visual image, i.e. 2ch music alone." Um, baloney.

In my experience, music with significant content below ca. 40Hz is rather uncommon. There are of course exceptions, but in my (non-representative) collection I wouldn't know where to look if I wanted to find a track with energy below 40Hz, let alone 30Hz. I tried once but was surprised at how little is going on down there.

With movies this is much easier. Lord of the Rings has deep bass throughout, Master & Commander is notorious for its 20Hz cannon shots, Star Trek (2009) goes well below 20Hz in some scenes as does Looper. I wonder if there are more than a handful of (public) cinemas around the world with a sound system capable of reproducing this stuff.

Quote
Even if this silly notion were true, which it isn't, then how would you deal with optimally listening to music within a movie? Turn off the 5.1 speaker system and switch to the alternate 2 fullrange speakers whenever there is music in the movie?!

As I stated earlier, its a matter of priorities. The supposed detrimental effects on fidelity of subs are accepted in the face of their obvious benefits: copious amounts of deep bass. There's a difference between saying "I'm experiencing pain listening to this music playing through the subwoofer" vs. "That music would sound better on my pure stereo system". And after all, movie sound at home was lossy for a long time, so no true audiophile was expecting a hi-fi experience anyway.

Quote
What percentage of movies have no music at all, including the ending credits?

Almost none, of course, but why did you bring up the end credits? Who watches a movie for the music in the end credits?

Quote
Firstly, you don't always have to have an identical third speaker in the center if you don't want to.

Of course not, but the point was trying to have your cake and eat it: floor-standing speakers all around.

Quote
Secondly, average people, even ones with very tall tower speakers, are incapable of mounting TVs above the lower three?

Wouldn't work for me at least. I'd have to mount my TV just under the ceiling if I wanted enough clearance to use the same model of speaker as a center as I have for left/right. That would be pretty uncomfortable to look up to. I wouldn't call my mains tall nor would I say my TV is particularly large (although the ceiling is relatively low).

What about this poor bloke?
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Panorama-The...alerie/1615638/

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #89 –
So the audiophiles' premise is

- you must have deep bass extension down to 20Hz, or so, when there is a concurrent visual element to the sound and just have to accept that you compromise the reproduction of the mids and highs to do this so material up in those ranges, including music, will suffer, but bass extension is your priority when there is a concurrent visual element to the sound.
- you don't care about bass extension when there is no visual element concurrent to the audio since such sound doesn't typically include much deep bass.

I disagree with them.

Quote
With movies this is much easier. Lord of the Rings has deep bass throughout, Master & Commander is notorious for its 20Hz cannon shots, Star Trek (2009) goes well below 20Hz in some scenes as does Looper. I wonder if there are more than a handful of (public) cinemas around the world with a sound system capable of reproducing this stuff.

So whereas you expect many if not most cinemas will lack the deep bass extension necessary to faithfully reproduce these particular flicks you mention, it is inexcusable (in their minds) for a home cinema to not go down to 20Hz, even though doing so compromises music playback, so they say?

Quote
And after all, movie sound at home was lossy for a long time, so no true audiophile was expecting a hi-fi experience anyway.

Lossy sound can't be audiophile? You are saying this or "they" are saying this?

Quote
What about this poor bloke?

Tower speakers with three feet of cabinet above the tweeter level aren't exactly common and if he insists this is the way to go, and instead of being content with the center speaker he already has wants a third tower, he should mount it behind an acoustically transparent screen, which is of course the norm for nearly all commercial cinemas.
 

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #90 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Quote
Rich B, didn't you already try this argument on for size here, or at least participate in such a discussion along with your twin brother?


Twin brother??


Perhaps the unrelated  alias that you use on AVS?