Just ordered a Denon AVR - 4802 receiver. Life is good I can't wait. Should be here monday though.:D :D :) :)
edit: link----> http://www.usa.denon.com/catalog/pdfs/AVR4802.pdf
Printable View
Just ordered a Denon AVR - 4802 receiver. Life is good I can't wait. Should be here monday though.:D :D :) :)
edit: link----> http://www.usa.denon.com/catalog/pdfs/AVR4802.pdf
Nice, I hope you have a good EQ to hook to it now. :p
EQ oh hell no.;)Quote:
Originally posted by CrawlingEye
Nice, I hope you have a good EQ to hook to it now. :p
Don't tell me you think songs are actually mixed to sound "good" on a pro-audio system?Quote:
Originally posted by 1ctabor
EQ oh hell no.;)
Most stereos have very expressive mids with lacking treble and bass. EQ's come in handy for cutting out the excess done in mixing, which generally consists of bass boosts and treble boosts with slight mid cuts (essentially just scooped mids).
That is a beast, I saw one of those in a Tweeter and feel in love.
Way better then mine.
Any high end system like this is gonna do just fine without an EQ.Quote:
Originally posted by CrawlingEye
Don't tell me you think songs are actually mixed to sound "good" on a pro-audio system?
Most stereos have very expressive mids with lacking treble and bass. EQ's come in handy for cutting out the excess done in mixing, which generally consists of bass boosts and treble boosts with slight mid cuts (essentially just scooped mids).
"Fine," yeah, but there's always room for improving on the mainstream mixing.Quote:
Originally posted by 1ctabor
Any high end system like this is gonna do just fine without an EQ.
Ok, which EQ would you recommend to make a $2000 THX Ultra certified receiver sound better.Quote:
Originally posted by CrawlingEye
"Fine," yeah, but there's always room for improving on the mainstream mixing.
LoL :)Quote:
Originally posted by 1ctabor
Ok, which EQ would you recommend to make a $2000 THX Ultra certified receiver sound better.
Care to list the specs on the rest of your system :P plzzzzzzzzzzz
did you see the thread i posted about the system i am putting together ? I'd like you honest opinion of it because i'm new to this and i haven't picked up any of it yet so i can still change my mind on bits of it :)
I'd love to put in a new Yamaha DSP-AZ1 receiver but i'm scared to even ask what they cost :( Seriously thinking of going to the HX Ref speakers by yamaha though.
polk audio rt200i mains each have a built in dual 8" powered sub. rt55i rear bookshelfs. cs400i center channel and dual 10" polk sub. Toshiba 9200 dvd --very nice--(I think there best model). sony 5 disc cd soon to be denon. toshiba hdtv 50". Now I need 2 more speakers for my 2 extra channels. I looked at your system you are considering, don't really know much on yamaha speakers. There receivers are nice though. I probably would go with a better brand receiver if you have the money although that particular one looks nice. But if not it'll do you just fine. I've found that pioneer is generally weak on there power and tend to distort fairly early as you turn the volume up. It all comes down to how much money you are willing to spend. Look around you may find a good price for a decent yamaha receiver. Check out denon, yamaha, onkyo, kenwood(soveriegn series), harmon kardon.
Thanks, v.nice system btw :)Quote:
Originally posted by 1ctabor
polk audio rt200i mains each have a built in dual 8" powered sub. rt55i rear bookshelfs. cs400i center channel and dual 10" polk sub. Toshiba 8200 dvd --very nice--(I think there best model). sony 5 disc cd soon to be denon. toshiba hdtv 50". Now I need 2 more speakers for my 2 extra channels. I looked at your system you are considering, don't really know much on yamaha speakers. There receivers are nice though. I probably would go with a better brand receiver if you have the money although that particular one looks nice. But if not it'll do you just fine. I've found that pioneer is generally weak on there power and tend to distort fairly early as you turn the volume up. It all comes down to how much money you are willing to spend. Look around you may find a good price for a decent yamaha receiver . Check out denon, yamaha, onkyo, kenwood(soveriegn series), harmon kardon.
I'm sort of limited to yamaha stuff because one of my dads friends owns a hifi store. www.todds.com.au and it's pretty much all they sell
Maybe i'll save a few extra pennies and get the Yamaha DSP-AZ1. Might aswell do it right the first time :)
DefinatelyQuote:
Originally posted by FaTs
Thanks, v.nice system btw :)
I'm sort of limited to yamaha stuff because one of my dads friends owns a hifi store. www.todds.com.au and it's pretty much all they sell
Maybe i'll save a few extra pennies and get the Yamaha DSP-AZ1. Might aswell do it right the first time :)
Anything would really be better than nothing.Quote:
Originally posted by 1ctabor
Ok, which EQ would you recommend to make a $2000 THX Ultra certified receiver sound better.
Even if (as I assume it can) your receiver can produce crystal clear what's coming from the cd, the problem remains that what's on the CD could be the problem itself. As I've said before, when mixing songs, a lot of recording studios will mix with expressive (aka excessive) treble and bass to compensate for the lacking treble and bass of standard stereos. :p
Hmm never knew they did that. Every experience I've had with EQ's ended up with a tinny sound or are easily distorted. Most receivers have there own capabilities of compensating for excess anything that you don't prefer like a built in EQ. But I always thought keeping the sound as original to the CD is what everyone wants to accomplish. My current receiver when playing cd's sounds best when I leave it on auto-format decode. There's no bass or treble adjustment on that setting it's just the way it comes off the cd.Quote:
Originally posted by CrawlingEye
Anything would really be better than nothing.
Even if (as I assume it can) your receiver can produce crystal clear what's coming from the cd, the problem remains that what's on the CD could be the problem itself. As I've said before, when mixing songs, a lot of recording studios will mix with expressive (aka excessive) treble and bass to compensate for the lacking treble and bass of standard stereos. :p
Well, my music system's (except CD) probably older than most of you here (comprised of Rock, Revox, Musical Fidelity and KEF) so perhaps my views are dinosaurs too.
But I always understood the purpose to be to reproduce the music as faithfully as possible. Records used to do that and the CD's I have do too. I have friends who are involved in recording and there's no way that they tailor the sound to suit low end rigs.
Any decent amps I've seen come with off/on and a volume control and that's it. Anything much else (used to if not now) degrade the sound. In fact I have even shopped around for specific cables because they sound different (speaker and junction too).
If an EQ is one of those things with buttons and graphs I don't know of any that serve any useful purpose.
Need a true EQ (one that with everything centered won't boost/cut any frequencies) and some experience (aka fooling around) with EQ's.
I'm not certain of good EQ's for home theatre, but I know a lot of great PA and rack EQ's. :p
Thats what I always thought too. How old are you Rob?Quote:
Originally posted by Rob77
Well, my music system's (except CD) probably older than most of you here (comprised of Rock, Revox, Musical Fidelity and KEF) so perhaps my views are dinosaurs too.
But I always understood the purpose to be to reproduce the music as faithfully as possible. Records used to do that and the CD's I have do too. I have friends who are involved in recording and there's no way that they tailor the sound to suit low end rigs.
Any decent amps I've seen come with off/on and a volume control and that's it. Anything much else (used to if not now) degrade the sound. In fact I have even shopped around for specific cables because they sound different (speaker and junction too).
If an EQ is one of those things with buttons and graphs I don't know of any that serve any useful purpose.
Looks sweet, though honestly, i'm not a big fan of Denon's products. If i had anywheres near that money i would have gotten Pioneer's Elite THX Ultra 2 (VSX-49TX?) receiver. Let us know how it sounds and sets up when you get it. Good Luck!Quote:
Originally posted by 1ctabor
Just ordered a Denon AVR - 4802 receiver. Life is good I can't wait. Should be here monday though.:D :D :) :)
edit: link----> http://www.usa.denon.com/catalog/pdfs/AVR4802.pdf
I agree with the need for an EQ. And in the classic speed metal genre a whole new set of problems crop up like not enough bass emphasis. i dont know what genre Mr. 1ctabor listens to, but if metal is one of them, he will thank you for recommending that EQ in the end.Quote:
Originally posted by CrawlingEye
Anything would really be better than nothing.
Even if (as I assume it can) your receiver can produce crystal clear what's coming from the cd, the problem remains that what's on the CD could be the problem itself. As I've said before, when mixing songs, a lot of recording studios will mix with expressive (aka excessive) treble and bass to compensate for the lacking treble and bass of standard stereos. :p
Well, we've had this debate about using EQs before, and rather than reiterating everything let me just state that some recordings i have were originally recorded/mixed so bad that they sound truly awful without any EQ adjustments whether it be coolplayer for mp3s or the simple bass and treble controls on my receiver. I agree that if a recording sounds decent, the best balance will come from neutral EQ settings, or not using one at all.Quote:
Originally posted by Rob77
Well, my music system's (except CD) probably older than most of you here (comprised of Rock, Revox, Musical Fidelity and KEF) so perhaps my views are dinosaurs too.
But I always understood the purpose to be to reproduce the music as faithfully as possible. Records used to do that and the CD's I have do too. I have friends who are involved in recording and there's no way that they tailor the sound to suit low end rigs.
Any decent amps I've seen come with off/on and a volume control and that's it. Anything much else (used to if not now) degrade the sound. In fact I have even shopped around for specific cables because they sound different (speaker and junction too).
If an EQ is one of those things with buttons and graphs I don't know of any that serve any useful purpose.
lol......I'm 46 1ctabor ;)
And ok, I was talking about professional recordings, in which case anything in the sound path (and particularly some of the EQ type things I used to see on the market) would only worsen the sound.
But sure, if you like to listen to stuff that was never properly recorded in the first place then you'd want to do something about it. Some kind of mixer in that case would just be doing what should've been done originally though. Mind you, maybe some of them didn't have enough guitar too.......midi? :D
Rob, you're completely missing the point.
Professional Recordings often put extra emphasis on certain frequencies and leave others lacking so the song sounds good on your average stereo. When you're trying to produce "true sound" you do need to tweak to get there. Most recording (yes, professional) is intentionally done to either cut/boost certain frequencies, for the benefit of the majority of listeners.
Perhaps you should see if you could get an internship at a professional studio. ;)
Well, that's why I said maybe what I was saying was out of date. Have you worked in recording and seen that done with anything other than maybe boy-band stuff.
Also, if what you are describing is the case, how is it the high end manufacturers produce equipment with such limited control, even valve gear? Do, Naim, Krell, etc make EQ's? I wasn't aware any of them did but maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe they have some kind of compensation built in?
Receivers don't require EQ's, if they attached an EQ, it would be 1) VERY expensive and 2) give reasonable doubt that they're not giving you the truest sound.
Not only boy-bands, but a lot of other mainstream recording studios do the same exact thing. Is it sensible as a professional recorder? No. Is it sensible to make the majority of your customers be pleased with your results? Yes.
I've never had sound quality issues when NOT using an EQ. Actually the time I did use and EQ was when I had the worst sound issues. It wasn't noticeable except at with certain sounds. The main thing I remember was the THX sound at the begining of certain movies was all distorted. When I unhooked the EQ it sounded fine. Since then I haven't ever used another EQ. And to my ears have never had sound quality issues with any cd. I listen to anything from 80's rock to modern hip hop. So there is a pretty wide range of music. I can't see how just any EQ would do it justice. I would think you would have to match quality in order to really accomplish something.Quote:
Originally posted by CrawlingEye
Receivers don't require EQ's, if they attached an EQ, it would be 1) VERY expensive and 2) give reasonable doubt that they're not giving you the truest sound.
Not only boy-bands, but a lot of other mainstream recording studios do the same exact thing. Is it sensible as a professional recorder? No. Is it sensible to make the majority of your customers be pleased with your results? Yes.