My new receiver.................

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CrawlingEye
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. ;)

---

What I don't get is your meaning of "true sound"? How can you accomplish "true" sound with your own personal settings? Wouldn't that mean "true" sound is different at every household with an EQ? I mean, there's no way everyone would have there EQ's set identical and I'm sure the "audiophile" out there would think his is "true" sound and the next audiophile down the road would think he's accomplished "true" sound. I just don't see how it is. I don't know, maybe I wouldn't like the audiophiles meaning of "true" sound if it meant butchering up the original cd by removing half the bass and tweaking the treble around to there personal tastes. To me, the cd should be listened to the way it was recorded, if you want more or less bass, turn the knob.

As 1ctabor stated above, "true" sound is not easy to define. Every person has their own preferences regarding music.

Personally, I don´t like the altered frequencies that EQ´s are able to do in music. From my experiences, it creates a certain amount of noise. Depending on the EQ, the noise can or not be detectable on certain volumes. If you want to hear the original and clean sound from music, then there´s no need for an EQ (in my opinion).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1ctabor
What I don't get is your meaning of "true sound"? How can you accomplish "true" sound with your own personal settings? Wouldn't that mean "true" sound is different at every household with an EQ? I mean, there's no way everyone would have there EQ's set identical and I'm sure the "audiophile" out there would think his is "true" sound and the next audiophile down the road would think he's accomplished "true" sound. I just don't see how it is. I don't know, maybe I wouldn't like the audiophiles meaning of "true" sound if it meant butchering up the original cd by removing half the bass and tweaking the treble around to there personal tastes. To me, the cd should be listened to the way it was recorded, if you want more or less bass, turn the knob.

---

To answer your question bluntly, i dont care about "true sound" if the "true sound" the engineers ended up burning to the CD is awful. Listen to just about any classic 80s thrash album. But yes, if a recording is decent, i usually listen to it with whatever EQ either turned off or set to neutral. That i completely agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1ctabor
What I don't get is your meaning of "true sound"? How can you accomplish "true" sound with your own personal settings? Wouldn't that mean "true" sound is different at every household with an EQ? I mean, there's no way everyone would have there EQ's set identical and I'm sure the "audiophile" out there would think his is "true" sound and the next audiophile down the road would think he's accomplished "true" sound. I just don't see how it is. I don't know, maybe I wouldn't like the audiophiles meaning of "true" sound if it meant butchering up the original cd by removing half the bass and tweaking the treble around to there personal tastes. To me, the cd should be listened to the way it was recorded, if you want more or less bass, turn the knob.

---

The point of using an EQ isn't to "tweak" the song, but more to "correct" like if there's too much 800Hz (mid range) then you just cut some of it out. EQing's more a process of correction than "making better."

Congrats the Denon 4802 its a fine little ;) reciever.Plenty of features and good sound quality to boot.I have the Denon 3801 and had the 5800(sold for a Sunfire Theater Grand II).


EQ use can be a big plus(even if its not audiophile aproved)as it can remove some of the nasty edge most pop recordings have.High quality recordings are ruined by EQ's,most however can gain from proper EQ use.As most EQ's are not used properly,you know the SMILE curve,boost the bass and treble and cut the midrange.

CE is right in a sense about altered music masters.

However as I remember it, they only mess around with the super extreme signal ranges, like below 80hz and above 15khz and a slight gain in the vocal frequencies. Mostly this is recently and to help those out that go the $20 bombox route.

Once you get into stuff like 1ctobar has this point becomes moot. It sounds as though with the seperation that he has it wouldnt even matter in the first place. Everything is so pieced out that he wouldnt even notice a gain or cut in signal. Besides I believe that reciever, as he stated has a feature that pretty much eliminates any problems from cuts and gains.

EQs are more for Personal hearing prefrence rather then objective reconstruction. Individual results vary greatly.

In my experience EQ's are never really a bad thing unless they are set up wrong. I don't have an EQ for my surround sound system but thats mainly because I don't want to have to pay for one but I'm sure if someone just gave me a decent one for free with some time tweaking it I could make my system sound slightly better to me. There's so many factors that make audio sound good or not that I wouldn't worry about "true sound" everyones systems and speakers are different not to mention ears and whether they have hearing loss at certian frequencies that people, in my opinion, should go for what they find sounds best and an EQ helps that.

I have my dad's old NAD 7020 reciever hooked up to my computer with a set of old Mission 700's that I rebuilt with new raw speakers and I use the Winamp EQ to help give my somewhat not "true sounding" speakers better sound in my opinion :)

NAD rules!

I wish i could afford one of their integrated amps in a new box. :-(

So, back to the topic... how is the receiver?
So far I've concluded nothing but that it looks nice.

OK, a little late to this thread, as I've been very busy lately, setting up new machine's and whatnot.

Firstly 1ctabor, congrats on the purchase. I'm not farmiliar with Denon surround amps, whats its vital specs? and what speakers u using with it? Whatever the case, if you are planning to hookup to your PC, then you will likely get a far better sound than most multimedia systems out there.

On the EQ debate, I used to be dead against using an EQ of any kind, but that was more to do with brainwashing by audiophiles that got me into this way of thinking. However, I have come to appreciate the difference an EQ can make to the sound of a system. No system is perfect, and an EQ can help with the deficincies that a given system might have. For example, I know my amplifier is known to had slightly recessed mids, and a slightly reined in treble at the extreme end. So I boost the mids, and the highest treble, and the end result is much more pleasing to my ears.

Then, as crawling stated before, most recording are not "audiophile" quality recordings. It will be obvious when you listen which recordings are audiophile recordings, because you can turn the EQ off, and it sounds right. However, these will not help you if you dont have tonally perfect equipment either, and I dont. Most budget level equipment will not sound tonally perfect.

So I agree with CE and others who advocated an EQ - if setup correctly, they will add lots to the enjoyment of your system, particularly if like me, the majority of your tunes are in mp3 format. ;)

"Most budget level equipment will not sound tonally perfect."

In defense of 1ctabor's new receiver, the 4802 goes for over a grand, easily. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by blppt
"Most budget level equipment will not sound tonally perfect."

In defense of 1ctabor's new receiver, the 4802 goes for over a grand, easily. ;-)

---

...but the point was that they mix things to sound good on budget level stereos, not 1k receivers (they add color to the sound to help common deficiencies). :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by blppt
"Most budget level equipment will not sound tonally perfect."

In defense of 1ctabor's new receiver, the 4802 goes for over a grand, easily. ;-)

---

actually if you buy from a certified vendor it sells for $2500;)

1ctabor,

Congrats! I too bought a Denon 4802 (a couple of months ago) and love it although I'm still experimenting with all of its features. One thing that it really nice about the unit is the On-Screen Display (OSD) feature for setting up the unit and making adjustments.

I received a lot of helpful information on the Denon 4802 at the following website:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com

Enjoy!


P.S. If you're like me, :D definitely plan on setting aside a few hours to set up and tweak it. The Denon 4802 has a ton of "bells and whistles".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bannon
1ctabor,

Congrats! I too bought a Denon 4802 (a couple of months ago) and love it although I'm still experimenting with all of its features. One thing that it really nice about the unit is the On-Screen Display (OSD) feature for setting up the unit and making adjustments.

I received a lot of helpful information on the Denon 4802 at the following website:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com

Enjoy!


P.S. If you're like me, :D definitely plan on setting aside a few hours to set up and tweak it. The Denon 4802 has a ton of "bells and whistles".

---

Yes, still working on it actually. As for cd music its incredible. It completely transformed my polks from what my sony used to play through them. Already worth it. Haven't had the chance to experiment with dvd's yet.