- Joined
- Dec 26, 2019
- Messages
- 118
- Likes
- 77
Forthcoming Integra Drc-r1.3, Drx-r1.3, Drx-7.3
Loop antennas are efficient in a passband based on their physical layout. If the loop is detuned to 60Hz and/or the fields present aren't strong in 60Hz, it might not show up while other frequencies may still be there.
This sure seems a sign of a less than optimal design. It seems like they'd want it to be a bigger secret when they practically admit the quoted specs are only possible under ideal lab conditions and not as users would typically be using the device.
I would be very surprised if even the best movie sound tracks consistently had useful information below the 14th bit.
To be frank you can forget about about Onkyo/Integra. There is nothing else to test. The HTP-1 is where it's at or Denon if the room correction fits your needs or HDMI 2.1 is important to you. I think I can say with confidence that this is the case.
I'm not sure what I consider low but as low as you can get it But sitting in a moving car or in a living room with a busy street outside I would not consider low. I've not seriously measured my current rooms noise floor but with an SPL meter it's 32dBA which is probably not that impressive because I've had another room that actually felt really quiet...but I did quite a lot to that room.
Well done.How often does stereo music even have that though?
From my experience Atmos is far from a scam.. adding sound above completes the experience in my opinion but putting you in the middle of a 3D sound bubble. In most rooms 4 speakers is all that is needed. 7.1.4 I would think would be all that would be needed.possibly . Probably
but for 7 channels or less and for people who cant be bothered placing speakers in their ceiling , sofa , butt crack or wherever this Atmos scam ends , the bryston sp3 still reigns supreme for DTS-hd master audio and Dolby true HD
Atmos and the like were another scam to con people into upgrading receivers , buy more speakers etc .To keep us looking over our shoulders
where will the “object based” insanity end ? 54 channels ?
I still think it would be worth while to test a Lyngdorf MP50/MP60 or McIntosh MX170. It addition the new a new Marantz line as well.
Forthcoming Integra Drc-r1.3, Drx-r1.3, Drx-7.3
SINAD would just be part of the equation for me. Amir tends to find other things that are broken or sometimes incorrectly implemented. I could see some paying a premium for something like a Lyngdorf MP50/60 if it had a reasonable SINAD, didn’t show anything broken, the and the platform itself was stable. We won’t know that until it gets thoroughly tested. In addition the Lyngdorf has Roomperfect.There have been basic SINAD measurements and such posted on avsforum for the Lyngdorf MP50 or was it 60 I dunno but it was not groundbreaking in any way even though it was better than average. Isn't McIntosh basically a Marantz rebadge like this JBL is an Arcam? Both are super expensive and I'll eat my hat if they have good software support.
Aren't Integras basically rebadged Onkyos and as far as I know Onkyo has a terrible track record in terms of reliability and quality.
possibly . Probably
but for 7 channels or less and for people who cant be bothered placing speakers in their ceiling , sofa , butt crack or wherever this Atmos scam ends , the bryston sp3 still reigns supreme for DTS-hd master audio and Dolby true HD
Atmos and the like were another scam to con people into upgrading receivers , buy more speakers etc .To keep us looking over our shoulders
where will the “object based” insanity end ? 54 channels ?
Where do they say this? I've read the Arcam response.
You quoted quite a bit there so not sure if your question is related to antennas or lab conditions, but if the second one.... my comment was in response on something Amir mentioned in the review.
"They said that they test using a portable HDMI signal generator that is operated on batteries. "
As Amir points out this is not how most people are going to use the equipment and potentially breaks ground loops involving the PC. Perhaps my use of the term"lab conditions" was a bit overly dramatic but at the same time spec testing in a way which is similar to the more typical real world usage of the equipment would be the more honest approach.
I do agree with this, altough, I do also believe that unfortunately, any transmission system is a inter manufacturers responsability, or ultimately, it's a standard comitee responsability. I am no expert, but the HDMI standard consist of a set of rules, cables must past the test, there are restrictions of distance, etc. I am not saying that JBL is not at fault, but I am wondering why is it that would make such a difference. PC ports, HDMI AND even USB seems to have very variable performance. PCs, to have a HDMI port, should be HDMI compliant. So is it that the rules are too loose, or is it that PC manufacturers just don't care and sell un compliant device. Are there actual rules in the standards that sets a treshold on noise products (ground related or not) appearing on the HDMI data ports of any devices, not only device manufactured with audio reproduction in mind? I don't have the answer. Maybe someone knows, but there definitely SHOULD NOT be such debate about "What's the source" You are either compliant, or you aren't. Maybe this demonstrate that it's too easy, or maybe it's good enough and I'm too optimistic to expect better since HDMI as not been brought up with the audiophile in mind. But noise can ALSO hurt video performance. You just have to go by a good margin further than the recommended distance to see it. We have guidelines about the distance, but if there arent guidelines on the port themselves, this is not worth much.You quoted quite a bit there so not sure if your question is related to antennas or lab conditions, but if the second one.... my comment was in response on something Amir mentioned in the review.
"They said that they test using a portable HDMI signal generator that is operated on batteries. "
As Amir points out this is not how most people are going to use the equipment and potentially breaks ground loops involving the PC. Perhaps my use of the term"lab conditions" was a bit overly dramatic but at the same time spec testing in a way which is similar to the more typical real world usage of the equipment would be the more honest approach.
I didn't interpret it that way either. Just that personally I get annoyed often when equipment I own has a characteristic where sound quality gets altered based on how the associated equipment's I/O gets connected or not. This is something which seems very common with equipment I've owned in the past but I can't even think of a single instance where the manufacturer talks about it or even issues a warning. Having manufacturers admit that users may not be able to haphazardly connect all the available I/O, and expect rated/spec'd performance, seems unusual and fantastic and maybe a step in the right direction. Not that I think admitting to it is the solution. The solution is making the problem vanish by design, obviously. It's only too bad they didn't stick around to receive the scolding they deserve. Oh, well. Vote with your wallet.I don’t think their position is that the device works with a low noise floor only if used with their HDMI sound generator.
I agree with what you are saying. I think that my point, as the consumer would be: I don't want to have to care. Manufacturers who care about this stuff could figure out what a worst case user implementation is, play with that setup during new product development and ensure any new products are sufficiently immune to the types of systems and inter connectivity within which many of us would like to use our equipment, especially if they want it to do well in independent testing like this. Not that I necessarily think that the noise levels shown in Amirs plots is something I'm going to readily consciously be able to hear but I still don't like seeing it in the captures. I would probably keep looking for something else if I knew it was there....I do agree with this, altough, I do also believe that unfortunately, any transmission system is a inter manufacturers responsability, or ultimately, it's a standard comitee responsability. I am no expert, but the HDMI standard consist of a set of rules, cables must past the test, there are restrictions of distance, etc. I am not saying that JBL is not at fault, but I am wondering why is it that would make such a difference. PC ports, HDMI AND even USB seems to have very variable performance. PCs, to have a HDMI port, should be HDMI compliant. So is it that the rules are too loose, or is it that PC manufacturers just don't care and sell un compliant device. Are there actual rules in the standards that sets a treshold on noise products (ground related or not) appearing on the HDMI data ports of any devices, not only device manufactured with audio reproduction in mind? I don't have the answer. Maybe someone knows, but there definitely SHOULD NOT be such debate about "What's the source" You are either compliant, or you aren't. Maybe this demonstrate that it's too easy, or maybe it's good enough and I'm too optimistic to expect better since HDMI as not been brought up with the audiophile in mind. But noise can ALSO hurt video performance. You just have to go by a good margin further than the recommended distance to see it. We have guidelines about the distance, but if there arent guidelines on the port themselves, this is not worth much.
Would sure like it if someone sent a DDRC-88A in for testing by Amir.
I didn't interpret it that way either. Just that personally I get annoyed often when equipment I own has a characteristic where sound quality gets altered based on how the associated equipment's I/O gets connected or not. This is something which seems very common with equipment I've owned in the past but I can't even think of a single instance where the manufacturer talks about it or even issues a warning. Having manufacturers admit that users may not be able to haphazardly connect all the available I/O, and expect rated/spec'd performance, seems unusual and fantastic and maybe a step in the right direction. Not that I think admitting to it is the solution. The solution is making the problem vanish by design, obviously. It's only too bad they didn't stick around to receive the scolding they deserve. Oh, well. Vote with your wallet.
I didn't interpret it that way either. Just that personally I get annoyed often when equipment I own has a characteristic where sound quality gets altered based on how the associated equipment's I/O gets connected or not. This is something which seems very common with equipment I've owned in the past but I can't even think of a single instance where the manufacturer talks about it or even issues a warning. Having manufacturers admit that users may not be able to haphazardly connect all the available I/O, and expect rated/spec'd performance, seems unusual and fantastic and maybe a step in the right direction. Not that I think admitting to it is the solution. The solution is making the problem vanish by design, obviously. It's only too bad they didn't stick around to receive the scolding they deserve. Oh, well. Vote with your wallet.
The PC computer industry has firmware down good. No reason they can't poach some software personnel.