Big news coming from Sound United in 2023!

[TheAVInsider]

The price hikes are absurd, the 6700 was priced at $2499 when it came out in 2020.

What? Do we live in the Multiverse where we can have the best of both worlds, old prices and latest tech?

AVR-X4800H is basically an AVR-X8500H without DTS-X PRO, 4 fewer channels, less watts, and no XLR, but has 2 additional sub outs and Dirac if you want it later. Tons of 8500 tech flowed deep down the line-up for this launch, including chipsets in the 4800 that meet or exceed those in the 8500. Value that what you will.

Maybe it's the 6700 that's the ugly duckling here. Providing little more than an extra 2 channels over the 4800 to justify it's existence. If someone were thinking they wanted to buy a 6700 right now, but were on the fence if they really needed 13 speakers, the 4800 suddenly looks like a steal.

If any of these products are out of your own personal financial reach, that matters to no one but you, and others like you. Sound United will continue to fill new homes around the globe with their products, and owners everywhere will continue to want to buy whatever new products they create.

 

[voodooless]

If I look at the prices of the X3700H, X3700H, and X6700H since introduction, they never went down. All of them became more expensive since their introduction.

If someone were thinking they wanted to buy a 6700 right now, but were on the fence if the needed 13 channels, the 4800 suddenly looks like a steal.

You may as well go for the 3800 and save even more...

 

[Peluvius]

What about time alignment? I'm not aware of anything Dirac does with time alignment that is special.

I am not a professional in this space, an enthusiastic amateur so maybe special will mean something different to each of us.

I use Dirac, YPAO, GLM and Audyssey (but not since 2015). YPAO and Audyssey do nothing relevant for me in terms of time alignment. They both show speaker distance after running the calibration, which I guess is some type of timing assessment but the distances are always wrong, and sometimes comically wrong. They certainly have not given me any type of relevant feedback in terms of any measured response or adjustments.

GLM does time align and that is similar to Dirac (unsure if the approach is similar) but then it is a professional solution.

I think what makes Dirac "special" is that is can be implemented in a mid-price AVR (hopefully soon) and it seems to work very well and it is relatively easy to use.

I also like the graphs Dirac gives you (not special sure, but nice)

Measured:

Corrected:

 

[Chromatischism]

I use Dirac, YPAO, GLM and Audyssey (but not since 2015). YPAO and Audyssey do nothing relevant for me in terms of time alignment. They both show speaker distance after running the calibration, which I guess is some type of timing assessment but the distances are always wrong, and sometimes comically wrong. They certainly have not given me any type of relevant feedback in terms of any measured response or adjustments.

Sorry you've had issues, but the distances are spot on for most people.

GLM does time align and that is similar to Dirac (unsure if the approach is similar) but then it is a professional solution.

That's interesting because when I had Dirac it didn't do delays at all - the user had to do that before running Dirac!

 

[Daniel0]

The big price difference for the X4800H is presumably because of the power supply and amp stages.
In the rumors it was said the 4800 features individual amp boards like the X6xxx or X8xxx series with improved power supply.
At this point the 4800 is not listed at the Japanese website and there are no pictures from the inside.
Maybe there will be more news end of next week at Cedia because Sound united is there.

 

[abdo123]

Thunderbolt 4 and HDMI. Thunderbolt can't do anything over a 60Hz refresh rate for 8k (30Gbps). HDMI 2.1 can carry 48Gbps so HDR and higher refresh rates at higher resolution.

Manufacturers won't standardise unless they are forced to (by us through our respective governments).

USB 4 2.0 can do 80Gbps.

 

[peng]

I am not a professional in this space, an enthusiastic amateur so maybe special will mean something different to each of us.

I use Dirac, YPAO, GLM and Audyssey (but not since 2015). YPAO and Audyssey do nothing relevant for me in terms of time alignment. They both show speaker distance after running the calibration, which I guess is some type of timing assessment but the distances are always wrong, and sometimes comically wrong. They certainly have not given me any type of relevant feedback in terms of any measured response or adjustments.

I preferred Dirac too though I only have to PC 2 channel version. However, you might have been misinformed by some old forum claims about "...Audyssey do nothing relevant in terms of time alignment...." that was based on some sort of misconceptions or hearsay from those original posters.

The fact is, they all measured time delays, not physical distances. Distance is what they show (Audyssey and YPAO) but are based on the time delay measurements, not the opposite way around that you seem to think it is. In some cases, the subwoofer distance may be longer, even much longer than the physical distance that could be due to the additional time delay introduced by active subwoofer's electronics (DSPs etc..). In general, if you run Audyssey properly (followed instructions to the letter), you should leave the displayed distance alone and not adjust them based on your measuring tape.

 

[Daniel0]

However, you might have been misinformed by some old forum claims about "...Audyssey do nothing relevant in terms of time alignment...." that was based on some sort of misconceptions or hearsay from those original posters.

Thats some of the most stupid BS around. Every Room EQ software does time alignment.
Back in the day they only did time alignment and some small corrections because there wasn't enough processing power for more.

You hear this story about Dirac and their superior time aligment very often. It most likely is just marketing BS that gets thrown around to show the superior and more expensive choice they made in buying said product.

That "magic" claiming to differentiate between all the reflections is BS too since you physically can't discern those with just a single microphone.

The only system that really can map sounds and reflections is Trinnov with their 4 Microphone device:

Trinnov | Leading Immersive Sound and Digital Room Correction Technologies

Since 2000, Trinnov Audio develops innovative and pioneering technologies in Signal Processing, Digital Room Correction and Immersive sound

www.trinnov.com

 

[voodooless]

Thats some of the most stupid BS around. Every Room EQ software does time alignment.

Yes, they all do.

You hear this story about Dirac and their superior time aligment very often. It most likely is just marketing BS that gets thrown around to show the superior and more expensive choice they made in buying said product.

I don't think they do better speaker distance measurements than others. It's not a hard thing to do, so no reason to think they are special.

The better-claimed timing of Dirac is however how they optimize the step response of a speaker. This should in theory better align the individual speaker drivers, making them work more coherent. This obviously works only for a small listening area (unless you have a coaxial).

That "magic" claiming to differentiate between all the reflections is BS too since you physically can't discern those with just a single microphone.

Or multiple measurements at different places.

 

[Daniel0]

Or multiple measurements at different places.

From my understanding that doesn't work because you need to know from which direction at a single point the sound comes from.
Thats impossible for a single microphone.
You can do it with some 3D modeling if the software knows the exact microphone position, like "2nd measurement 30cm to left on the X axis".
But i don't know of any RoomEQ software that allows such detailed 3D modeling.

 

[Daniel0]

The better-claimed timing of Dirac is however how they optimize the step response of a speaker. This should in theory better align the individual speaker drivers, making them work more coherent. This obviously works only for a small listening area (unless you have a coaxial).

Isn't that like the audyssey midrange compensation just correcting a hardware flaw in the speaker that shouldn't be there in the first place?

 

[peng]

Isn't that like the audyssey midrange compensation just correcting a hardware flaw in the speaker that shouldn't be there in the first place?

Great question, I would love to know how they "optimize" the step response too. By my measurements main speakers only for the version I have, Dirac Live does seem to improve the impulse response based on the better looking REW plots vs Audyessey. I tried that in two rooms, similar differences in both. Audibly better or not is a different story.

 

[voodooless]

Isn't that like the audyssey midrange compensation just correcting a hardware flaw in the speaker that shouldn't be there in the first place?

Unless you have a point source, there is always a time alignment issue, because the drivers are not physically in the same position.

 

[Chromatischism]

Isn't that like the audyssey midrange compensation just correcting a hardware flaw in the speaker that shouldn't be there in the first place?

I would phrase it more accurately as "telling the EQ not to boost my crossover directivity mismatch".

 

[-pekr-]

What? Do we live in the Multiverse where we can have the best of both worlds, old prices and latest tech?

AVR-X4800H is basically an AVR-X8500H without DTS-X PRO, 4 fewer channels, less watts, and no XLR, but has 2 additional sub outs and Dirac if you want it later. Tons of 8500 tech flowed deep down the line-up for this launch, including chipsets in the 4800 that meet or exceed those in the 8500. Value that what you will.

Maybe it's the 6700 that's the ugly duckling here. Providing little more than an extra 2 channels over the 4800 to justify it's existence. If someone were thinking they wanted to buy a 6700 right now, but were on the fence if they really needed 13 speakers, the 4800 suddenly looks like a steal.

If any of these products are out of your own personal financial reach, that matters to no one but you, and others like you. Sound United will continue to fill new homes around the globe with their products, and owners everywhere will continue to want to buy whatever new products they create.

When I have bought x3500h, it was for the price of today's x1700h. x3600-3700h did not bring any significant advancements imo, to justify an upgrade, while x3800h might do (kind of).

I have some money, but am probably not willing to go that route anymore. All i wanted is 5.1 (right now, Monitor Audio Silve 200), 7.1 max. Also, locally, I know noone, who has more than 7.1 setup. And from the local online community, I know exactly zero persons using something like multiple zones on their AVRs. Who the heck needs 7HDMIs? Game console max? All those dated connectors, dead DVD/BluRay, YPbPr etc.?

The concept of AVR is dated and most ppl just did not realise it. There definitely seems to be some mental division between the home users and professional integrators imo and those might value some separates anyway.

So - right now, I am torn between the upgrade to x3800h + e.g. pma-1700ne vs the x4800h/x6700h, or scrapping the solution altogether and going back to the stereo. I would not miss back channels at all, but I really got used to the center channel. I wonder if I am really weird, as I miss some 3.1 units on the market

What me and my wife like though, is the streaming with the Heos on AVR - for its convenience. We also have pma-600ne in our studio, and like BT streaming. So another option might be e.g. pma-1700ne + some iNode (BluOS), or something like Marantz 40n.

 

[hmt]

Isn't that like the audyssey midrange compensation just correcting a hardware flaw in the speaker that shouldn't be there in the first place?

No, the MRC just accounts for the fact that with speakers that show a directivity mismatch in the XO region often show a dip in that region when measured in room. It has nothing to do with the phase distortion of the crossover that acts like an all pass filter.

 

[Daniel0]

I would phrase it more accurately as "telling the EQ not to boost my crossover directivity mismatch".

But when you try to "correct" the crossover directivity mismatch you also change the directional behavior of the speaker or not?

But doesn't the crossover directivity mismatch change at different angles? When you have a "bubble" of multiple measuring positions and try to find the best compromise for all of them isn't it impossible to find a good compromise?
Maybe that explains why it always looks good on paper but doesn't actually work audibly?

I'm no expert in acoustics so please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Chromatischism]

But when you try to "correct" the crossover directivity mismatch you also change the directional behavior of the speaker or not?

But doesn't the crossover directivity mismatch change at different angles? When you have a "bubble" of multiple measuring positions and try to find the best compromise for all of them isn't it impossible to find a good compromise?
Maybe that explains why it always looks good on paper but doesn't actually work audibly?

I'm no expert in acoustics so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing. Audyssey's MRC is a feature to prevent boosting crossover dips and thus creating harsh sound. Whether you need to use it or not will depend on the speaker, so it's up to the user.

 

[Daniel0]

@Chromatischism Sorry i thought we talk about Dirac. Please ignore my post. Maybe a moderator can delete it?

 

[hmt]

But when you try to "correct" the crossover directivity mismatch you also change the directional behavior of the speaker or not?

But doesn't the crossover directivity mismatch change at different angles? When you have a "bubble" of multiple measuring positions and try to find the best compromise for all of them isn't it impossible to find a good compromise?
Maybe that explains why it always looks good on paper but doesn't actually work audibly?

I'm no expert in acoustics so please correct me if I'm wrong.

No because directivity already is how the frequency response behaves at different angles.