Which processor are you using? I am planning a 7.4.4 system and it seems the Monolith htp1 with dlbc is the only one under 10 grand that will manage 4 subs. Only issue I have is I was thinking of doing a 9.4.4 with wides and I run out of channels.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Denon AVR-X6700H Home Theater AVR Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Will the Storm or JBL do 9.4.4 though. I have not looked at them.
9.4.4 is 17 channels, so none of the 16 channel processors will do that without something like a minidsp for subs to combine them. To get beyond 16 channels would be the Trinnov Altitude 16/32 (16 does 20 channels now with 4 using an external DAC) or the Storm with the 8 channel add on (or other options). The StormAudio MK2 with 8 channel add on option will do what you want as well as the Altitude 16 (I think they are calling it the Altitude 20 now). In my opinion 20 channels is perfect... it allows for up to 9.4.6. A valid option though is using a MiniDSP for the 4 subs and combining it to present it as 1 channel to the processor. It is extra work but certainly possible.
Thanks for the info. I'm using a mini dsp now with 2 subs and was wondering about that route instead of the dlbc so I could do a 9.4.4
If I didn’t use DLBC I would invest the time and learn how to do MSO which from seeing many post measurements looks to do really well EQing subs and also seat to seat variance.
Honestly room correction of any kind typically helps get me 70% there and additional tweaks to bass and frequencies are always required for what I like to hear out of a system. I'm not a fan of Dirac even the most expensive version of it, Trinnov and Lyndorf are the only two that would probably get me closer to 80% of the way there. Much of this is personal taste but I have listened to so many different high end low end medium systems that I think I know what to listen for now. Of course i like midrange like everyone and a bass that doesn't hum, some give you that punch others give you a crazy resonance and there are so many dependencies. If you know you have a good sub and good supporting equipment we should expect to tweak those lows to achieve that punch with some help from room correction. Just the fact that I can adjust all 4 of my subs independently makes me believe I can achieve those lows on the Lyndorf vs others. I know the Trinnov is complex and people spend a bunch of time tweaking it, the videos I have seen make perfect sense to me but I think after hearing both with the same speakers and setup I prefer how Lyndorf handles it.
Sorry guys I'm not a fan of either one. I think I have enough systems to understand what good sound is by now. If you tell me Marantz sounds excellent or Denon I will say you haven't heard a system that sounds excellent yet.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 4,800
- Likes
- 3,744
That's possible, but it's also possible that you haven't heard an excellent system set up with D or M. It's possible to get nearly perfect bass for one listening position from a D or M without much trouble. I've done it.
Last edited:
Have you had a chance to hear 4 subs with Dirac DLBC? From my experience after trying Audyssey (2 subs), Room Perfect (1 sub only), Anthem (older version) and Dirac with DLBC (not heard Trinnov) that Dirac with DLBC sounds and measures best. The bonus is it does it without manually messing with anything. I continue to try doing full range correction with different curves, etc but still sounds best to me correction to around 500hz, and using manual eq filters above 500hz (targeting a few issues).
I recently purchased the Anthem AVM-90, and I'm delighted with its performance, particularly in handling subs and its phase-matching capability. The AVM-90's ability to eliminate guesswork and seamlessly blend all four of my subs with my mains (B&W 804-D3's) is a standout feature. This alone, coupled with the excellent sound quality, makes the AVM-90 a worthwhile investment. Finally, I've achieved the desired audio experience from a pre-pro without the need for a $15,000 budget.
While the Lyndorf and Trinnov may offer superior features, it seems that the AVM-90 provides comparable performance at a significantly lower cost. In my tuning experience, the difference doesn't justify double or even a $3,000 higher price tag. I'm thoroughly satisfied with the AVM-90, especially considering its sound quality, higher end components and DACs and expanded features compared to the 70.
Last edited:
Do you happen to take any post measurements of subs with REW? It would be interesting to see if you have any.
I did get some measurements with REW and matched it up to the measurements in ARC (Anthem Room Correction) they matched up good measurements but there was a very extensive post on the measurements posted here somewhere if you search, that would be the best option to see the results.
If anyone who has such nice experience I would like to see them. I have done tons of measurements and have read just about any I could find for any recent Anthem AVRs/AVPs and have never seen anything that come close to results achievable with Dirac and Audyssey, not to say the results imply sound quality would be bad though as there are other factors too. Another thing is, the last couple of FW versions did cause some trouble in the deep bass range so there's no way one could have REW measured response getting close the what ARCG showed in the predicted graph, unless they tweaked well using the DB and RG settings. That's actually one possible proof why sometimes people rave about something, without even knowing it's Placebo/expectation biased working on their ears/brains. That remind me of a recent Audioholics (iirc, going by memory not) posts about a DBT done with a group of people and they were fooled, reporting differences heard when they were actually listening to the same thing that sounded different to them because...
I don't really think any room correction get's you more than 50% or 60% there before our expertise has to come into play. However, I will be honest all of the measurements that are thrown out mean nothing without the quality of what you hear vs a measurement. I have quickly discovered that what shows well on paper doesn't necessarily mean it will sound great, there is a baseline of course that is a minimum but I hear everyone raving about Denon and Marantz and how some of them measure well and I have personally heard many of those systems and I'm not at all impressed, they are flat and hollow, we can debate it but when you know good sound, you know good sound and that comes with the price of paying attention over 35Years and listening critically. With that said I was referring to the autophase matching to blend the subs into the mains and I haven't seen anything do such a great job delivering the fine tuning instantly with very few additional tweaks to phase match, it's just a fact.If anyone who has such nice experience I would like to see them. I have done tons of measurements and have read just about any I could find for any recent Anthem AVRs/AVPs and have never seen anything that come close to results achievable with Dirac and Audyssey, not to say the results imply sound quality would be bad though as there are other factors too. Another thing is, the last couple of FW versions did cause some trouble in the deep bass range so there's no way one could have REW measured response getting close the what ARCG showed in the predicted graph, unless they tweaked well using the DB and RG settings. That's actually one possible proof why sometimes people rave about something, without even knowing it's Placebo/expectation biased working on their ears/brains. That remind me of a recent Audioholics (iirc, going by memory not) posts about a DBT done with a group of people and they were fooled, reporting differences heard when they were actually listening to the same thing that sounded different to them because...
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 4,800
- Likes
- 3,744
If you're near Nebraska you're welcome to hear my system anytime.
Sounds good, but our of curiosity, did you always do your critically listening sighted, have you ever tried doing it without knowing what gear you were listening to, just the music itself? The AVM90 measured around the 100 dB SINAD mark, like the Marantz AV10, that is excellent!!. So it should have no audible sound of its own when listening to unprocessed music, and that's Anthem's goal by the way. If people somehow is more impressed by it better than Marantz's AV10, then we should know the reason, I would imagine if I do an AB comparison I would be impressed by both.
I have done blind tests with everything from speakers to PrePros and AMPs. I just haven't ever heard a Marantz that can compare which is my entire point, in fact I have been to a few demos and demanded a blind test to make a final decision on some equipment and it appears that my ears have served me well so far. I'm just downright impressed with what Anthem did specifically with the 90 vs anything they have done in the past, which is what it took to get me onboard. If you can find a better sounding unit for under 10K I would jump on it, I haven't been able to find that and my search as you know has been ongoing for about 2.5 years now. Nothing really matches up.
D700
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 311
- Likes
- 370
talk like that will destroy the audiophile time-continuum. Turn Away! TURN AWAY!That remind me of a recent Audioholics (iirc, going by memory not) posts about a DBT done with a group of people and they were fooled, reporting differences heard when they were actually listening to the same thing that sounded different to them because...
