Help Me Find This AVR

[mglobe]

I have one of these sitting around...

 

[J. Lohmann]

Generally when you have the choice of the relative and absolute scales, it's a dB scale, just the numbers rearranged/ordered. Just depends how you want to read them.

Not true, from my experience -- "Absolute" scales tend to show their values in literal whole numbers (1-99, for example), while "Relative" scales tend to show their values with the "dB" moniker attached to them, each value getting closer to "0dB" to reach reference (in a negative fashion; in other words, "-20dB" is actually LOUDER than "-50dB").

Some bass/treble are definitely going to be different in terms of the frequency boosted and how much, as well as the slopes to either side of the primary frequency affected. Graphic eq is similarly limited. PEQ opens up some more options. Use of a tone control can still help you listen in the direction of "as intended" depending on what that intent was originally and how implemented.....

What I meant by artist intent (or however I put it) was that by leaving the tone controls neutralized (or bypassed), the delivery of the music is closer to how it was mastered on that particular piece of media -- no low or high end goosing.

 

[J. Lohmann]

View attachment 513499
I have one of these sitting around...

Ahhhhhh yes....the beast that was the 807. I SO wanted an 805 when we were buying our 605 but couldn't afford it.

I don't believe this monster will fit in our cabinet, but I'll double check; does everything work on yours and what are you asking for it?

 

[Chrispy]

Not true, from my experience -- "Absolute" scales tend to show their values in literal whole numbers (1-99, for example), while "Relative" scales tend to show their values with the "dB" moniker attached to them, each value getting closer to "0dB" to reach reference (in a negative fashion; in other words, "-20dB" is actually LOUDER than "-50dB").

What I meant by artist intent (or however I put it) was that by leaving the tone controls neutralized (or bypassed), the delivery of the music is closer to how it was mastered on that particular piece of media -- no low or high end goosing.

Using example of the Denon I'm using at the moment, absolute is 0-98, and relative is -79.5 - 18.0. Just different starting points really, and starting from 0 as lowest or counting down from or exceeding reference level "0"....still same amount of change between numbers as they're both dB based....negative numbers vs positive numbers, meh.

What volume was it mastered at and in what conditions (like a car?).

 

[J. Lohmann]

Using example of the Denon I'm using at the moment, absolute is 0-98, and relative is -79.5 - 18.0. Just different starting points really, and starting from 0 as lowest or counting down from or exceeding reference level "0"....still same amount of change between numbers as they're both dB based....negative numbers vs positive numbers, meh.

What volume was it mastered at and in what conditions (like a car?).

I suspect we're arguing semantics on the volume scale at this point; sure, they're both number-driven, but what I was saying was that the RELATIVE scale tends to utilize a system wherein there's a REFERENCE to something. The goal is to reach "0dB" (with the "dB" moniker attached to these values, unlike the ABSOLUTE range) for reference listening, and while that can be achieved via the Absolute scale's values (at around "82," as we discussed), the two scaling systems are different so far as inherent approach.

At any rate, I've always used the ABSOLUTE scale system, and continue to do so with MY Denon, as well (you mentioned you're using a Denon too) because I don't really calibrate to a "reference" -- I'm comfortable seeing "20, 30, 40," etc. on the readout.

Addendum: I see why there may be some confusion with what we're talking about here, Chrispy -- Denon's volume scale readouts show a "dB" mark even when using the ABSOLUTE scale, and that might be why we're talking about the same thing but in two different ways. Indeed, when you raise or lower a Denon's volume, you see the readout change to "35dB," whatever -- so it looks very much like the RELATIVE readout, save for the "-dB" moniker as you attempt to get closer to "0dB."

On previous AVRs I've used that weren't THX Certified or loaded with high-end features, such as the Onkyos, the display always read simple numerals when on the Absolute scale, such as "34," "35," etc.

With regard to the mastering thing we were talking about -- I understand what you're saying, that we can't know how or where it was ultimately mastered (well, we can SORT of know WHERE reading the liner notes), but what I'm saying is that by leaving the tone controls at 12:00, I've come to think of it as like "keeping what's coming off that mastering as close as possible."

 

[Chrispy]

I suspect we're arguing semantics on the volume scale at this point; sure, they're both number-driven, but what I was saying was that the RELATIVE scale tends to utilize a system wherein there's a REFERENCE to something. The goal is to reach "0dB" (with the "dB" moniker attached to these values, unlike the ABSOLUTE range) for reference listening, and while that can be achieved via the Absolute scale's values (at around "82," as we discussed), the two scaling systems are different so far as inherent approach.

At any rate, I've always used the ABSOLUTE scale system, and continue to do so with MY Denon, as well (you mentioned you're using a Denon too) because I don't really calibrate to a "reference" -- I'm comfortable seeing "20, 30, 40," etc. on the readout.

Addendum: I see why there may be some confusion with what we're talking about here, Chrispy -- Denon's volume scale readouts show a "dB" mark even when using the ABSOLUTE scale, and that might be why we're talking about the same thing but in two different ways. Indeed, when you raise or lower a Denon's volume, you see the readout change to "35dB," whatever -- so it looks very much like the RELATIVE readout, save for the "-dB" moniker as you attempt to get closer to "0dB."

On previous AVRs I've used that weren't THX Certified or loaded with high-end features, such as the Onkyos, the display always read simple numerals when on the Absolute scale, such as "34," "35," etc.

With regard to the mastering thing we were talking about -- I understand what you're saying, that we can't know how or where it was ultimately mastered (well, we can SORT of know WHERE reading the liner notes), but what I'm saying is that by leaving the tone controls at 12:00, I've come to think of it as like "keeping what's coming off that mastering as close as possible."

More actual definitions than semantics. Just a way of thinking about the numbers, the spacing/definition between the numbers remains the same. They're still dB/logarithmic and just the labels have changed rather than anything else.

I also have an Onkyo with both scale readouts.

Sure, some aren't calibrated same, Sony being a huge example as they didn't even offer relative and their absolute scale didn't match others....

 

[J. Lohmann]

More actual definitions than semantics.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

Just a way of thinking about the numbers, the spacing/definition between the numbers remains the same. They're still dB/logarithmic and just the labels have changed rather than anything else.

I also have an Onkyo with both scale readouts.

Sure, some aren't calibrated same, Sony being a huge example as they didn't even offer relative and their absolute scale didn't match others....

I merely pointed out the way the Denons show the Relative and Absolute values with a "dB" label attached to them, which may have been why there was some inherent confusion. I still use the Absolute scale on every receiver, be it two or multichannel use.

 

[Chrispy]

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

I merely pointed out the way the Denons show the Relative and Absolute values with a "dB" label attached to them, which may have been why there was some inherent confusion. I still use the Absolute scale on every receiver, be it two or multichannel use.

The inclusion of the "dB" is basically irrelevant. It's just the same thing, different scale of starting/ending points is all....just very basic number stuff.

 

[J. Lohmann]

The inclusion of the "dB" is basically irrelevant. It's just the same thing, different scale of starting/ending points is all....just very basic number stuff.

I disagree to the point that the "dB" moniker means more when dealing with the Relative scale.

At any rate, I am still considering the RZ900 as a replacement for my Denon.

 

[Chrispy]

I disagree to the point that the "dB" moniker means more when dealing with the Relative scale.

At any rate, I am still considering the RZ900 as a replacement for my Denon.

It's the same, what are you disagreeing with? You've got a very strange take on how they differ But good luck with that in any case. As well as your use of graphic eq, etc....

 

[J. Lohmann]

It's the same, what are you disagreeing with? You've got a very strange take on how they differ

Interestingly, it's the same way I feel about your assessment of the scales.

But good luck with that in any case. As well as your use of graphic eq, etc....

Good luck with what? I merely stated why I originally wanted a graphic EQ in the two-channel (not surround) system and why, these days, I've learned to live with keeping the tone controls at 12:00...

Thanks for the conversation, at any rate.

 

[Chrispy]

Interestingly, it's the same way I feel about your assessment of the scales.

Good luck with what? I merely stated why I originally wanted a graphic EQ in the two-channel (not surround) system and why, these days, I've learned to live with keeping the tone controls at 12:00...

Thanks for the conversation, at any rate.

Oh I give up and good luck with your odd take....

 

[J. Lohmann]

Oh I give up and good luck with your odd take....

LMAO -- I have an odd take of explaining why I leave my tone controls at their detent default positions and how that relates to hearing the CD or LP closest to the way it was mastered (regardless of whether that's good or bad)?

Okay.

 

[Chrispy]

LMAO -- I have an odd take of explaining why I leave my tone controls at their detent default positions and how that relates to hearing the CD or LP closest to the way it was mastered (regardless of whether that's good or bad)?

Okay.

Yeah, sort of. You just have no actual "reference" as to the original's creation.....

 

[J. Lohmann]

Yeah, sort of. You just have no actual "reference" as to the original's creation.....

If you were paying attention to the conversation, you'd see where I admitted that, and that I was merely explaining how, by keeping the tone controls centered, it's the closest to hearing that recording as it was recorded, coming off the actual source. Not saying that it was "reference" of any kind -- merely saying that the inherent base SOUND of the CD, SACD or LP is kept intact by not utilizing goosed bass or treble.

I'm not claiming that we're hearing what was originally conceived in the studio, or what the intentions were by the engineer -- I'm merely saying that by leaving the tone controls neutralized or bypassed, we hear more of what is coming off that disc or slab of wax without any kind of coloring.

I'm not sure why this isn't being communicated effectively or if I'm being trolled at this point, but we'll leave it at that.