• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Review and Measurements of NAD T758 V3 AVR

Joined
Jul 27, 2019
Messages
18
Likes
8
Location
Germany
There is NanoAvr with Dirac for around 500$, so by recycling old hardware there are cheaper ways to get Dirac. The PC version of Dirac is no longer sold.
Dirac, any DRC, is all about target curves, hence the whole audiophile discussion becomes senseless at that point. Unless one can invite a small jazz combo to play in a concert hall and then in ones house and compare some RTA measurements.
 

GrimSurfer

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2019
Messages
465
Likes
369
Oh my, it is interesting to see "new" members join ASR to throw cold water on this review.
 

digicidal

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
441
Likes
424
Location
Sin City, NV
Clearly matches the one to the right and hence "NEW."
Which begs the question: "If these are the results of the better, lower-noise, configuration - how did the initial design pass final testing at all?" Of course, that's if there even was such design testing and analysis beyond "Everybody think this sounds pretty good? Yes? Ship it!" :facepalm:

Although, to be fair to NAD... if it works for Marantz in one of their flagship products - why not? It's pretty amazing that, at this time, there are still companies in the electronics side of things that think subjective analysis should override objective measurements. I understand more on the speaker/headphone side of things... but with electronics I can think of no situation where good engineering should be secondary to a few golden ears' preferences. Deliver it as perfectly transparent as possible within the target price limitations - and let the consumer screw it up if they like that better.

I'd rather see a new market for audiophile "noise generators" because off-the-shelf equipment was too transparent - then the rest of us could save money and have better sound... while the golden ears could argue about which generator was more analog-like in it's presentation. Win-win! :p
 

speedy

Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
26
Likes
16
Location
Seattle
I was just reading one of NAD’s press releases for their new T778 receiver and notice that they list direct PR/Media contact info... has anyone reached out to these guys? If not, it would be a good idea to loop them in on the support ticket (maybe even then NODE 2i stuff as well that Bluesound never responded to):

Marketing and Media Contacts:
Mark Stone
Marketing, NAD Electronics
[email protected]

Peter Hoagland
North American Media Relations, NAD Electronics
[email protected]

Richard Stevenson
International Media Relations, NAD Electronics
[email protected]
 

617

Active Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
151
Likes
142
Location
Somerville, MA
I was just reading one of NAD’s press releases for their new T778 receiver and notice that they list direct PR/Media contact info... has anyone reached out to these guys? If not, it would be a good idea to loop them in on the support ticket (maybe even then NODE 2i stuff as well that Bluesound never responded to):

Marketing and Media Contacts:
Mark Stone
Marketing, NAD Electronics
[email protected]

Peter Hoagland
North American Media Relations, NAD Electronics
[email protected]

Richard Stevenson
International Media Relations, NAD Electronics
[email protected]
FROM:[email protected]
SUBJECT: re:re:re:re: insufferable nerds
 

RichB

Active Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
191
Likes
146
Location
Massachusetts
Looking forward to the Anthem MRX520 review/measurements. I see a review of the MRX510 and the MRX710 with some measurements and they seem to be much better.
https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/receiver-processor/receivers/anthem-mrx-510-receiver-review/
https://www.soundandvision.com/content/anthem-mrx-710-av-receiver-test-bench
The HTHFI review of the 510 points out some significant issues, in particular this:
The internal power amp is producing square waves when clipping and the harmonics couple into the preamplifier output. For that reason I also took data at preamp output at 1.1VRMS. This is the voltage just before the internal power amp clips.
Audioholics has found this issue in other products where the built in amps couple distortion into the preamp outputs when outputting 2 Vrms.

- Rich
 

audimus

Active Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2019
Messages
178
Likes
136
Yet, with headphone EQ and good electronics we can approach a measurably neutral system and it sounds flat-out amazing on well-engineered recordings. Don't fall for the "everything is perception so why strive for accuracy" argument. There's probably a vendor near the entrance to the Louvre Museum selling rose-colored glasses.
This is where the disconnect is. Equating measurable response with what you or I hear or rather assuming the ear is a perfect recording instrument. Without even going into the philosophical implications of perception, there is a simple physiological phenomena of our ears changing in the way we can her or not hear certain frequencies. Many in this forum have already become insensitive to certain frequencies with age. It is not a binary of hearing or not hearing.

If, somehow, one were able to plot the FR just physiologically transmitted by the ears to the brain, I suspect it would look different for each person and be as wild at times as the worst speaker or the worst room.

This concept that all of our ears pick up exactly and similarly the sound saves that reach our ears is the fundamental false premise behind perfect reproduction. One ought to think about this more.
 

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
6,507
Likes
6,238
This is where the disconnect is. Equating measurable response with what you or I hear or rather assuming the ear is a perfect recording instrument. Without even going into the philosophical implications of perception, there is a simple physiological phenomena of our ears changing in the way we can her or not hear certain frequencies. Many in this forum have already become insensitive to certain frequencies with age. It is not a binary of hearing or not hearing.

If, somehow, one were able to plot the FR just physiologically transmitted by the ears to the brain, I suspect it would look different for each person and be as wild at times as the worst speaker or the worst room.

This concept that all of our ears pick up exactly and similarly the sound saves that reach our ears is the fundamental false premise behind perfect reproduction. One ought to think about this more.
Yes someone should have thought about it more.

My ears and your ears probably do have different responses. My brain and your brain have adapted to that and hear it as natural. If we both use an amplifier which is flat in response past both of our hearing limits it will sound right to you and me because it hasn't altered response. Making one with a non-flat response for you or me still wouldn't sound right because then it isn't what either of our ears hear during our daily lives.
 

audimus

Active Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2019
Messages
178
Likes
136
Forums? Why would you look to forums for such scientific research?
Not sure if you are deliberately misunderstanding this. If you read the context, people interested in science studies (and conduct science research) try to explain phenomena that is observed by themselves or by others including lay people. Scientists even go back to Inca carvings or Hieroglyphics to just gather observations not scientific research. So, if there is a phenomena that requires an explanation in forums or water-cooler conversations, a scientific study can then be conducted to either invalidate observations or to provide explanations. The anecdotal observations point to people differing in their preference of what sounds good to them. This is not even controversial. One such variable is the target curve. What that implies in the context of the argument is the hypothesis that people that have such preferences are based on their hearing response to the spectrum. Just dismissing it as subjective is not addressing the issue and the original point of audio science and experience having a gap.

The topic has been studied and it shows that most of us have similar preferences. We can't push that to 100% because music itself is not standardized so you can't pic a target response and say it is good for everything and every person. But otherwise, most of us prefer similar things in EQ and Speaker target response in a room. See the second section in this article I wrote: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/target-room-response-and-cinema-x-curve.10/
Talking purely from science methidology and logical inference...

Sorry, the above is an incorrect (extrapolated) interpretation of the study which is quite valid. I agree with everything that is in the post. What the study showed is that, if people were given a choice between a limited sample, there is a spread of opinions on what sounds good and there is perhaps a statistically significant preference for one of them. This is not the same thing as saying most of us have similar preferences. This is not a valid inference of that study.

If you ask people about their preference for 5 different cars, there might be a higher preference for one of them, say a brand X. That does not mean we all have similar preferences that being brand X.

That is also like saying if a politician wins out of 5 in a primary based on votes, that all our preferences for a politician are similar. Not even close.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Messages
83
Likes
115
The HTHFI review of the 510 points out some significant issues, in particular this:


Audioholics has found this issue in other products where the built in amps couple distortion into the preamp outputs when outputting 2 Vrms.

- Rich
Thanks for looking at the review. A lot of this is new to me and appreciate the opportunity to learn how to interpret measurements and reviews. If using just the internal amps does that mean that you would be limited to how loud you turn up the volume on the 510/710 before there are issues?
Am I correct that the MRX510 does measure much better than the 758 V3 though? Just trying to understand the particular issue you mention and also put it in context with the 758. Thanks
 

audimus

Active Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2019
Messages
178
Likes
136
Yes someone should have thought about it more.

My ears and your ears probably do have different responses. My brain and your brain have adapted to that and hear it as natural. If we both use an amplifier which is flat in response past both of our hearing limits it will sound right to you and me because it hasn't altered response.
Actually, there is no argument or proof for the above adjustment to say we hear it similar or the brain adjusted to some reference standard. The brain does not know nor has it been exposed to a reference standard. If we are deficient in high frequencies, the brain does not compensate as if it is a room correction system.
 

audimus

Active Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2019
Messages
178
Likes
136
That is exactly what has been done and published:

The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products, Olive, Sean; Jackson, John; Devantier, Allan; Hunt, David, AES Convention 127, October 2009
That was exactly my point. When you have some observations, you create a test to see if those observations are valid. And the target curve preference was taken as an example. For the methodology. Not to force those observations into an existing test unrelated to it (such as A/B testing for distortion hearing, for example).

Now, if we wanted to test a hypothesis that people experienced sound based on their hearing response, we would need to devise tests for it, not dismiss it as something subjective. That would be the first step to bridging the gap between audio science and experience.
 

audimus

Active Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2019
Messages
178
Likes
136
You are mixing preference and perception. But in your example, my perception is essentially what the artist intended because I'm used to hearing everything that way. I would still perceive a bass-heavy mix as bass-heavy, etc.
You are totally missing the paradox. Yes, it was a trick question.:)

If you said the above about the first case where the audio system corrected for your deficiency to low frequencies (of which the artist has no knowledge of), then what you heard was exactly what the artist intended but using non-flat system. If you said that about the second using a flat system, you heard less low frequencies than what the artist intended because of your hearing deficiencies using a flat response system.
 

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
6,507
Likes
6,238
Actually, there is no argument or proof for the above adjustment to say we hear it similar or the brain adjusted to some reference standard. The brain does not know nor has it been exposed to a reference standard. If we are deficient in high frequencies, the brain does not compensate as if it is a room correction system.
Firstly yes there has been research into some aspects of this. The brain does adjust. It can't adjust for frequencies it cannot hear, but then whether we adjust for those wouldn't matter if we can't hear them.

There was testing of directional hearing in which molds were placed in volunteers ears changing the shape of the pinna. This scrambled the ability to hear direction especially height. After a couple weeks, upon retesting, people could ear directionality just as well as previously they could without the change in pinna shape. The brain had adjusted whatever processing it does and had a pattern to match the input into something useful. Upon removal of the molds the brain quickly re-adjusted to the original shape.

Also there have been plenty of tests, and while not a perfect match, yes people with undamaged hearing have broadly similar responses. For those with damaged hearing your thinking on this still doesn't make any sense. Nor does support that we need a difference response in reproduction systems for different people.
 

GrimSurfer

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2019
Messages
465
Likes
369
I have read scholarly articles (Olive? Toole?) that have talked about how the ears become accustomed to sound, good or bad. If this is true in one direction (accustomed to distortion etc. as per Marantz's reply) then it must be true in the other.

Therefore, owning/operating good gear acclimatizes hearing to higher fidelity sound.

Now this doesn't seem to work in AB tests because it takes time...
 

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
6,507
Likes
6,238
You are totally missing the paradox. Yes, it was a trick question.:)

If you said the above about the first case where the audio system corrected for your deficiency to low frequencies (of which the artist has no knowledge of), then what you heard was exactly what the artist intended but using non-flat system. If you said that about the second using a flat system, you heard less low frequencies than what the artist intended because of your hearing deficiencies using a flat response system.
Actually probably not correct. If the artist pumped the bass up 6 db to make it bass heavy, it still sounds artificially pumped up to someone with lesser bass response in their hearing relative to the rest of the song. The fact it isn't heard as loud as another person doesn't mean the balance of a heavy low end is missed. That is because even with lesser bass response a person's brain knows how much bass vs everything else is normal.

You could mention the tone at the end of A Day in the Life of the Beatles on Sgt. Peppers. It is a 15 khz tone which of course some people can't hear, but some can. Paul McCartney of course can no longer hear it the way he originally did. But it still doesn't go along with what you are talking about.
 

audimus

Active Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2019
Messages
178
Likes
136
The scientific research has shown that your last statement is wrong: long term listening results are unreliable compared to short term results. You can read about this (and much much more) in @Floyd Toole's book Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms.
Have to be careful about tests and inferences. Because the study still relies on a A/B test to determine the “reliability” of preference whether based on short term or long term.

Not saying A/B tests are bad or invalid. Just that they test for one dimension, whether a preference gleaned over long term use is detectable in a short comparison test.

A better test would be the following. Let us say, a user preferred equipment A over equipment B after a long time of listening (say 2-4 weeks) under various conditions. To test the reliability of that preference, you give the person those two devices in random sequence for the same period and type of usage but sight unseen as to which brand is in use. Now, collect information, on whether they preferred or not each time. If the preferences were not statistically significantly skewed towards the one they selected earlier, then you can say the selection process was unreliable.
 

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
6,507
Likes
6,238
Have to be careful about tests and inferences. Because the study still relies on a A/B test to determine the “reliability” of preference whether based on short term or long term.

Not saying A/B tests are bad or invalid. Just that they test for one dimension, whether a preference gleaned over long term use is detectable in a short comparison test.

A better test would be the following. Let us say, a user preferred equipment A over equipment B after a long time of listening (say 2-4 weeks) under various conditions. To test the reliability of that preference, you give the person those two devices in random sequence for the same period and type of usage but sight unseen as to which brand is in use. Now, collect information, on whether they preferred or not each time. If the preferences were not statistically significantly skewed towards the one they selected earlier, then you can say the selection process was unreliable.
Similar testing to that has been done. Longer tests simply don't find very small differences. Differences have to be a magnitude or more higher vs shorter term testing. Your just stumping for the hallowed live with it to evaluate it philosophy of subjectively oriented audiophiles. It is a piss poor methodology anyway anyone has seriously investigated it. If you think they are wrong, do the tests, show the error, and become famous.
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom