Clearly matches the one to the right and hence "NEW."
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]
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 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.
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.
Yes someone should have thought about it more.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.
Forums? Why would you look to forums for such scientific research?
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/
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?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
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.
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
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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.
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.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.