Why are modern AV Receivers so terrible?

[bobbooo]

I would need to restore from backup. This was years ago. If you don't believe my words then you have to do the same thing I did back then, buy different AVRs and measuring gear then learn how to do measurements.

It's not that I don't believe you, it's just I'd like to see exactly how actual post-EQ XT and XT32 responses differ, at what frequencies, by how much etc. If you find time at some point to retrieve your measurements from your backup that would be very much appreciated, as I cannot find any such direct comparisons anywhere else, and do not have access to multiple AVRs.

 

[SynthesisCinema]

It's not that I don't believe you, it's just I'd like to see exactly how actual post-EQ XT and XT32 responses differ, at what frequencies, by how much etc. If you find time at some point to retrieve your measurements from your backup that would be very much appreciated, as I cannot find any such direct comparisons anywhere else, and do not have access to multiple AVRs.

See post #149 XT vs XT32 and read text below for explanation.
https://forums.audioholics.com/foru...illing-my-ht-sound.114634/page-8#post-1336966

 

[bobbooo]

See post #149 XT vs XT32 and read text below for explanation.
https://forums.audioholics.com/foru...illing-my-ht-sound.114634/page-8#post-1336966

Those are the preamp signals sent to the speaker. I'm looking for direct acoustic measurements of speaker responses before and after XT and XT32 calibration.

 

[markus]

Those are the preamp signals sent to the speaker. I'm looking for direct acoustic measurements of speaker responses before and after XT and XT32 calibration.

No offense meant, but if looking at those filter responses doesn't make all alarms go off in your head then you really need to read up on basic audio concepts.

I can highly recommend:
- Everest "Master Handbook of Acoustics" (for learning the basics)
- Toole "Sound Reproduction" (for putting it all into context)

 

[bobbooo]

if looking at those filter responses doesn't make all alarms go off in your head

Of course it did - the XT response looks bad as it 'corrects' way too much above the Schroeder frequency and does not prioritise enough processing to the bass which needs EQing the most. But the in-room frequency response of the speaker those filters are attempting to correct is not shown, so it could very well be the case that the XT32 filter applied to this response produces a result that is also bad (but in different ways to the XT result). The only way to know how good or bad either filter is for sure is to look at actual acoustic measurements of the same speaker in the same room before and after each filter is applied. Just looking at the filters themselves only tells half the story.

 

[markus]

Of course it did - the XT response looks bad as it 'corrects' way too much above the Schroeder frequency and does not prioritise enough processing to the bass which needs EQing the most. But the in-room frequency response of the speaker is not shown, so it could very well be the case that the XT32 filter applied to this response produces a result that is also bad (but in different ways to the XT result). The only way to know how good or bad either filter is for sure is to look at actual acoustic measurements of the same speaker in the same room before and after each filter is applied. Just looking at the filters themselves only tells half the story.

No, it tells the whole story if you know that the room/speaker acts as a LTI system and that all Audyssey filters are strictly minimum phase.

 

[KKoen]

......from memory, I recall reading that XT32 just uses IIR filters and Dirac uses FIR and IIR filters.

Chris Kyriakakis: Audyssey MultEQ uses Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filters. Audyssey uses a proprietary method in calculating the filter coefficients, and so we do not disclose the resolution as it would lead to confusing comparisons with traditional methods.

https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/audyssey-room-eq-interview

 

[capt.s]

There goes my memory - I had it switched. XT32 just uses FIR filters and Dirac uses FIR and IIR filters. However, I'm sure it's the quality of implementation and the processing power available that makes the difference and the real secret sauce is proprietary so we'll probably never know. I just use XT32 below 280Hz for room modes on my mains when listening to music. Full bandwidth correction sounds different, not better (imaging etc.) but it does a good job flattening the bass response. For HT (full range) it does a great job making the mains, center, surround & ceiling speakers sound tonally similar.

 

[3dbinCanada]

Granted @amirm hasn't performed very many reviews for home theater receivers. His sample size is too small to determine if it is indicative a larger trend within the industry. However, I am seeing multi-thousand dollar receivers measuring terribly. And it's mind blowing to me.

I understand from a technological perspective that pushing larger amounts of power will be more difficult to accomplish while also delivering acceptable measurements. Headphones have it easy, even the most inefficient samples only require, at most, 6 watts of power to properly drive. We are also lucky because only two channels have to be driven. It's logical to assume that increasing the number of channels will also increase the difficulty in engineering equipment that measures well. The part I don't understand is that engineers haven't worked through these problems to deliver quality equipment. Or are they just not trying because the parent companies don't want them to? Anyway, we live in a day and age where we can purchase phenomenal speakers and the receivers that drive them are absolutely terrible. What gives?

I just joined this site so Im late coming into this thread. What aspect measures so bad on AVRs? Please be specific and dont say everything. I know higher end Yamaha AVR models when used as a preamp smokes a lot of seperate preamps in THD figures. Audioholics tested an Rx-A3000 when it first came out and it had more dynamic power in 2 channels driven then a dedicated Emotiva power amp. I can dig up the article if your interested.

 

[Koeitje]

First off, I haven't read the entire topic. But could the answer just be that all these brands have never been software companies and thus don't have the experience to write the proper software that is running on these machines? The moment you by pass the software suddenly the performance goes up. Also amplification mostly seems to be acceptable to good. I don't understand why this is happening, because its not a processing issue (see MiniDSP SHD for example).

 

[Chrispy]

The simple answer is that they're not.

 

[3dbinCanada]

First off, I haven't read the entire topic. But could the answer just be that all these brands have never been software companies and thus don't have the experience to write the proper software that is running on these machines? The moment you by pass the software suddenly the performance goes up. Also amplification mostly seems to be acceptable to good. I don't understand why this is happening, because its not a processing issue (see MiniDSP SHD for example).

Maybe but a company like Yamaha that build professional instruments would know how write proper software.

 

[LTig]

First off, I haven't read the entire topic. But could the answer just be that all these brands have never been software companies and thus don't have the experience to write the proper software that is running on these machines? The moment you by pass the software suddenly the performance goes up. Also amplification mostly seems to be acceptable to good. I don't understand why this is happening, because its not a processing issue (see MiniDSP SHD for example).

Direct mode does not pass software, it passes ADC, DSP (including software) and DAC. If the DAC is badly implemented (bad SINAD) software cannot fix this.

 

[Bear123]

Of course it did - the XT response looks bad as it 'corrects' way too much above the Schroeder frequency and does not prioritise enough processing to the bass which needs EQing the most. But the in-room frequency response of the speaker those filters are attempting to correct is not shown, so it could very well be the case that the XT32 filter applied to this response produces a result that is also bad (but in different ways to the XT result). The only way to know how good or bad either filter is for sure is to look at actual acoustic measurements of the same speaker in the same room before and after each filter is applied. Just looking at the filters themselves only tells half the story.

Audyssey XT 32 and Sub Eq HT do a good job with my response below 300 Hz.

 

[HairyEars]

I'd want the digital Dolby Atmos ( or whatever multichannel decoder) decoded in a box then put out in standard pcm digital to active speakers with digital inputs .

All the room correction and subwoofer integration done in the main processor.

No need for analogue outputs or amps in the box.

But that's just me.

My desire is similar:
HDMI to 16 x AES3 channels, Dolby Atmos, and any codec prior. Such device would fit hand in glove with my Genelec based system. Given the presence of Genelec GLM, there's no need for external bass management or room correction, thank you very much.

There was such product: ARVUS H2-UDMA, competitively priced, but it was so "successful," the company went out of business.

Trinnov and DataSat can dance the jig, but I can't justify the price, as I'd use too little of thier functionality for $25,000.

The latest, and most welcome development, is JBL SDP-55 ($6,000) . Sending its signal over Dante to a REDNET D16 AES ($1,500), would do the trick. Still, $7,500 is nothing to sniff at.

 

[apgood]

My desire is similar:
HDMI to 16 x AES3 channels, Dolby Atmos, and any codec prior. Such device would fit hand in glove with my Genelec based system. Given the presence of Genelec GLM, there's no need for external bass management or room correction, thank you very much.

There was such product: ARVUS H2-UDMA, competitively priced, but it was so "successful," the company went out of business.

Trinnov and DataSat can dance the jig, but I can't justify the price, as I'd use too little of thier functionality for $25,000.

The latest, and most welcome development, is JBL SDP-55 ($6,000) . Sending its signal over Dante to a REDNET D16 AES ($1,500), would do the trick. Still, $7,500 is nothing to sniff at.

You can do the same with the StormAudio ISP. With the new MK2 version you can output upto 32 channels over AES3 with a 24 decoded Atmos channels. With the older MK1 version the Atmos decoding is limited to 16 channels.

It's in the Trinnov / Dataset price range though.

 

[detlev24]

[...] There was such product: ARVUS H2-UDMA, competitively priced, but it was so "successful," the company went out of business. [...]

The 'H2-UDMA' is only HDMI 2.0 compatible. For video pass-through, at least version 2.0b should have been fully implemented - to remain competitive. // HDMI 2.1 would have been suitable even for this and next year's gear [new TVs, video game consoles etc.].

Their 8-channels 'HDMI-2A' never received an upgrade of its HDMI 1.3 inputs...

It really is a shame that the global market has not brought up any options, in spite of the growing demand!

 

[rxp]

I think modern AVR's have been getting better and better per $£.

I'd read about XT32 and other room correction and how much they can do for bass. With my budget I had to stay away from them though. Then came the Marantz SR6011 which let me output 7.1.4 with XT32 for £699. Crazy price 3 years ago and for a crazy feature set.

It gave be a pretty amazing Atmos setup and fixed my big peaks in my room.

My Onkyo 838 probably had better amplification but I couldn't hear it in my room. But what I could hear was the flat bass, the atmos speakers above me etc.

 

[jaynyc]

@HairyEars hi - how do you know Arvus is out of business? Their website is up etc.

 

[stevenswall]

The 'H2-UDMA' is only HDMI 2.0 compatible. For video pass-through, at least version 2.0b should have been fully implemented - to remain competitive. // HDMI 2.1 would have been suitable even for this and next year's gear [new TVs, video game consoles etc.].

Their 8-channels 'HDMI-2A' never received an upgrade of its HDMI 1.3 inputs...

It really is a shame that the global market has not brought up any options, in spite of the growing demand!

Does it not do eARC?

HDMI pass through seems like the least intelligent way to do things... In 18.3 days it will be outdated because some new device won't pass through correctly, or the spec will be updated, or it won't work with CEC, etc.

(They all seem to be non-pass through devices anyhow. Pass through should mean zero processing, just sending the same electricity received on the input to the outputs. If there's enough shielding, the same number of pins, and the same connector, an HDMI pass through should be compatible with HDMI .01 up to version infinity.infinityZ)