Non-Axiom Stuff…Mostly
There is, of course, more to a Home Theater than the speakers, though I think they share equal billing with the display as the VIPs (Very Important Pieces) of the system.
Denon 3805 Receiver
I purchased this receiver several months ago as the first new piece in my HT makeover, and have no regrets whatsoever.
I honestly don't know if receivers and amps sound different; I see a bit of the argument on both sides and have never had the opportunity to A/B them at all, not to mention doing it under controlled circumstances. I really like what JohnK wrote the other day in regards to a wild frequency plot I posted:
In reply to:
Another illustration of harsh audio realities: some worry about relatively insignificant things like players, amps and wire, while even with good recordings and flat (anechoically) speakers it's the listening room that makes most of the difference.
That's not to say that I don't think there can be a difference in sound. I once owned an NAD 2200PE amp and 1155 preamp that absolutely sounded better to me than the Technics receiver I also had. There seemed to be more "punch" in the dynamics and attack. A violin didn't sound much different, but John McLaughlin playing an acoustic guitar sure did. Ditto with drum and bass-heavy electric, contemporary Jazz.
Yet, I'm not saying it wasn't all in my head. Maybe the design of the NAD as a "high headroom amp" that could output 700 w/pc on peaks influenced how I thought it would sound. Maybe the weight of the unit or it's almost industrial dark gunmetal finish influenced me… I don't know. But my perception at the time was that there was a lot more "pride of ownership" (Sorry, Jack!{inside joke}) in the NAD equipment.
I do have a lot of the same feelings with the Denon receiver. It does
almost everything I ask of it and does it well. Ray(3) recommended some time spent with the manual and I'd agree. Although I'm successfully and enjoyably using it on a day-to-day basis, I still feel that there are areas I'm a bit gray on… mostly related to different surround and processing modes. I still plan on going through the manual again, assuming that I'll absorb more the second time around. Receivers today are much more complex than even five years ago, and, to echo Ray, you'll only realize all the benefits if you spend some time with that manual.
From Left Field: What happened to "Loudness" controls? Don't human ears perceive Bass and Treble differently at lower volumes anymore, or was that never the case? I don't see that button or receivers or pre/pros anymore….
The one quibble I have with the Denon is that you can't change the crossover point individually for different channels. As mentioned a bit in the "speaker" section of this post, my different Axioms have different lower-end capabilities and I wish the Denon allowed a little more flexibility here. If given my choice, I'd like to cross the QS-8s to the sub at 100Hz to reflect their natural rolloff as well as to take some strain off these (the smallest of the set) during loud or demanding passages. I'd like to cross the VP150 at 80Hz since it's capable of getting a little lower than the surrounds, and crossing over at this point would allow the resonances of James Earl Jones to stay within this speaker. Finally, I'd like to cross the M60s over at 60Hz or maybe even 40Hz as, to me, they seem to image better on "large" but I'd like to remove the strain of the lowest bass from their duties. It's not a deal breaker from the point of view of the Denon, but it's about the only thing I'm finding that I wish were designed a little different.
There's been a little talk about the accuracy of the Auto-setup functions of this receiver, so yesterday I ran some tests with my trusty Radio Shack SPL meter to compare the Auto-EQ offerings to each other as well as the original plot and an attempt at using the manual EQ as well.
A few notes about these plots: Ignore the legend in this first graph showing "Blue as Manual". I realized that it would be cleaner to just put the "Manual EQ" on a separate chart. All of these plots were made on a tripod with the Denon mic in the exact same position as the RS meter. Those of you who have been through this procedure know that the proximity and position of your own body can greatly influence the readings. Unfortunately, for me to place the mic in the "sweetspot", my back is against the wall and I can't get too far from the mic. It was evident that I was affecting the reading at certain frequencies by the wild swings of the meter if I moved just a couple of inches in my position behind the meter. I tried to average the readings in cases like this, but I have absolutely no doubt that at some frequencies, the readings were erroneous. I therefore offer these simply as a point of interest to compare the Denon modes, not as an absolute finding. The "2Khz" point on this first plot was one that I noted at the time to likely be erroneous due to the fluctuations. It
is interesting, though how at certain test frequencies I can get a huge difference in the volume by moving my head an inch or two. There's obviously no way that the tweeter would be capable of dispersion patterns such as that and I take it as further evidence that my room would benefit from acoustic treatments.
This first plot shows the various Auto EQ modes that the Denon generated, as well as the plot with the EQ off:
It's important to note that I turned the sub down from it's "10 O'clock" position to about an "8:30" position after this test! I feel that the "flat" EQ setting is, if not appropriately named, at least the closest to the goal!
Because of this, I wanted to test the "Flat" setting against the original plot and an attempt at manual settings as well.
First, this is what the Denon did to produce it's "Flat" EQ setting:
And the second plot:
Remember that the sub was turned down
after the "Flat" mode was determined by the Denon and therefore the bass readings with "Flat" may not be representative as to how the Denon would have smoothed the bass if the sub were outputting a little less.
I came to a couple of surprising conclusions after running these tests: First, I think the Denon did a little better than I thought it would. I
do think in terms of plotting the "flatness" the auto EQ has a huge advantage over the manual EQ: The manual EQ acts as a simple graphic EQ, with fixed center points and no adjustment for the width or "Q" of the control. The Auto-EQ, on the other hand is not limited by the manual EQ center points and having the Variable Q allows it to operate as a parametric EQ. Without a doubt, I feel as though I could have EQ'd much better manually if the Denon offered parametric capabilities to its manual settings.
So I said earlier that my only quibble with the Denon is that lack of independent crossover points. Maybe I'll amend that and wonder out loud how much it would have cost to implement a 10 band parametric EQ into the unit?
Anyway, I'm not ignoring the fact that the Denon did better with its Auto EQ than I thought it would. This was the first time that I had actually plotted the results of the Auto EQ; in the past I had compared it by ear only. That brings me to the second surprise: Last night, after skimming through some tracks by Donald Fagen, Santana, 4-Non Blondes and John Patatucci, I came to the conclusion that I preferred the sound of the Axioms with the EQ bypassed… despite the fact that my graphs were telling me that it certainly didn't offer the flattest choice in my room. Now, to be fair,
none of the results were really anywhere close to being flat, so even using the word "flat" is a bit of a misnomer.
But it certainly
did raise that question of whether or not "Flat" is
always the best goal? No one faults a listener for liking a little extra boost in the bass or a crisp hi-end; what if someone chooses a result that actually has several substantial irregularities as opposed to one that if "flatter" when plotted?
I've sidetracked a bit from discussing the receiver, but let me finish by saying that, in my opinion, I still think it's a worthwhile goal to try to achieve a flat response in your listening room. If you then decide to deviate from that, at least you'll know from whence you came and have a "standard" to compare your deviations and preferences to. I still plan on doing what I can to tame many issues I have in my room and will continue to pursue that goal within reasonable financial and aesthetic limits.
The Samsung 46" DLP
I have to say, as much as I like my Axioms, the DLP is the piece of my HT that continues to thrill me. Of course, I'm not the first person to place a monitor first: God knows there's lots of people that spend big bucks on a plasma and consider sound an afterthought. I'm not in that category by any means, and I think it's a mistake to not make "sound" equal to "picture" when setting up an HT. But, I think a persons' priorities are, of course, relative to their perspective and where they're coming from. For starters, I had "OK" speakers going into this. Not great, mind you, and nowhere near the Axiom setup, but not horrible either. In comparison, the TV I was using was a 32" Sony CRT that offered only a single "S" input. So the jump from that to a 46" 16x9 monitor that offered Hi-Def was a
HUGE jump. And in regards to perspective, I
do also spend an awful lot of time looking at first-generation, broadcast quality digital video footage on a calibrated, professional monitor. It was always such a disappointment to settle into the couch after editing all day and look at a picture in my HT that was substantially inferior to what I could do myself!
Anyway, there really isn't much that I could ever find about this TV that isn't virtually perfect. Standard-def TV certainly isn't a match for a 480P disc or hi-def, but it's really not as bad as I expected either. Of course, as many of you know, when you have hi-def, it's easy to start avoiding standard-def programming!
I don't think I would go so far as to say that I feel the Sammie has a superior picture to a comparable Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba, Mitsubishi or JVC. Quite frankly, the initial feature that drew me to the Samsung was its narrow-bezel, speakers-below-the-screen design. With limited wall space, I really didn't want to commit to a TV that was 10" wider because of side mounted speakers. That mostly limited me at the time to the Samsung, RCA and LG models. The Samsung was the most expensive but had a better track record and more inputs. I got it for a very good price, though, on a pre-Thanksgiving sale.
It does suffer from typical DLP afflictions: The black level isn't great, especially when compared to a CRT. This really only bothers me in scenes that are very dark overall and the room lights are at their lowest. That's when you see that the blacks are just dark gray. If there's something within the scene that's bright though, the contrast fools your eye into making the blacks look a little better. I've also seen a little contouring, though it hasn't been an issue. Sometimes it's visible when a camera pans across a gradated empty sky. Finally, every once in awhile, I see a rainbow when I'm pulling my eyes off the screen and there's a contrasty image onscreen. That's never been a problem, though.
The black level is a consideration to me, but it's no better in any type of set that could have filled my needs: Plasma was too expensive and the picture quality is barely different, traditional rear projection would have been too big to get around a corner at the bottom of my stairs (with my studio, reception room and kitchen on the first floor, my living room is on the second floor) and CRTs are only available a hair bigger than what I already had. DLP and LCD projectors were at a good price point, and though I can't hang it on the wall, it's less deep than the CRT I replaced.
And, I'm still amazed when I watch high def programming at it's native 720P resolution. Yes, 1080P is coming, but there' no programming for it at the moment, it's not
that much higher in resolution, and it'll be a little while before the pricing comes down. I have no reservations about this purchase.
Motorola Dual Tuner, Hi-Def DVR
I was
always touting TiVo and all the benefits it brought. I truly feel that TiVo revolutionized the way a person can watch TV… it's never the same after! But with the new TV, I was definitely in search of a high-def provider.
I ended up going with cable for my HDTV... which initially I assumed would be my last choice. The problem for me is that Concord sits down in a little valley, so I couldn't get local HD via antenna, and all the satellite providers used rooftop antennas for local stations.
My cable company provides those affiliate local stations, plus INHD1 & 2, ESPN-HD, Discovery HD, and the HD flavor of whatever premium movie channels we have in our package for $7.95/month. There was absolutely a temptation to go with VOOM for the sheer number of HD channels they offer, but I came to the realization that most of what Joyce and I watch is either a broadcast network show or a movie on HBO, etc. Getting TNT in Hi-Def wasn't as important as CBS...etc... Now that I've been watching INHD1 & 2, I have to admit that I really like their mix of movies, documentaries, concerts, and just "fun", show-off stuff...extreme sports, etc.
For $6 more per month, I got a two-tuner HD box with built-in HD DVR. How could I go wrong? Plus, I was able to simply drive to my local cable office and swap my old box for the new DVR HD box, so I literally had HD in half an hour after the phone call, instead of waiting for installation of a satellite dish.
I still think that TiVo has a better interface, and features such as the "Wish List" to find programming that fits certain keywords was worth the monthly fee by itself, but the bottom line is that there was not a good path for me to go to a HD flavor of TiVo. The Motorola box does have one pretty big advantage over my TiVo in another respect as well: The dual tuner design allows me to watch one live channel while recording another. The TiVo I had allowed us to watch a recorded show while recording another, but that was it.
Normally, I kinda dislike the stranglehold that my cable company has over my television and internet, but this ended up an obvious choice and I'm very happy!
Pioneer 578 Disc Player
I have somewhat mixed feelings about this player. On the one hand, it was an undeniably good value, and it's…..well….cheap for a player that handles DVD-Audio and SACD discs. But I've had some problems with mine. The display disappeared mysteriously for a few weeks and then came back out of the blue. More of a concern is the problems that I have playing some perfectly clean DVD-A discs. I get a sound that really sounds like digital overload… a really nasty sounding distortion. If I switch to another multichannel track, it's gone, but as far as paying 192kbs stuff, it's very hit or miss. I guess the player suffices as entry-level for someone that wants wide disc compatibility; it's just too bad that many users report them as being temperamental.
As I've written on this forum previously, I like the idea of upgrading to the Denon 2910 or 3910… especially now that Denon has finally (!) announced SACD compatibility with Denon Link. The idea of having a player that is generally agreed to be excellent in every respect, which will upsample DVDs to the 720P resolution of the DLP, which connects all audio with my receiver via a single digital cable, handles all bass-management issues without quirks and even matches the style of my Denon receiver sounds awfully tempting. It's a hard decision to make to spend that kind of money with HD discs on the horizon, however!
Sony CX400 400-disc Jukeboxes
I've really enjoyed having these two jukeboxes, and they are "holdouts" from my previous system. There's something nice about not having to store and deal with jewel case for my ~700 discs. Better, it' nice to select a category and let the two jukeboxes do a shuffle play, alternating between players, even doing a crossfade between the players for true, continuous music. I do wish I had spent the extra $40 each for the players with the on-screen display… it was short sighted of me and as I now have a receiver that would have routed that signal to my Samsung… Well, it just would have been nicer than trying to read the display from a cross the room!
Probably a year or ago at this point (!) I had so many discs in the wrong slot, and also one of the players seemed to have become "corrupted" and was displaying the wrong "artist" with discs, that I decided to simply empty the jukeboxes, reset them and start again by reloading all the discs. Unfortunately, that's such a monumental task that I keep putting it off… partly because I'm not sure that at this point I shouldn't rip each disc to a hard drive and "stream" them into my living room instead of entering in all the information for each disc. An intermediate solution would be to copy each disc with "CD Text" enabled and load only the copies into the jukeboxes. I would still have to enter "music categories" and, I assume, "Artist" category, but it's probably still a better alternative than having to enter
all the information manually.
In the meantime, the jukeboxes sit there empty and I try to locate discs that are loaded onto eight 100-disc CD spindles! Frustrating, to say the least!
Home Theater Master MX700 Remote
I don't have a lot to write about this piece of equipment as I have not done any in-depth programming with it yet. I will say that I am
very impressed with the unit based upon the minimal programming that I've done so far. I think it will become one of, if not
the, most-liked pieces of equipment I have. I've always had a love for products that just
work as they should and considering I'm responsible for programming the remote to work as I direct it to, well……!
I think it makes sense for me to hold off on writing anything in-depth about the remote until I'm able to sit down and program it properly. In the meantime, I direct all questions to Ray3 on this forum! Maybe when I
do program it, I'll write an extensive post on it!!
