TV monitor analog input/outputs

[admin]

That's great. Sounds like that room is really coming together as well. I think that in some ways HT is actually easier to set up in a smaller room than a 2 channel music setup. Generally speaker placement is a lot more forgiving due to the extensive calibration settings that modern receivers afford. Also, the imaging is relying more on multiple speakers than in a two channel setup where you have to find that one "sweet spot" for the speaker location. The low end is also more manageable via using a dedicated sub. A smaller room also allows for a smaller TV or projector as you want the viewing angle to be large.

Lots of fun to be had hear and I'm glad to hear you are enjoying the experience.

[AnotherJohnson]

I think that in some ways HT is actually easier to set up in a smaller room than a 2 channel music setup. Generally speaker placement is a lot more forgiving due to the extensive calibration settings that modern receivers afford. Also, the imaging is relying more on multiple speakers than in a two channel setup where you have to find that one "sweet spot" for the speaker location. The low end is also more manageable via using a dedicated sub. A smaller room also allows for a smaller TV or projector as you want the viewing angle to be large.

Yes, I agree. The other thing in play is that so much of the now literal sound stage is not intended to be musical. Horses clopping, carriages rattling, guns firing, seemingly purposeless waffling bass program to create drama … you don’t have any live performance to compare it to. So it is believable.

If a jazz trio is recorded in stereo I know the differences between good and less good reproductions. With a Hobbit sound stage, I might hear differences and prefer one over another, but I don’t have a clue about “absolute” sound.

So …. It seems more forgiving. As I’ve made changes, I’ve recalibrated using the included mike and software. It has improved each time. Most changes have related to speaker heights and angles.

I bought a 5 meter AudioQuest subwoofer rca interconnect from Best Buy to run under the house. The package argued that it would be unsuitable (too harsh) for full frequency use … but good to give that extra clarity to the bass track. It does sound different from the 3 meter McKenzie that I was replacing.

[admin]

Yes, I agree. The other thing in play is that so much of the now literal sound stage is not intended to be musical. Horses clopping, carriages rattling, guns firing, seemingly purposeless waffling bass program to create drama … you don’t have any live performance to compare it to. So it is believable.

Exactly. And that's one of the big differences between HT and stereo, HT is often not meant to be realistic. You can hear explosions in space, when somebody shoots a gun, you don't get hearing damage as you would in real life, and there is music playing over dialog. Completely "unrealistic". However, still very entertaining and enjoyable in a very different way than 2 channel audiophile listening.

So …. It seems more forgiving. As I’ve made changes, I’ve recalibrated using the included mike and software. It has improved each time. Most changes have related to speaker heights and angles.

Every time you make any changes I would run the calibration software. If you want to take it a little higher and have some fun, I do recommend a dedicated calibration mic and software.

I bought a 5 meter AudioQuest subwoofer rca interconnect from Best Buy to run under the house. The package argued that it would be unsuitable (too harsh) for full frequency use … but good to give that extra clarity to the bass track. It does sound different from the 3 meter McKenzie that I was replacing.

The biggest issue with a sub RCA cable vs the interconnects we typically use in our stereos is picking up interference. I've never had interference on a interconnect RCA cable in my setup (less than 2m), however, I have heard interference with long runs for subs (which are often 3m or more). Even regular power cords placed close to a RCA sub line can cause problems. So I would say that the two biggest things you need to watch out for in an RCA speaker cable is 1) positioning and 2) shielding.

[AnotherJohnson]

Every time you make any changes I would run the calibration software. If you want to take it a little higher and have some fun, I do recommend a dedicated calibration mic and software.

The biggest issue with a sub RCA cable vs the interconnects we typically use in our stereos is picking up interference. I've never had interference on an interconnect RCA cable in my setup (less than 2m), however, I have heard interference with long runs for subs (which are often 3m or more). Even regular power cords placed close to a RCA sub line can cause problems. So I would say that the two biggest things you need to watch out for in an RCA speaker cable is 1) positioning and 2) shielding.

Audyssey is the built in software.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audyssey_Laboratories

There is a dedicated mike included. A cardboard extendable stand is also included. Seems to work well. Do you suggest a different one?

The process involves placing the mike in 6 specified locations (one at a time) and running a series of whooping noises through all 6 speakers in turn. You do mike position 1, then 2, etc and on to 6. After all the data are taken, it processes the data. It’s all interactive. Quite simple really.

Regarding the sub rca interconnect, I would switch to XLR, but the receiver doesn’t support XLR.

I was worried about it. AudioQuest includes built in ground leads for both ends of the rca sub interconnect, but say it’s not necessary to hook them up unless there is noise. Even though the sub is plugged into a wall socket in the corner instead of into the P12, no ground loops. The ONLY thing in my electronic world that seems susceptible to ground loops and interference is the pair of LP12s.

[AnotherJohnson]

The ONLY thing in my electronic world that seems susceptible to ground loops and interference is the pair of LP12s.

LP275Ms, not LP12s. My LP12s are quiet as a dead cricket.

[admin]

Audyssey is the built in software.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audyssey_Laboratories

There is a dedicated mike included. A cardboard extendable stand is also included. Seems to work well. Do you suggest a different one?

Yup, I'm familiar as this is probably the most common system used in receiver calibration. It's a fine system and I think works really well for general setup. Please keep in mind that often the auto-calibration will configure the speakers for a setup where a wide variety of listening positions will get "good results", but that no one position gets "the best result". If you are hosting viewing sessions with a larger group, then this is a really great. However, if it's most one or two people listening in a relatively small fixed location, then it may not be the best option.

If you want to do the calibration to your specs, I have a recommendation. The total cost is under $100.

1) Microphone= https://www.minidsp.com/products/acoust ... ent/umik-1

2) Software= https://www.roomeqwizard.com

It will be much more time consuming as everything is manual, but it will allow you to configure the system to your liking. I would say that Audyssey will probably get you 95% of the way there with a single click of a button. REW can help you get the other 5% at considerable cost in time and effort (and $100). Whether that is worth it for a particular individual, I can't say.

Regarding the sub rca interconnect, I would switch to XLR, but the receiver doesn’t support XLR.

I was worried about it. AudioQuest includes built in ground leads for both ends of the rca sub interconnect, but say it’s not necessary to hook them up unless there is noise. Even though the sub is plugged into a wall socket in the corner instead of into the P12, no ground loops. The ONLY thing in my electronic world that seems susceptible to ground loops and interference is the pair of LP12s.

I actually don't think that you need XLR (even if it was an option). The vast majority of time RCA's will work fine even with very long runs (over 20ft) and if there is interference that can almost always be fixed with simply moving cables away from power cords or power sources.

[AnotherJohnson]

The cheap Denon AVR also has a manual setup option but, as you point out, it is more time consuming, and requires more user skills.

The Audyssey setup for this receiver uses 6 microphone positions but all of the extra 5 of them are supposed to be chosen to be within 2’ of the primary seat. In my application I only have three potential seats, and none of them are easy chair type seats. I use the stationary bike as the prime seat and then on either side I have dining room style chair. The room is quite small (a 1960s style master bedroom suite). Because of the location of the bathroom door and the closet door, and the double window, wall space is pretty limited.

My front speakers are a pair of Sonus Faber Liuto monitors and a matching SF center speaker. The sub is a Revel B112 V2 and the surround speakers are the PSB Alpha A/Vs on Revel M116 stands. The Surround speakers are mounted in the rear corners so that they are about 2’ above ear level and slightly behind the row of seats.

I do not have any experience base to tell me whether or not it is a good setup. It has been cobbled together from inexpensive pieces parts that were on hand, or otherwise obtained at low cost.

This is an experiment… and I like it well enough to consider it a success, but now my appetite is whet.

It makes me wonder whether or not it would be worthwhile to try to put this sort of system in my reasonably large main two channel listening room, either at the other end (34’ away from the two channel), or actually to superimpose it onto the two channel system. The drawback of putting it in the main listening room is that both could not be used simultaneously… although I don’t really know how big a drawback this would be.

If it stays where it is at the other end of the house, both could be played at relatively high volume without conflict.

[admin]

My front speakers are a pair of Sonus Faber Liuto monitors and a matching SF center speaker. The sub is a Revel B112 V2 and the surround speakers are the PSB Alpha A/Vs on Revel M116 stands. The Surround speakers are mounted in the rear corners so that they are about 2’ above ear level and slightly behind the row of seats.

I do not have any experience base to tell me whether or not it is a good setup. It has been cobbled together from inexpensive pieces parts that were on hand, or otherwise obtained at low cost.

A rough guide for where to put the speakers: https://www.dolby.com/about/support/gui ... ker-setup/

Unless you are using Dolby Atmos height/ceiling speakers, I think ear level is typically the best height positioning for HT. The farther away the speaker, the less important it is to get ear level (as the angle approaches zero vertical offset).

It makes me wonder whether or not it would be worthwhile to try to put this sort of system in my reasonably large main two channel listening room, either at the other end (34’ away from the two channel), or actually to superimpose it onto the two channel system. The drawback of putting it in the main listening room is that both could not be used simultaneously… although I don’t really know how big a drawback this would be.

I see no reason why you can't have a HT and stereo listening setup in the same room. This is what I have as a setup and don't see any downsides. My 2 channel setup will get priority in the L/R speaker placement. With HT, the center channel is the most important so I that needs to be place correctly (in addition the screen). The surrounds have flexibility.

If it stays where it is at the other end of the house, both could be played at relatively high volume without conflict.

Dual simultaneous play is the advantage of having them in separate rooms, but how often do you really need to run two systems at once? This will vary from family to family. I can see this as a draw in a household with kids, but in others it's a non-issue.

[AnotherJohnson]

The AVR owners manual is where the idea of elevating the surround speakers came from. I had originally mounted them at ear height.

The elevated position seems to work better if the goal is to create the experience of a bird flying in, or other above head sound pattern. But both worked. What’s best is probably dependent on the specific program. Just like with subwoofer blending, you can drive yourself nuts by trying to optimize anew for every program.

I think the key is to keep it fun. The place for ocd is two channel .

[admin]

I think the key is to keep it fun. The place for ocd is two channel .

And that sums it up.

After I watch the movie with way exaggerated bass tonight with my wife, I'm going to listen to some music and obsess about the type of metal plating on the speaker binding posts.

[AnotherJohnson]

After I watch the movie with way exaggerated bass tonight with my wife, I'm going to listen to some music and obsess about the type of metal plating on the speaker binding posts.

I’m not going to worry about the hardware, but I will obsess over the realism of the tympani.

[AnotherJohnson]

I replaced the $50 Walmart close out Sanyo Blu-Ray player with a Sony UBPX800M2BM2 yesterday.

It was definitely an upgrade. The Sony solved quite a few reliability issues. The Sanyo would start every disk looking for a BD-ROM which it could not find, leading to the warning that errors might occur. The Sony appears to be able to find this and so it starts and plays without errors, like the snow field video signal that the Sanyo often presented two or three times each attempt to play. Sound quality improved too. Vocal information is definitely clearer.

[Joe Appierto]

A friend of mine is fond of saying "Buy cheap and buy twice."

It is sometimes true.

[AnotherJohnson]

I bought a 5 meter AudioQuest subwoofer rca interconnect from Best Buy to run under the house. The package argued that it would be unsuitable (too harsh) for full frequency use … but good to give that extra clarity to the bass track. It does sound different from the 3 meter McKenzie that I was replacing.

The biggest issue with a sub RCA cable vs the interconnects we typically use in our stereos is picking up interference. I've never had interference on a interconnect RCA cable in my setup (less than 2m), however, I have heard interference with long runs for subs (which are often 3m or more). Even regular power cords placed close to a RCA sub line can cause problems. So I would say that the two biggest things you need to watch out for in an RCA speaker cable is 1) positioning and 2) shielding.

The 5 meter sub rca interconnect runs straight down to the hole in the floor and then through the crawl space to the hole by the subwoofer. So no issues with cable crossings. It’s dead quiet until the audio signal emerges.

[AnotherJohnson]

A friend of mine is fond of saying "Buy cheap and buy twice."

It is sometimes true.

It is almost always true. I bought two of the $50 Sanyos several years ago to use with TVs. They’ve been great in that application. The troubles did not manifest themselves until I ran one of the Sanyos into the Denon AVR.

Buy the best and cry once has long been proven true when I’ve bought cheap to save money.

I was disappointed and surprised when I went Blu-Ray player shopping. My salesman buddy says no one buys Blu-Rays any more and so the players are disappearing. My choices at his shop were two Sonys. I bought the better one and the bill was $249 plus tax. That’s less than a power cord or interconnect. I wish there were more choices, but when Oppo quit production, the choices seem to have diminished.

[AnotherJohnson]

My buddy says that every one streams their video now due to cost of media.

I pointed out that people still buy CDs, SACDs and vinyl even though the same idea is in play. Maybe video disks will make a comeback too. The Japanese still seem to prefer hard media. But the US market is strongly tilted towards streaming.

[admin]

I don't foresee physical media ever coming back to be more popular than streaming (video or music) for the masses. However, there is something to be said for the exceptionally better quality of Blu-ray discs (especially 4K) compared to streaming. The bitrate is typically multiple times higher on the physical media version compared to even the highest "4K streaming" versions. The amount of digital artifacts I see with streaming is very high. This is especially true in dark scenes with macro blocking and banding really standing out on streaming video.

This may change in the future. Streaming music is on average higher bitrate than CD so that is one example where streaming has improved upon physical media (at least from a technical perspective). Perhaps as download speeds and bandwidth increase, we will start downloading higher bitrate and higher resolution than what physical media has to offer for video.

As for me, I will continue to collect my Laserdiscs which now number over 2300!

[AnotherJohnson]

That’s an impressive collection of laser disks. I think I have a few that I will round up and donate to you (if I can find them).

I had suggested a David Hazeltine SACD with a 5.1 layer a few months back. His trio is piano, bass, and drums.

I liked the two channel version when I first suggested it, but I’ve decided that it is not optimally mastered for two channel.

image.jpg (1.78 MiB) Viewed 2942 times

Tonight I’ve stuck it in the Sony and am listening to the 5.1 layer.

4E7081DA-1734-4193-9ED6-2E37DFAA4993.jpeg (3.43 MiB) Viewed 2942 times

I like this mix and image … but tone and transients are clearly not high end.

I guess that’s the difference between high end electronics and speakers and an AVR with Sonus Faber monitors.

The bass is far more prominent with the subwoofer track. But therefore a lot of bass on the center channel too.

As you can see from the picture, I don’t have enough separation between left and right. It “works” for movies, but less well when the goal is to recreate a jazz session.

[AnotherJohnson]

I’m wondering if the best way to perk this up is with the Sabrinas and a serious center speaker.

I could move the Sabrinas to LF and RF. Put the Sonus Fabers in LS and RS. Get a Wilson center channel. And leave the Revel subwoofer. Then replace the AVR with something(s) more substantial.

Probably not worth it for this tiny room.

It’s relying on the EQ software to deal with the small size, corners etc. it’s better than it has any right to be based on what we know about two channel. But you can’t really fix things perfectly with EQ. I need a minimum room size of 15’ x 16’ to get out of room trouble.

[AnotherJohnson]

Another disk I’d recommended is Carmen Sandim’s.

image.jpg (2.07 MiB) Viewed 2935 times

That SACD from PS Audio’s Octave Records included a data DVD, I’m playing it now.

image.jpg (2.45 MiB) Viewed 2935 times

Again, this is a very nice mix and just two channel.

I guess I’m surprised at how much bass the Liuto Monitors have by themselves.

This is much nicer on the main system … but I’ve heard much worse than this.

One of my music industry friends who chased the high end as an audiophile eventually gave it up as a fool’s errand. He gave me a hundreds of CDs, SACDs, and vinyl as he quit.

I remember him mumbling at the end something like “I would have been happier just buying an HT receiver and some monitors.” His audiophile quest ended in futility.



This data DVD is a case where the Sabrinas and some good electronics might help … but I keep coming back to the limitations of the room.