# Receivers and House Sound



## kdaq (Mar 29, 2014)

Hey all! I'm a newbie here, but loving the learning experience.

Thought I'd jump into discussion with a potentially controversial topic. I ask the following question because I recently bought a new receiver, and I'm not too happy with the change. So, it got me thinking: *How does each AVR's "house sound" differ?*

This is, of course, a matter of opinion. I'm looking for your two cents.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_The following is needlessly long background that you don't need to read_

I'm well aware that many folks don't believe in a difference, or haven't perceived one in their own time listening. That's OK. I have heard a difference in my own specific scenario. And yup, I'm talking about different AVRs, DACs and preamps and all, not just amps.

My original receiver was a Denon AVR-1905, which I got 9 or 10 years ago. Wanting HDMI and newer codec support, I switched to a Yamaha RX-V375.

Over the course of a few weeks of listening, I developed the following impression:

The imaging changed.
I kept getting the feeling that my speakers needed to be moved forward (they're behind the TV), because while listening to stereo music singers sounded like they were above the TV instead of in front of it.
I did a phase check and it was correctly wired.

The sound had less _weight_ to it.
For example, acoustic guitar seemed to have de-emphasized mid-bass, or whatever made it feel less full.

This drove me up a wall wondering if it was in my head. So I setup an A/B test. My audio chains were:

Computer HDMI output (set to 24/96) -> Yamaha -> one pair of speakers
Computer optical output (set to 24/96) -> Denon --preamp-out--> T-Amp -> a second, identical pair of speakers at same location
I used my t-amp instead of the Denon amp because it made wiring easier in my particular situation. I know that it's easy to stretch this little guy too far, but I kept the volume low. In any case, it matched what I remembered of the Denon amp sound anyway. Personally, I believe the DAC and preamp circuitry colors sound more than the amp.

This A/B setup let me use my computer to switch output on the fly without a break in sound. I matched volume on the two setups using a sound meter (listened around 70 dB).

A few hours of music listening and switching back-and-forth confirmed my suspicions (and probably confirmed some of my wife's suspicions about my sanity as well!). The sound absolutely did change, and more-or-less in the way I had suspected.

I can't say this change is all bad. It felt like instruments had better separation, and it may actually improve movies. Overall though, let's just say it's not my cup of tea.

Maybe this urge to tweak further just means I'm nuts. Frankly, I'm OK with that. :bigsmile:


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Your comparison is not an identical comparison. You need to have everything equal, including using the same pair of speakers.

In truth, there's no controversy here. When the curtain goes down on a pair of amplifiers, all things equal, gain matched, operating within specifications, those who say they can hear a difference, are able to do no better than random chance in choosing which amplifier is the best amplifier.

I wish this point was not true as I want to believe that differences can be heard. That's my bias, there is a difference but again, properly constructed ABX tests show that I'm suffering from wishful thinking. Boo-hoo me.

About every week or two, discussions of this kind show up but nobody has any empirical evidence of differences. Currently there's a thread running about hearing differences.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

I will try to keep this short (yeah right), but my experience within the tone of this thread is the same as the OPs. I don't know to what I should attribute it to, but I have 4 AVRs in my house and they have all been hooked up to the same speakers that have occupied my listen space since constructing my house 9 years ago at one time or another. Short version; each one has a much different sound than the next. I don't necessarily believe this is the "amp" section as much as the processing. Fwiw, one of them is an onkyo, txsr-500. (Kinda old) it has zero "correction", and two others do. I did a/b with this rcvr and a Harmon in the store when I purchased it wit the same infinity speakers. Even my wife said how much better it sounded. Like I said, I'm not 100% sure what to attribute this to (DACs, caps, isolated sections etc), but to me there is a distinct difference.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Op-Amps do change the sound quality. It's no different that the warm sound of tubes; introduced distortion.

Once everything is dialed in flat (eliminate op-Amp differences) and gain matched, as long as operating within specifications, in double-blind ABX tests, the differences go away and then the excuses as to why, begin.

(i'm going step out of this thread also)


----------



## kdaq (Mar 29, 2014)

Thanks for the replies so far. Doesn't much matter to me if some folks believe in differences and some don't. Just looking for an aggregate of experiences.

If you have noticed a difference in sound between different receivers (not component amps), how would you describe it?


BeeMan458: Take two _component amps_, gain-matched, etc. like you said -- I totally agree. They're identical. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about two AVRs.

Your comment about op-amps is spot-on. Much like tubes, they color the sound. Absolutely. I have experience with this from my Head-Fi days, as I've built a number of DIY headphone amps. Eventually I moved away from op-amp ones and went discrete, because they got out of the way of the music.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say "house sound". I'm not talking about just an amplifier section. I'm talking about the entire signal path in the receiver.

The signal travels through DACs, DSPs, op-amps, and plenty of supporting circuitry. Every manufacturer does this differently. Frankly, why wouldn't they sound different?


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

kdaq said:


> BeeMan458: Take two _component amps_, gain-matched, etc. like you said -- I totally agree. They're identical. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about two AVRs.
> 
> This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say "house sound". I'm not talking about just an amplifier section. I'm talking about the entire signal path in the receiver.
> 
> The signal travels through DACs, DSPs, op-amps, and plenty of supporting circuitry. Every manufacturer does this differently. Frankly, why wouldn't they sound different?


I'm going post something that reads totally lame, parts is parts. When EQ'd flat, gain matched, the DSP is turned off and the sound is direct, my understanding, you're on amplifier only with only the EQ effort in the middle. My understanding is based on amplifiers and no DSP.

I haven't done any studies as to "house sound." So I can't really say anything to respond to your above.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

kdaq said:


> Thanks for the replies so far. Doesn't much matter to me if some folks believe in differences and some don't. Just looking for an aggregate of experiences. If you have noticed a difference in sound between different receivers (not component amps), how would you describe it? BeeMan458: Take two component amps, gain-matched, etc. like you said -- I totally agree. They're identical. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about two AVRs. Your comment about op-amps is spot-on. Much like tubes, they color the sound. Absolutely. I have experience with this from my Head-Fi days, as I've built a number of DIY headphone amps. Eventually I moved away from op-amp ones and went discrete, because they got out of the way of the music. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say "house sound". I'm not talking about just an amplifier section. I'm talking about the entire signal path in the receiver. The signal travels through DACs, DSPs, op-amps, and plenty of supporting circuitry. Every manufacturer does this differently. Frankly, why wouldn't they sound different?


Bee, I can't see your quote before this one. It shows in in my list, but not when I click it.???

House sound...ill comment only on the ones I currently own and are used somewhere in my house, in ascending order. These observations are with the same speakers, but the AVRs have moved on to other speaker systems. 
Yamaha: (no ypao). Very dry, and reserved. Rolled back top end, not dynamic, or articulate.100x5. 
Onkyo: (no correction dsp). Nice resolution/clarity. More sense of space. Better instrument placement, and imaging. Mostly neutral sounding. Also not too dynamic,(impact wise) 65x5
Pioneer/mcacc: a cross between the onkyo and Yamaha, with the better attributes of each. Fairly dynamic. 120x7. Didn't love mcacc, but it has presets which I enjoyed customizing. I left the initial calibration, but used 2-5 for different music playback. This one goes farther than the the yam/onk, but runs out of gas in my space, and is obvious. 
Onkyo 808/audyssey: the best so far. (In my rack). High resolution. Very intricate. Great at conveying sense of space, and weight of instruments. Very neutral, and revealing. Crummy recordings are crummier, and great ones are greater. One of my pet peeves is hearing digital audio compression, and this onkyo, and the pio are good at highlighting this. Listening fatigue in 5 min. With bad recordings. With 135x7, it's pretty much a beast. Very dynamic. I also use pure audio/direct on the pio and 808 once in awhile. (Separate amps on the list though ) 
This last one is not an AVR but it is fun and cool. I've been playing with a Mcintosh 2100 from 1971, in a 2.0 setup. It sounds a lot like my Yamaha, with the power like my big onkyo. Not as articulate as I'd hoped, but really good with spacial reproduction, and weight. It's fun anyways. Hope this is what you were after!
Will


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

willis7469 said:


> Bee, I can't see your quote before this one. It shows in in my list, but not when I click it.???


...onder:...:scratch:...got nothing.

Not sure what you're asking.

...:bigsmile:


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

BeeMan458 said:


> ...onder:...:scratch:...got nothing. Not sure what you're asking. ...:bigsmile:


lol!
You posted at 6:33. I can only see it on my preview screen of subscribed threads. (iPhone)
Strange......


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

willis7469 said:


> lol!
> You posted at 6:33. I can only see it on my preview screen of subscribed threads. (iPhone)
> Strange......


That's the problem, you have a smart phone and our phones are dumb phones. 

I have a post at 4:33 and it contained a generic link to Op Amp information. And from what kdaq posted, apparently I'm barking up the wrong tree.

I don't use DSPs. Our system is dialed in flat so hopefully any coloration is removed. Our Klipsch horns speakers will introduce their Klipsch to the room but it's unrelated to the AVR. Back in the day, in my opinion, coloration was a consideration as it was purposefully designed into the unit but with room correction software being included in the AVR, in my opinion, this is no longer a consideration unless one wants to introduce a particular sound, warm, cold, et cetera.

Today, AVRs are different from the way things were in the 70s, yet the ideas of the 70s, persist into the present.

(the above is my view on things; old school, new school, no school)


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

BeeMan458 said:


> That's the problem, you have a smart phone and our phones are dumb phones.  I have a post at 4:33 and it contained a generic link to Op Amp information. And from what kdaq posted, apparently I'm barking up the wrong tree. I don't use DSPs. Our system is dialed in flat so hopefully any coloration is removed. Our Klipsch horns speakers will introduce their Klipsch to the room but it's unrelated to the AVR. Back in the day, in my opinion, coloration was a consideration as it was purposefully designed into the unit but with room correction software being included in the AVR, in my opinion, this is no longer a consideration unless one wants to introduce a particular sound, warm, cold, et cetera. Today, AVRs are different from the way things were in the 70s, yet the ideas of the 70s, persist into the present. (the above is my view on things; old school, new school, no school)


time warp! I forgot were on CST. Ur on PST. 
As far as DSPs, (sound modes) can't stand em. I try to be faithful. That's why I sometimes use pure Audio mode. It shuts off the display circuits, and more that I can't remember off hand lol. One difference I should point out is that when I refer to these different characteristics it is during music playback. During movies, I'm religious about soundtrack selection, and sound mode selection. (NO dsp mode, ie "action" or "game" modes. I'm only as flat as audyssey can get me. My onkyo has limited bass eq, and I've gotten close with tones, and charts. Painful! 
The differences for movie playback (in my AVRs) are more subtle obviously, and the biggest differentiator is dynamics/power. But things like image steering and placement as well as resolution are still noteable, even if only slight.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

willis7469 said:


> As far as DSPs, (sound modes) can't stand em.


I love the affect of DSPs but my ears fatigue after about forty-five minutes so I have simply written them off like a food allergy.

From the last part of your comment, it reads like we all do the best we can with what we have and live with everything else.

........:dumbcrazy:

(and no, I will not get into image steering issues)

......


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Indeed, all we can do is with what we've got! Sharing a theater with a living room is difficult, but I accept the challenge!
As to your last comment, i will say, fair enough.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

willis7469 said:


> Sharing a theater with a living room is difficult, but I accept the challenge!


It would be so much easier if the task didn't come with WAF.



> As to your last comment, i will say, fair enough.


I finally dealt with this issue by toeing the mains out an inch or so, killed the focused sweet spot and by placing the surrounds in an asymmetrical pattern let Audyssey deal with time domain issues.

(now that you mention it, i do find need to go back in with a sound meter and better balance the sound field for the movie watching house curve.......see what you did, ya messed with my bliss. i was doing just fine ignoring this issue)

...


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Sorry Bee! Just doin my job! Lol even if that means being the toast crumbs in the butter! 
Actually if I did have a goal, it would to simply inspire! Have fun!


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

willis7469 said:


> Sorry Bee! Just doin my job!


And doing it well.

It's about time I came out of my protected world of bliss and do a little bit of playing with sound meter and balancing the sound system.

I'm good with the asymmetrical setup but I didn't balance the system to the house curve, just the bass and center channel.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Gain / level matched is the first law of blind test.
No EQ of any kind is the second law of blind test.
There are more, but without these no matter what you do you have skewed the test.


----------



## kdaq (Mar 29, 2014)

BeeMan458 said:


> I'm going post something that reads totally lame, parts is parts. When EQ'd flat, gain matched, the DSP is turned off and the sound is direct, my understanding, you're on amplifier only with only the EQ effort in the middle. My understanding is based on amplifiers and no DSP.


I suspect that the DAC and preamp color the sound. Those are still in the signal chain. Just my line of thinking.



BeeMan458 said:


> I have a post at 4:33 and it contained a generic link to Op Amp information. And from what kdaq posted, apparently I'm barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> I don't use DSPs. Our system is dialed in flat so hopefully any coloration is removed. Our Klipsch horns speakers will introduce their Klipsch to the room but it's unrelated to the AVR. Back in the day, in my opinion, coloration was a consideration as it was purposefully designed into the unit but with room correction software being included in the AVR, in my opinion, this is no longer a consideration unless one wants to introduce a particular sound, warm, cold, et cetera.


* shrug * The op-amp link sounds pertinent to me.

Ah, on the topic of room correction -- I was wondering if this would help mitigate whatever is making me dislike my current setup. Thinking about upgrading to an Onkyo TX-NR818 to get Audyssey XT32.

Does room correction affect imaging? I've never tried any (and I read that the entry-level YPAO my Yamaha has is not so great).


----------



## kdaq (Mar 29, 2014)

willis7469 said:


> Bee, I can't see your quote before this one. It shows in in my list, but not when I click it.???
> 
> House sound...ill comment only on the ones I currently own and are used somewhere in my house, in ascending order. These observations are with the same speakers, but the AVRs have moved on to other speaker systems.
> Yamaha: (no ypao). Very dry, and reserved. Rolled back top end, not dynamic, or articulate.100x5.
> ...


Awesome Will, thanks for the impressions!

I'm especially intrigued by your take on the 808, since I'm eyeing an 818. Though I guess these are significantly different beasts, at least in terms of the amp section.


----------



## kdaq (Mar 29, 2014)

chashint said:


> Gain / level matched is the first law of blind test.
> No EQ of any kind is the second law of blind test.
> There are more, but without these no matter what you do you have skewed the test.


Yup, agreed. Any particular part of my test sound off to you?


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

kdaq said:


> Awesome Will, thanks for the impressions! I'm especially intrigued by your take on the 808, since I'm eyeing an 818. Though I guess these are significantly different beasts, at least in terms of the amp section.


Well, I wish I could remember all the changes they made going to the 818. 1st off I'll say I was an hdmi board failure sufferer. :-( but Onkyo repaired it for free. After warranty! That aside, I love my 808. I've always heard about the amp section in the 805, and how robust it was. I think they made some changes by the time they got to the 808, but IMO it must share some of the DNA, cause this thing just keeps going. I've seen a couple of test bench results that seem to back that up. (Take that for what you will, lol) I watch a lot of concert BDs, and sometimes the dynamics are enough to almost convince me I'm there. This translates to movie soundtracks too. Especially on ones that are done well. I had to put the pioneer in the rack while the onk was in the shop. It's competent, but not quite capable, if that makes sense. ?
Anyways, this is the best AVR that I've owned. I love the networking, ease of use, audyssey, etc, but I most love the sound. (I do wish it had xt32). For my ears, it's quite neutral. Some note onkyos as being forward, or bright, but I don't find that here. Only clear revealing sound. As I mentioned earlier, this can be problematic with lesser source material. This could easily change with different speakers too. Also, some question the reliability, cause they've heard about more onkyo hdmi failures, but I think that's because onkyo is in more systems. This wasn't as concise as I was hoping, but I have company visiting. Hope there's enough in there to make sense!


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

kdaq said:


> Yup, agreed. Any particular part of my test sound off to you?


Sighted test.


----------



## kdaq (Mar 29, 2014)

willis7469 said:


> Well, I wish I could remember all the changes they made going to the 818. 1st off I'll say I was an hdmi board failure sufferer. :-( but Onkyo repaired it for free. After warranty! That aside, I love my 808. ...


Sounds like an excellent choice. My ultimate goal is getting as close to neutral as I can, and it sounds like this family is a good route. Thanks for the detailed impressions.


----------



## kdaq (Mar 29, 2014)

chashint said:


> Sighted test.


Sure, it wasn't blind, that's true. But here's the thing. Let's put aside for a second the question of _what_ was different, and first discuss _if_ it was different.

I knew that I have bias, my mind is used to certain sound signatures, I may be fooling myself, etc. So I called in my wife. Under protest 

She told me, "hon, my ears aren't as good as yours, I can't tell the difference between this stuff". And frankly, she doesn't care _if_ the sound changed, let alone how the sound changed.

So I told her to pick a few songs she knew well, and switch between the two level-matched non-eq'd setups. The first thing I asked her was simple: can she hear any difference? Her answer: "I thought it would be some subtle thing...but these are obviously different".


Blind testing is necessary when changes are subtle. You want it for a Pepsi challenge. But comparing apples and oranges? Not saying it's not a factor -- but it's not enough that I'd ignore what I learned from this experiment, IMHO.

This begs the real question in my mind: why so different? Now, I hope it's not the case, but the answer may well be that I messed something else up my test setup.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

These types of thread always boils down to blind versus sighted tests having kicked a few thread that way myself. I'm in the blind camp myself.


----------



## kdaq (Mar 29, 2014)

Really, I'm just curious to hear people's opinions on differences they believe they've heard. Totally OK with me if there isn't an accompanying control experiment


----------



## primetimeguy (Jun 3, 2006)

kdaq said:


> Sure, it wasn't blind, that's true. But here's the thing. Let's put aside for a second the question of what was different, and first discuss if it was different.
> 
> I knew that I have bias, my mind is used to certain sound signatures, I may be fooling myself, etc. So I called in my wife. Under protest
> 
> ...


Differences always appear greater in sighted tests. So you have to ask yourself the question why that is.


----------



## kdaq (Mar 29, 2014)

Sure. But I knew it was a significant difference before I even A/B'd it -- I mean, it was bothering my subconscious while trying to lose myself to some music! I suppose though that this may reflect on my mental state 

Probably what I'll do next is give YPAO a shot. Can't hurt, at least I can always go back.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

kdaq said:


> Sure. But I knew it was a significant difference before I even A/B'd it.


Exactly the point.
Sighted simply proves you hear what you expected.

If I understood the description of your 'test' you used a separate pair of speakers on each AVR setup. Even if they are the same model they won't be in the same position in the room so a change in separation and imagining is guaranteed.

FWIW it does not matter to me if you think you hear a difference in the electronics, that gives you clarity on what to purchase that will make you happy.

While I have recently become open to they possibility that double blind listening may have its own set of issues that can skew listener's perception of what they are hearing, there is not a "better" alternative that has been vetted.

In double blind listening tests with only one piece of equipment changing, level matched, and all signal processing turned off, AVRs (or separates) are not identifiable from each other.

Different types of processing certainly affect the sound and may be why a person would want to purchase a particular model.

There are many threads here and other places that chase this subject around the circular path over and over.
Some even claim to hear differences in power cords.
It is a never ending discussion with one side armed with results from tests conducted in the most stringently controlled environments and the other armed with tests conducted like yours.
Hundreds (perhaps thousands) cannot hear a difference in controlled testing, but you do not care because you think you hear differences which are clearly identifiable.
For an individual thinking you hear a difference is the same as actually hearing it, because that is what you believe.
The world used to be flat until it was round, right now to the best of science's ability to design electronics and measure sound the differences are so small they cannot be audible (verified in scientifically conducted blind listening tests) perhaps a discovery will be made today that changes that, but it is highly unlikely that is going to happen.


----------



## kdaq (Mar 29, 2014)

Ok.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

chashint said:


> Exactly the point.
> Sighted simply proves you hear what you expected.
> 
> If I understood the description of your 'test' you used a separate pair of speakers on each AVR setup. Even if they are the same model they won't be in the same position in the room so a change in separation and imagining is guaranteed.
> ...


The test do not have to DBT in nature as long as the listener is unware of what they are listening too.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Ok


----------

