The impossible decision of buying an AVR/AVP!

[Dj7675]

Will this or a similar used unit work for you? Only 4k and no Auro 3D though, but definitely within your budget. Fully balanced, Dirac EQ processing. Also reviewed fairly well on ASR.

Emotiva XMC-1

That is a dated model now… Although SINAD was fine, there are even more issues with support, software glitches etc that would remove it from consideration for many.

 

[Vacceo]

Oh I see, I guess the term bankruptcy has a different meaning in my mind than what it actually means nowadays! Thank you for clarifying. Do you have any information regarding the DAC the onkyo uses and whether it features a pre-amp mode?



You are so lucky you have so many receiver options... Integra is another one I can't get in my country... Only the very big brands are available here...

That onkyo is tempting, mainly for the dirac, but the Denon packs a lot more features that I want and it's cheaper so I am leaning towards it at the moment.

If I go with the Denon, I am thinking of hiring a professional to do a proper calibration of my system manually. I would only need the auto EQ during the setup process anyways, after that it would be useless so I might as well get the machine that will do most of the things I want and calibrate it manually.

A fellow European, right? Because Monoprice, Integra, Onkyo, Pioneer and some more are also unavailable over here.

 

[High End Refugee]

That is a dated model now… Although SINAD was fine, there are even more issues with support, software glitches etc that would remove it from consideration for many.

What is the OP going to get that isn't dated? He has a max $2500 budget, only needs 5.1, and wants good auto EQ and balanced outs.

 

[Dj7675]

What is the OP going to get that isn't dated? He has a max $2500 budget, only needs 5.1, and wants good auto EQ and balanced outs.

I guess I wanted to point out that besides being dated there are many reasons IMO not to go with Emotiva. Reboots, slow UI, Firmware issues etc… I would go Denon X3700/4700, or the OP wanted Dirac the Onkyo would make a nice preamp for active speakers.

 

[edechamps]

I m driving the speakers using the integrated sound card of my pc. It's nothing fancy and the surround it offer is the most basic one. If only the companies who developed Atmos and DTS-HD allowed us to buy the license and then use a dac like the one you mentioned above to reproduce multichannel Atmos things would be much simpler.

If you have a surround sound system whose speaker positioning is standard (i.e. BS.775 compliant or close to it), I'm really not sure full Atmos support would give you a different result than listening to the standard, non-object-based 5.1 stream. My understanding is that object-based audio (i.e. Atmos) only matters if you have an unusual speaker layout or if you have many speakers (height speakers, etc.).

If you can forget about the full Atmos requirement, then your current solution (PC motherboard jack) might actually be perfectly fine, especially if you can't hear the noise floor. I've used using my PC motherboard analog output with my Genelec 8030s for years because I knew it was good enough (verified it myself through measurements). I then switched to a cheap Asus Xonar U7 (similar to a Topping DM7 but much lower class) because I switched to a new motherboard which sadly came with an audible noise floor.

As for EQ/DSP, if you're running Windows you can use Equalizer APO, which is free. It won't be automatic though.

 

[dlaloum]

Oh I see, I guess the term bankruptcy has a different meaning in my mind than what it actually means nowadays! Thank you for clarifying. Do you have any information regarding the DAC the onkyo uses and whether it features a pre-amp mode?



You are so lucky you have so many receiver options... Integra is another one I can't get in my country... Only the very big brands are available here...

That onkyo is tempting, mainly for the dirac, but the Denon packs a lot more features that I want and it's cheaper so I am leaning towards it at the moment.

If I go with the Denon, I am thinking of hiring a professional to do a proper calibration of my system manually. I would only need the auto EQ during the setup process anyways, after that it would be useless so I might as well get the machine that will do most of the things I want and calibrate it manually.

Basic F/R EQ can be done manually - but impulse response adjustment, requires Dirac (or Audyssey) or external software/hardware...

Although the most obvious thing the Dirac/Audyssey systems do is Frequency Response EQ, it isn't the most important. - without changing my voicing (F/R) - Dirac cleared up dialogue and detail substantially - made the system much clearer and more detailed.

The Basic AutoEQ does what it says "on the box" - basic EQ, and speaker distance adjustment.

 

[Kostas]

A fellow European, right? Because Monoprice, Integra, Onkyo, Pioneer and some more are also unavailable over here.

Yes It's so frustrating and I don't know why they don't expand their market...

If you have a surround sound system whose speaker positioning is standard (i.e. BS.775 compliant or close to it), I'm really not sure full Atmos support would give you a different result than listening to the standard, non-object-based 5.1 stream. My understanding is that object-based audio (i.e. Atmos) only matters if you have an unusual speaker layout or if you have many speakers (height speakers, etc.).

If you can forget about the full Atmos requirement, then your current solution (PC motherboard jack) might actually be perfectly fine, especially if you can't hear the noise floor. I've used using my PC motherboard analog output with my Genelec 8030s for years because I knew it was good enough (verified it myself through measurements). I then switched to a cheap Asus Xonar U7 (similar to a Topping DM7 but much lower class) because I switched to a new motherboard which sadly came with an audible noise floor.

As for EQ/DSP, if you're running Windows you can use Equalizer APO, which is free. It won't be automatic though.

I thought atmos require a standard speaker positioning like the one you mentioned above and I set up mine following dolby's instructions.

From what I heard, AVRs and AVPs don't simply decode Atmos/Dts:X etc but they also process the signals to give you a better surround experience. My PC sound card doe not support High definition movie audio formats such as DTS-HD, and True-HD.

I already use the Equalizer APO to control the bass of one of my speakers that is placed in a corner. I really like it but I have to depend too much on my ears...

I would go Denon X3700/4700, or the OP wanted Dirac the Onkyo would make a nice preamp for active speakers.

Do you know what DAC the onkyo uses and whether it features Pre-amp support?

 

[edechamps]

From what I heard, AVRs and AVPs don't simply decode Atmos/Dts:X etc but they also process the signals to give you a better surround experience.

I'd be genuinely interested to know where you heard that. Assuming a standard 5.1 speaker layout, I don't see how an AVR could "process the signals" to provide a "better surround experience" beyond the basics (i.e. speaker level matching, delay, EQ) that can be done through other means (e.g. Equalizer APO).

My PC sound card doe not support High definition movie audio formats such as DTS-HD, and True-HD.

Any reasonable PC video player can decode DTS-HD and TrueHD just fine and will happily play the resulting PCM through any sound card. The only thing that PC players don't (yet) support is the object-based layer of Atmos. But they will still play the base 5.1 layer which, as far as I understand, is all you need if you have a standard 5.1 speaker layout.

I already use the Equalizer APO to control the bass of one of my speakers that is placed in a corner. I really like it but I have to depend too much on my ears...

If you're not afraid to get your hands dirty, a MiniDSP UMIK-1 ($79) and REW, combined with Equalizer APO to apply the corrections, will likely provide better results than auto EQ, and with much more flexibility, visibility and control.

 

[Kostas]

I'd be genuinely interested to know where you heard that. Assuming a standard 5.1 speaker layout, I don't see how an AVR could "process the signals" to provide a "better surround experience" beyond the basics (i.e. speaker level matching, delay, EQ) that can be done through other means (e.g. Equalizer APO).

I heard it from every big home theater youtuber when they were comparing units. They were talking about surround with better definition and better channel separation. Again, I understand it in theory but I have no idea what it means in real life...

Any reasonable PC video player can decode DTS-HD and TrueHD just fine and will happily play the resulting PCM through any sound card. The only thing that PC players don't (yet) support is the object-based layer of Atmos. But they will still play the base 5.1 layer which, as far as I understand, is all you need if you have a standard 5.1 speaker layout.

To tell you the truth, I have no idea If I will like Atmos and what difference it really makes. I might be happy with the base layer or end up being really excited about Atmos. That's the main source of my indecisiveness... I do not know what I want yet due to the lack of real world experience and afraid of missing out on a possibly exciting audio experience.

If you're not afraid to get your hands dirty, a MiniDSP UMIK-1 ($79) and REW, combined with Equalizer APO to apply the corrections, will likely provide better results than auto EQ, and with much more flexibility, visibility and control.

I am aware of the mini DSP mic and I was even looking at their dirac solution but it's just too expensive. It's good to know that it works well with REW because I thought Audyssey would be better (with no real evidence though). If it's better than Audyssey could I still use it to calibrate my system and them apply the corrections to the receiver manually?

 

[retro]

The only thing that PC players don't (yet) support is the object-based layer of Atmos

They do, actually..
Not simple, not easy, but Atmos and Auro can be played by a win or mac...

 

[edechamps]

Not simple, not easy, but Atmos and Auro can be played by a win or mac...

Interesting. Care to elaborate?

 

[FrantzM]

Interesting. Care to elaborate?

+1

 

[Kostas]

Interesting. Care to elaborate?

+1

 

[Kostas]

Oh, I think he is talking about this

Atmos finally decoded in PC/Mac

So now we can skip the lousy AVP's/AVR's and do it all in the HTPC instead. I've been waiting a long time for this..:) https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/immersive/how-to-decode-and-play-dolby-truehd-atmos-on-windows-and-macos-r1092/ So what do you all think..?

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[edechamps]

I heard it from every big home theater youtuber when they were comparing units. They were talking about surround with better definition and better channel separation.

Unless these "youtubers" backed up their claim with technical facts (e.g. measurements), I would call bullshit.

It's good to know that it works well with REW because I thought Audyssey would be better (with no real evidence though).

If you EQ manually then you can certainly do a better job than Audyssey - it's mostly up to you and your skill, time and energy

If it's better than Audyssey could I still use it to calibrate my system and them apply the corrections to the receiver manually?

Depends on the receiver. It needs to support manual parametric (not graphical!) EQ - check the manual. It might also be limited in the number of EQ bands you can use. In contrast, you can do virtually anything you want with Equalizer APO, as it supports a virtually unlimited number of filters and routing channels.

Oh, I think he is talking about this

Looks like I was right then: PC players don't (yet) support is the object-based layer of Atmos. The only way is to convert your files after paying a licensing fee to Dolby. Not exactly practical. That said it seems like ffmpeg is working on AC4 (i.e. Atmos) support so things are moving in the right direction.

 

[GalZohar]

Why do you intend to refrain from using Audyssey by any means necessary? Does it do anything that you wish to avoid? Note that Dirac actually has a lot of similarities to Audyssey.

 

[edechamps]

Why do you intend to refrain from using Audyssey by any means necessary?

Was that question meant for me? I'm not actively advising against Audyssey. I'm just laying down alternatives, given that Equalizer APO is free, but an AVR with Audyssey certainly isn't.

That being said, I do admit that I tend to be biased against "blackbox" auto EQ systems whose behaviour can be hard to understand and predict. Personally I would be fine using Audyssey, but after it's done calibrating I would still pull out my UMIK-1 and double-check in REW that it didn't mess things up (or left potential improvements on the table), just in case.

 

[GalZohar]

Was that question meant for me? I'm not actively advising against Audyssey. I'm just laying down alternatives, given that Equalizer APO is free, but an AVR with Audyssey certainly isn't.

That being said, I do admit that I tend to be biased against "blackbox" auto EQ systems whose behaviour can be hard to understand and predict. Personally I would be fine using Audyssey, but after it's done calibrating I would still pull out my UMIK-1 and double-check in REW that it didn't mess things up (or left potential improvements on the table), just in case.

I was referring to the OP, which seems to be set on either Dirac or external solution, discounting Audyssey.

Checking any EQ post calibration is always recommended. A far as I know, usually any tweaks would normally be applied on top of the automatic system, and not as a replacement. Especially for someone not able to do manually at least everything thay the auto eq system can already do.

 

[Kostas]

I was referring to the OP, which seems to be set on either Dirac or external solution, discounting Audyssey.

You overestimate me I listen to other people's opinions and let them guide me. Everyone is talking about how great dirac is compared to the other eq solutions so I might end up underestimating other calibration methods subconsciously. Like I mentioned above I have 0 real life experience with auto EQs and receivers so I don't really know how much better one solution is that the other. Dirac is better than Audyssey but what does this really mean? Is it 50% better? 40% or just a 2-5% improvement which is the usual case when you deal with high end equipment? In my head when I hear better I imagine at least 20% overall improvement. IF the difference is small though, I will simply not care about Dirac and will do what edechamps mentioned above, use audyssey and confirm the setting by using rew.

​

 

[dlaloum]

You overestimate me I listen to other people's opinions and let them guide me. Everyone is talking about how great dirac is compared to the other eq solutions so I might end up underestimating other calibration methods subconsciously. Like I mentioned above I have 0 real life experience with auto EQs and receivers so I don't really know how much better one solution is that the other. Dirac is better than Audyssey but what does this really mean? Is it 50% better? 40% or just a 2-5% improvement which is the usual case when you deal with high end equipment? In my head when I hear better I imagine at least 20% overall improvement. IF the difference is small though, I will simply not care about Dirac and will do what edechamps mentioned above, use audyssey and confirm the setting by using rew.

​

My own experience with Audyssey XT32 on a 2013 AVR - was disappointing - the system sounded best with manual EQ and Audyssey turned off.
Dirac on a 2021 AVR was NOT disappointing - it immediately sounded better than the previous AVR setup (note: I also tested them in pure Direct, and they both sounded identical that way)

Having said that - the main issue was in the midrange, with the older AVR's imposing a midrange "dip" - which on the current Denon/Marantz models can be turned off via the smartphone app.

It is possible that the two systems are a match now... but on the base default setups - and as per my own listening experiences, yes Dirac is audibly superior... and I would place it on the 25%+ level - it was immediately noticeable that sounds were clearer - better seperated from each other, more distinct.