The Apex Club

[RickyDeg]

Thanks Gunny. What about if I feed the two subs into the marantz 8801 pre pro. I can check whether it has two outputs for subs

I'm thinking that'd be an excellent choice! The new Marantz AV8801 processor have two separate subwoofer LFE outputs, no problem. The key though lay in Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and the included Sub EQ HT, which means the system will measure, calibrate and EQ each subwoofer independently from each other. You won't need any other accessory.

 

[stylee]

Thanks for the replies and the welcome. I've my system set up now and attempts to dog proof it continue. I bought a storage box from IKEA and it and a blanket are going to be the current solution. Archie is also banned from the room unless supervised, although I don't know how long that will last.

The system doesn't sound as punchy as I expected, I ran the 8 step audyssey xt set up on my Denon 3313 and some of the sounds are a bit muted. I.e. using Die hard 4.0, the gun fire sounds a bit muted. Audessy has my front A40s set a large speakers in stead of small and has the crossover set at 40. Would apperciate some advice on what to change, I've tinkered with it and have made it worse and will run audessy again, what settings should I look out for?

 

[michael hoy]

Thanks for the replies and the welcome. I've my system set up now and attempts to dog proof it continue. I bought a storage box from IKEA and it and a blanket are going to be the current solution. Archie is also banned from the room unless supervised, although I don't know how long that will last.

The system doesn't sound as punchy as I expected, I ran the 8 step audyssey xt set up on my Denon 3313 and some of the sounds are a bit muted. I.e. using Die hard 4.0, the gun fire sounds a bit muted. Audessy has my front A40s set a large speakers in stead of small and has the crossover set at 40. Would apperciate some advice on what to change, I've tinkered with it and have made it worse and will run audessy again, what settings should I look out for?

Manually change the speakers to small and the crossover to 80Hz, my Pioneer lets you run the set up again but keeping these settings, not sure on the Denon.

 

[stylee]

Thanks for the advice, I've changed the front and centre to small and have set the crossover at 80hz, watching a ski film now so its not made too much difference but will let you know. Hopefully it's sorted now.

I've been told the pioneers are a bit sharper, we had a pioneer set up at home but I had a Marantz Stereo Amp so went with the Denon, would a Pioneer SC 56 or 76 been a better match?

 

[ric71]

Hey ric, good to hear from you and thanks for the kind words. Yeah i still need to organise our Apex session at my place, i've been snowed under with DIY so havent had a chance to do anything. Are you on Facebook by any chance?

hey gosalh,

no rush and you have to hear my Apex set up as would like too see what you think.

Nope not on Facebook I'm afraid. Just AVForums as richmagnus. :wave:

 

[RickyDeg]

Thanks for the replies and the welcome. I've my system set up now and attempts to dog proof it continue. I bought a storage box from IKEA and it and a blanket are going to be the current solution. Archie is also banned from the room unless supervised, although I don't know how long that will last.

The system doesn't sound as punchy as I expected, I ran the 8 step audyssey xt set up on my Denon 3313 and some of the sounds are a bit muted. I.e. using Die hard 4.0, the gun fire sounds a bit muted. Audessy has my front A40s set a large speakers in stead of small and has the crossover set at 40. Would apperciate some advice on what to change, I've tinkered with it and have made it worse and will run audessy again, what settings should I look out for?

Thanks for the advice, I've changed the front and centre to small and have set the crossover at 80hz, watching a ski film now so its not made too much difference but will let you know. Hopefully it's sorted now.

I've been told the pioneers are a bit sharper, we had a pioneer set up at home but I had a Marantz Stereo Amp so went with the Denon, would a Pioneer SC 56 or 76 been a better match?

Hey stylee :wave:

Putting a storage box and/or a blanket over the subwoofer (if I understood you correctly?) would not be a good idea. Although I sympathize with your problem of having a curious pet in the house.

You've followed the tips from michael hoy, and I agree with his tips there. My Denon with Apex sounds anything but "muted". Unless you have limited time before you can exchange the Denon for something else I wouldn't be too quick to rule it out until you've run everything in, re-calibrated a number of times to get a feel of how Audyssey works (always using a tripod, always at ear height and always in a silent environment!). Then play around carefully with certain settings. For example: after calibration check your current Audyssey settings and try the 'flat' setting which does not roll off high frequencies as much as the other Audyssey settings do. Also make sure you don't utilize any kind of dynamic compression anywhere in the chain (blu-ray player and/or the receiver) - those will tame hard-hitting effects substantially (but can be good for late night viewing). Also make sure Audyssey 'Dynamic EQ' is set to 'on' while Audyssey 'Dynamic Volume' is set to 'off'. All these things are preference-related, as always, but fact remains they all influence the end-result of what you are hearing.

I would also say the Pioneer's are perhaps a bit "sharper" in their overall presentation, while Denon's character tends to be more harmonious and balanced (with a tad more warmth), although I understand you can manually tweak the EQ settings far more on the Pioneer to tailor it to your liking (though you can just as easily ruin things if you don't know what you are doing). Again, whichever character of sound you prefer is individual. If you can test-drive a Pioneer at home, my advice would be to do so!

 

[stylee]

Hi RickyDeg

Thanks for that, yes you heard right about the blanket and box. A bit mad alright, I take the blanket and box off before powering up the sub, it's just there when it's not in use. Hopefully Archie will get used to the new thing and learn to leave it alone. It's a hassle putting on the blanket and box on, (blanket to stop the sub getting damaged by the wooden box) but it beats a damaged sub. As someone who broke his uncles speakers when I was a child I've personal experience of how easy it is to break something.

I've a good few days before time runs out on returning the denon and I'd really prefer not to so I'll run through the tips this morning.

 

[stylee]

Bit of an update:

I changed my front and centre speaker to Large (all A 40s), the sub woofer mode is LFE + Main and the cross over is 80Hz. Audessy is set to flat and EQ is on. The difference is amazing.

John from Richersounds was around this morning and said to remember audyssey is only a starting point. I did the set up while I was home alone and went through the 8 steps using a Tripod, this distances etc are spot on. The Denon 3313 is just such a step up from the Onkyo 509 I had. I'm only starting to scratch the surface with setting up the Denon, I'll be busy tweaking it for a good while yet. How do I find the other tips from Michael Hoy, I can't seem to search this tread.

Dog also seems to be afraid of the speakers now so hopefully the Sub will be safe

 

[RickyDeg]

The dog now fear your speakers? Way to go Apex! :twisted: haha

All kidding aside, I'm glad you've managed to turn things around. I had a feeling you would. Although, I personally feel that the Apex (including the bigger A40) should always be set to small with a cut-off frequency of 80Hz (or thereabouts). This naturally depends on the in-room response measurements from Audyssey during the calibration, but normally even bigger speakers are preferably set to small (which actually does not refer to their physical size, but rather their low frequency capability within your room). Speakers usually sound clearer and possibly blend better when the more daunting tasks are handled by the subwoofer. Again, whatever sounds best to you is what matters!

An important advice though would be to never change the cut-off frequency to anything lower than what Audyssey has measured, because then those frequencies sent to the speakers will be left un-calibrated (if that makes any sense?). In my room Audyssey sets every speaker to small and 80Hz and it does seem to work best. I get that lovely punchy yet "airy" distinct tone from the speakers. If I were to use the LFE + Main setting it would just strain the front speakers too much as they are not really meant to reproduce that low... although a subwoofer is! Good luck experimenting!

 

[ric71]

I would set the A40's to small as they are not a full range speaker. My A40 is set to small and crossed over at 100hz. By setting to small you are letting the sub handle the bass, putting less strain on the A40's and your Denon so should be able to play louder and cleaner.

How has it improved with the large setting? If you feel there is more low level info Eric then your sub isn't calibrated properly. All fun and games but once done the rewards are worth it. BTW I used to run a Denon 3310 with Apex.

Also google "batpig" re setting up your Denon. This guy breaks down all the Denon manuals and explains in layman's terms the Denon settings. Very very informative.

 

[ellisdj]

If you don't set the speakers to small then the receiver will send that channel a full range signal. Which is fine if the speakers do it properly but I doubt you will get much bass below 50htz from the a40s.

Setting to small sends that channels bass to the sub - the sub then does all the bass for its own LFE channel the .1 channel as well as all the bass from the other channels below your crossover.

Mike Hoy it sounds like your doing the right thing - running the mccac setup twice A then change speaker settings, then run B keeping your changed settings - makes all the difference !!! If you have ever measured a room response you will see mccac does a good job, best it can. If you just run A then change speaker settings to small etc then it's miles off full sound potential. I would hazard a lot of owners make this mistake as there are not clear instructions included. Lucky some people post guides of what to do

 

[RickyDeg]

If you don't set the speakers to small then the receiver will send that channel a full range signal. Which is fine if the speakers do it properly but I doubt you will get much bass below 50htz from the a40s.

Setting to small sends that channels bass to the sub - the sub then does all the bass for its own LFE channel the .1 channel as well as all the bass from the other channels below your crossover.

Mike Hoy it sounds like your doing the right thing - running the mccac setup twice A then change speaker settings, then run B keeping your changed settings - makes all the difference !!! If you have ever measured a room response you will see mccac does a good job, best it can. If you just run A then change speaker settings to small etc then it's miles off full sound potential. I would hazard a lot of owners make this mistake as there are not clear instructions included. Lucky some people post guides of what to do

Hmm, curious! :? Maybe that would explain why I never got the sound 'right' when test-driving the LX83, and months later the LX85. It sounded pretty lackluster in my room. Pioneer are kinda bad at instructing people about this and MCACC never did the trick for me no matter how meticulous I was during the repeated calibration proceedures. Perhaps it would have worked out if I would have been a manual EQ tweaker, which I'm not. Ignoring the EQ altogether didn't help matters much either.

Another thing that puzzles me about MCACC is that it still seems to lack 'true' subwoofer/low frequency calibration. Unlike Audyssey MultEQ that deals with lower frequencies than MCACC does. MultEQ XT32 with Sub EQ HT also takes care of individual calibration of two separate subwoofers. Something that MCACC does not (please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[ellisdj]

MCCAC doesnt do any sub woofer equalizing - it does use a notch filter system to reduce some bass problems called standing wave correction but only down to 60htz - which is uselss for a sub.

However it doesnt claim to do anything else - therefore additional sub eq is needed in the form of an anitmode (auto) or better yet skill, REW and a feedback destroyer and you can get room permitting excellent bass. Far better than you will get from any auto system I have heard

This is most likely why you didnt get in with the Pioneer - with out good bass the rest isnt right - however had you demo'd using an antimode your opinions might be very different now. I think your dealer has old you short there in not telling you that - however if they dont stock the antimode then they cant really lend you one.

You dont need to manually tweak MCCAC - it does as good a job as It can within the rooms / its parametric bands limitations. However to get it to sound its best you have to set it up properly.

It is as easy as A B C - however there is no definitive guide of what to do which I think is an oversight on Pioneers behalf. But I also think it is on purpose to allow dealers or pro's to offer setup services to novices - therefore not stepping on toes.

 

[RickyDeg]

Would be interesting to hear a carefully dialed-in MCACC set-up with the Apex.

In my case it was more than just the issues of the subwoofer with the Pioneers. That was a sidenote.

But I already covered all that in my personal review in this thread

 

[RickyDeg]

Finally WHF reviewed the big NAD beast T787! Though not favorably

http://www.whathifi.com/review/t787

As much as I'd like to take WHF's opinions with a grain of salt I can't help that my desire to test-drive the T787 with Apex has dampened a bit. Although, reviewers elsewhere have praised it's performance quite extensively. Personal preferences, as usual.

 

[gunny]

That is very surprising to say the least! Indeed, as you pointed out, the T787 and T757 get rave reviews all over the place (both pro reviews and personal reviews), so it makes you wonder if whathifi might have received a faulty one or didn't set it up right?

 

[ellisdj]

WHF would have tested it on pure sound quality only - no Audessey etc engaged.

So Purely direct sound quality and everything that goes with that - quite clearly the onboard decoding or amplification or both are under par for the money.

I would hazard the cost is high as they have to pay a premium to get Auddessey in there and that bumps the price up to the consumer.

Other reviewers if suing Audessey in untreated listening rooms would get a different end result - its very rarely clear in other reviews what the listening room is like

 

[RickyDeg]

WHF would have tested it on pure sound quality only - no Audessey etc engaged.

I have a hard time grasping that. Who would test-drive that unit and then not use it with Audyssey at all? Just as with YPAO or MCACC, for that matter. Atleast they'd make it clear what part of the evaluation would be associated with/without it turned on. In fact, they do mention Audyssey in the review, but doesn't clearly state if they left it or off during the test. Hmm... should I smell a rat?

 

[ellisdj]

There is no rats - its as simple as this - all systems sound best with miminal to no processing done at all.

What HiFi have an acoustically treated room so do not need to use equalisations such as Audessey in there. I think they would say that it makes the sound worse, not better - make it sound processed by comparison to what they are used to.

There are arguements that equalising has benefits even in a treated room - however it depends on the room I think asnd how you set the system

For all receivers they do not use any EQ MCCAC, YPAO or Auddesey. I dare say they run the seup to get the ditances, levels etc then correct them if wrong. - Then disable any equalisation and post processing.

Then the review is purely based on actual sound quality of the unit as well as processing quality for films which is always mentioned in the review

 

[RickyDeg]

If what you say is in fact true then I find their reviews even more lackluster for not making such circumstances prefectly clear to everyone (unless I've missed something). Obviously they'd want to test products in the best environment possible, but only a small fraction of readers are likely to have perfectly treated rooms like theirs, and even then not utilizing one of the major features of a product like this is kind of misleading to me. Not that writing up on a receiver without using it's EQ is wrong, but if an advanced EQ and calibration system is availabul one would think they'd understand most readers want to know both results! Making a review of any product like this is always based on surrounding circumstances, that much is clear atleast. I still smell a rat in their review...

...but I can only make up my own mind if I test it myself.

 

[ellisdj]

I originally thought that as well - but you have to factor several key points of reviews - the main one being fairness to all products - so that one can be reviewed and scored against another in a fair way.

The EQ wont improve the sound - therefore by Not using it they are testing the piece of kit to its best potential anyway in a room that will let it shine.

You are used to hearing room EQ make a positive difference - but if you was used to hearing a treated room you would most likely agree that procesing makes the sound worse.

With other reviews if the the reviewer just reviews it in his standard living room then that room is having an effect on all the kit he tests - therefore that review is ultimately folly and any comparison against other kit is even more folly - None of the the kit was tested in a fair environment to its full potential in the first place.

Admittedly the WHF reviews dont factor in the benefits of Room EQ in a bad acousitc room - but that is why its suggested you demo.

However if you factor in their test rooms they are giving the most accurate and fair environment to test all kit as its the same environment for all kit.

I have said this to you a few times - if your room at home was better accoustically you would most likely prefer other kit over the Denon / Auddessey system you find hard to better.

 

[ric71]

Your going to hate my system then ha ha.

 

[gunny]

@ellisdj: although I agree with you on the fact that you'd want to listen to the amp without any kind of tweaks or EQ being done, I don't agree that it's impossible to test gear in a "living room".

If they set up a "simulated" living room and use that to demo the EQ-ing capability and ultimately the real life capability of the amps, it can serve as a very good comparison base for potential buyers. It won't represent their living room, but it at least gives them an idea on what the amp is capable of (doing a REW before and after would show that in an objective way).

Now they just test and never even mention how they do it, which is indeed misleading.

And again, it still strikes me as odd that all other reviews on the NAD line rave about the sound quality and that only WHF would find it wanting...

Either they did something wrong or they received a faulty unit is my opinion. But that's of course the beauty of the internet: you can read several reviews and in that way make up your own mind. One less positive reviews in my eyes doesn't weigh up against all the positive ones.

 

[RickyDeg]

It's rather weird then how, as is suggested, WHF don't care to review brand products by actually using one of their key features. Most other professional publications I read regularly tend to do the opposite and report their findings both with and without calibration/EQ activated, which I find is the proper way to go for a somewhat fair review. And much like gunny suggested, I wish everyone would run tests in a "simulated" living room aswell, even though every room is indeed unique. Common living rooms are where these products mostly end up being used.

As a sidenote (and I probably do sound like a fanboy) there are other features of Audyssey worth auditioning that I believe no other system to my knowledge offers - Dynamic EQ (not to be confused by Dynamic Volume). Some people dislike it, and I fully respect that, but in the several machines I've tried it's consistently brought on bags of dynamic weight, clarity and immersiveness that I've yet to hear with any other solution at "normal" listening levels. It may be less 'correct' and 'pure' but does seem to offer one heck of a ride for movies that I personally appreciate. When switched off I feel as though the entire soundstage completely collapses (whether that's a Denon, Onkyo or Marantz... I am confident the same goes for NAD). This has been true with Apex and previous speaker systems I've used with Audyssey. It's as if the machines in question simply were constructed to be used with it on.

 

[ellisdj]

Your going to hate my system then ha ha.

Hi Rich - looking forward to hearing it mate - especially your sub and how its been integrated and setup with ARC , Dont see why I would hate it mate, exepcting some deep bass goodness!!

It will be interested to hear a system with eq and no room treatment again. I will bring a few blu rays,and cds if you dont mind - you probs already got them but their ones I know well just in case.

Maybe I am wrong - Rich is going to show me I am

To the other 2

Its a mind set issue here I think - you both believe Audessey or similar to be of benefit to the overall sound - in that its a feature of the amp that improves the sound.

Well obviously it is a feature and may improve perceieved sound yet its not doing that overall. Really Audessey is there to try and piece together the errors in playback caused by the room / speaker placement, listening position etc. Therefore if there was no errors then there would be no need for Audessey at all - which is the best solution. Audessey will argue that equalising sounds best, of course they will - but none absotely none of the high end speaker, amp manufacturers etc have put eq into their kit with the exception of subs / bass. That is for a reason as its not best to eq.

These manufacturers actually think that its harmful to the overall sound to mess around with it

There is no such thing as a standard living room - every room is different, every room will have an impact on the sound its inevitable. Therefore to test a system in such a room and compare against others is not a fair test.

Fair play a reviewer can test at home and say yeah it sounds great and even better with Audessey turned on for example - but if thats in a bog standard living room then thats likely to be the case regardless so how is that a recommendation. Then that same reveiewer compares the sound to that of a Mcintosh system he reviewed recently - now chances are he's not heard anythign like the full mcintosh potential becuase the room hasnt let him - he is then making a honest but misleading comment in his review. Yeah he thinks the Nad sounds as good as the Mcintosh - but did he really hear the mcintosh at its best?

I obviously dont know for definate - just using it as an example from the nad review on hometheatreshack.

I can also say whole hearedly you dont need eq for a system to build a completely 3d soundstage around you that puts you right in there heart of things and presents the whole sound track with exacting precision. Its more than possible to get that without it if other conditions are right.

I didnt believe that this time a year or so ago but it is true.