Yamaha RX-V2400 eq results? (1 Viewer)

[Mike Up]

I was conversing with Gene when he was posting on Audioreview back years ago. That's before he started audioholics. I do remember when he did start audioholics and it was basically a personal webpage. He's come along way and I'm happy for him. He's a decent guy but is most definitely Yamaha biased. While at the time I even owned Yamaha(and was a Yamaha loyalist), I didn't have the same feelings on some issues as he did. I actually used to talk to a certain engineer at Yamaha and came away with good information that was opposed to Gene's opinions on the design of the line. Like I said, he's a good guy, but Yamaha is his thing and he's extremely biased. I feel now he has some good information based more in involved research, however there's many things of his posts that of opinion only. In fact, I remember he thought highly of the new DSP that the Sony preamp bought to the table and one biggy was the EX post processing. He made some statements that I found very hard to follow being the EX post processing was actually in "PHANTOM" mode that simulated the rear center channel. That meaning there was only a software revision and no hardware revision that made it capable of actually outputting the EX/ES matrixed preamp signal to a power amplifier.

His intentions are good I don't want any ill feelings took to him. All I'm stating is that he has opinions and he's not afraid to use them.

Have a good one.

 

[BruceD]

Tim,

Yes, I read it. Like Mike though, I have reservations about information provided by Audioholics, especially when it involves room acoustics. Yes, I've been around the forums a fairly long time which doesn't make me an expert for sure, I've just seen a lot happen.

It all comes back to the same fact. The Number #1 deficiency in 99% of many Home Theaters are room induced bass modal peaks (typically those found below 80Hz) causing uneven bass response.

The ultimate solution would be to perform very specific parametric EQ on the digital source signal for those bass frequencies.

The cost-effective solution today (about $100) is to put a flexible parametric-EQ like a BFD 1124 (with a "Q" range as high as 60, not the Yamaha's very limited 10) on the sub channel.

 

[David Judah]

From the Audioholics article:
[emphasis mine]

Can someone(BruceD?)explain the statement in bold? I thought that changes in the frequency domain would equally affect the time domain(impulse response)--that each(frequency response and impulse response)can be derived from the other.

As to the question of effectiveness of the EQ in general, I know there are theoretical reasons why it shouldn't be as effective higher in the frequency range, but it definitely does sound different(at least it did when I was using a Pioneer 45TX and that was less advanced than the YPAO), acting like a more advanced tone control.

So yes, it is a valid criticizm that it does not "act" in the same way as it would below around 300 Hz, but it definitely does do something to change the sound.

There's no reason someone couldn't also add a BFD or similiar to handle the lower frequencies as many of us do.

DJ

 

[BruceD]

David,
I cannot explain the quote you highlighted in Bold, because I don't quite understand what point he was really trying to make, i.e. what "deleterious" effects?

EQ can simply reduce the audible effects of some acoustic anomolies, it doesn't fix or cure the underlying cause of these anomolies.


Essentially, an impulse response can be thought of as the complete time response of a system.

From this we can derive (calculate) the frequency response directly with a Fourier Transform. According to Everest in his book "Master Handbook of Acoustics", "Frequency response, by definition, is the Fourier transform of a system time response obtained by impulse excitation."

As you are aware, you can use a source signal (sine waves of different frequencies for example) and an SPL meter to approximate the frequency response at a specific listener location. What this measurement technique doesn't account for are the effects of time in milliseconds (ms).

By utilizing the time component (which impulse response measuring does), you can easily observe various reflection phenomena. These include first reflections of high frequencies from walls or other surfaces like coffee tables.

From an impulse response you can also create 3D waterfall charts (x-axis=frequency, y axis=SPL level, z axis=time in ms) that show resonances or ringing (excessive decay time) for low frequencies.

Again, EQ can reduce the audible effects of some of these acoustic anomolies, it won't fix or cure the underlying cause of these anomolies.

For instance with a low frequency boomy peak (modal refelction) you can reduce the SPL level at that specific frequency with EQ, which reduces the perceived audible level at the listening position, but you haven't changed the reflection parameters (room dimensions and time) that still act on that frequency (they're still the same).

For low frequencies, you really need narrow bandwidth (high "Q" like Q=60 or 1/60 an octave) parametric filters to selectively "notch" out the offending peaks.

Hope that helps.

 

[Shawn Solar]

Aside from changing the fr response for a flatter more even sound at the main listening posistion the eq will also change the frequency for other seating arangements such as off axis seating. How it affects it is really a toss. It could lower or boost frequency at different listening angles which could be percieved as good or bad. Who knows? I think that's what he meant with "deleterious"

That is why eq is actually supposed to be the last step in flattening and correcting room response. It should be used with room treatments(which correct time/delay issues and decay) That way the eq is implemented with a minimalist approach for fine tuning and the percieved changes in sound at other various seating positions is also kept to a minimum.

But IMO eq is an excellent and cheap substitute for most listeners as it improves the sound to a degree that makes it very cost effective. Especially for subwoofers. for $150 it will improve sub intergration and sound better than upgrading to a sub at double the price or your current sub IMHO.

The only draw back is with most "audiophiles" adding more circuitry infront of the signal changing the signal is undesirable. Most of the lower price equalizers parametric or otherwise also added noise to systems which was also a downside.

What the biggest thing for me is how well the Yamaha implements its eq and, while I wait for my reciever, hear what other half to say about its effectiveness/problems. I think Bruce did an execellent job of explaining it too.

 

[Kevin Alexander]

I am currently testing out the HTR-5790 in my system. I am trying to decide whether or not I'm benefiting from the parametric EQ. Can I turn this feature off to see what kind of difference it makes? If it makes little to no difference for me, I have no problem going to a HTR-5760 instead. Actually, I'm looking for a reason to go w/ the 5760 because I feel that newer and improved versions of YPAO will show up in the next models promting me to sell and upgrade. I'd rather do so w/ a $350 receiver instead of a $550-600 receiver.

 

[Shawn Solar]

Kevin,

I don't have mine yet but I believe you can turn them on and off. Unless they allow for finer adjustments and higher number of bands I think that The audible difference between this and newer generations will not be as significant as from no eq to eq. That said I hope they add equalization for the sub and allow upgrade for such in the future. Maybe a 7 band full parametric eq where you can specify if you want the eq to cut, boost or cut and boost. That would be the cat's ass

 

[jeff peterson]

Does the Yammy 'Straight' mode bypass the EQ?

 

[David Judah]

I thought maybe there was something I was missing, but I guess not. The only thing I could gather was that he was saying it doesn't really do a good job of flattening the frequency response, because that's the only way I could see it having a deleterious effect on impulse response, but he wouldn't really know that unless he took some measurements.

DJ

 

[TimMc]

Yes, Straight (well, Direct if you want to be technical about it) bypasses all effect processing as well as tone controls, etc. Think straight wire with gain. No, it's not really that, but it does bypass everything else and just sends signal to two-channel amps.

Yes, you can turn the EQ on or off. You kinda have to run the YPAO setup to turn it on & activate it. No setup - no YPAO. You can also turn if off afterwards.

You know, I just always assume that anyone would take just about everything that they see on the Web with a huge handful of salt. If I refer to any other links or articles I usually figure that everyone knows that these things are just more input - nothing out there is gospel, etc. That includes places like Audioholics, HTF, etc. I do happen to think that the 2400 review that was referenced was reasonably well done, and upon rereading it I was struck by just how critical Mr. DellaSala often was of this unit - if he has a Yamaha agenda he certainly hid it pretty well. His review was more in-depth and critical than any other 2400 reviews I'd seen, and having read the other Audioholics articles on cables, etc. I decided that this one didn't need quite as much salt for me (but obviously YMMV). All in all, not that bad an article. He still ain't Chu, but then not many are...

And the other thing? Kids, we're talking about a fairly inexpensive box here - definitely under $700. Just what the heck does everyone think Yamaha can cram in that box for that price? (Definitely not my 1/3 octave full-range EQ ;~) Anyone else above other than MuneebM actually own a 2400 now? Yup, YPAO is imperfect, but it does a darned good job for what you pay. No, it is not the best thing out there. If you want to add a standalone EQ for BFD or whatever for however many $100 there's nothing stopping you. This ain't a flagship or super high-end box - it's probably just one of the better bang-for-the-buck values out there today, that's all.

Just enjoy it for a while when yours arrives, Shawn. Don't even run the YPAO for a while - just listen. Try the YPAO only if you decide to, and you might also be surprised just how little YPAO may apply any EQ. And if you do YPAO, maybe try the "flat" setting first. Then, if your speakers are fairly different and/or your fronts are much better than the others, try the "front" setting just to see if there's any difference. You can always turn the EQ off completely or hit "Direct" anytime. Enjoy the box - it's actually kinda fun to listen to.

 

[Shawn Solar]

I'm looking forward to it Tim Believe it or not the only thing that was keeping me from buying it in the first place was the amber display. I plan on replacing the remote with a Harmony internet remote as I get them at cost. I had a marantz reciever(sr-7000) before so It'll be interesting to see the difference. I also ran them with external amplifaction until I was forced to down size. I recently had a B&K components and before that a Rotel amp. We'll see how the amp section sounds. The nice thing is I have component inputs and connection conversion.

 

[MuneebM]

NO, the "STRAIGHT" mode does not bypass the Parametric EQ. Straight mode bypasses any DSP modes and tone controls, that's it, that's all. To toggle the Parametric EQ, go into the Sound Menu -> GEQ and switch between PEQ and GEQ. If you haven't played with the GEQ and left it at defaults (all frequencies at 0 dB), then switching to GEQ is essentially the same as disabling the PEQ.

To test that Straight doesn't bypass PEQ, just try what I've said above, and you'll notice a difference in the sound between GEQ and PEQ, indicating that STRAIGHT in itself does not bypass Parametric EQ. In fact, a Service Manager at Yamaha Canada told me himself that the only way to turn off the PEQ is to switch to GEQ.

STRAIGHT mode is like "Normal" mode on the older Yamaha receivers. It plays all 5.1 channel or 2 channel sources without any post-processing: i.e., disables all tone controls (bass/treble) and DSP modes.

http://66.46.69.23/sigserv/pl/index.pl?p=32
My DVD Collection

 

[Shawn Solar]

Does the straight mode allow the sub to still play?

 

[MuneebM]

Yes or no, that all depends on how you've set up the bass management in your Yamaha. STRAIGHT mode still employs the bass management settings, the only things that are bypassed are the bass/treble tone controls and any DSP/Cinema DSP effects. FWIW, I watch all my multichannel movies in STRAIGHT mode, my 2-channel sources in Dolby Pro Logic IIx and I wouldn't have it any other way.

http://66.46.69.23/sigserv/pl/index.pl?p=34
My DVD Collection

 

[MuneebM]

I agree. Yamaha has done a wonderful job implementing Parametric EQ into such an inexpensive receiver (HTR-5790 can be had for $529 US) and although their implementation of it may have faults or shortcomings, I must admit that I noticed an improvement in sound quality that made the receiver that much more valuable to me. I think Pioneer MCACC, Yamaha YPAO, and Denon's EQ are steps in the right direction... now its about time H/K got on the bandwagon!

http://66.46.69.23/sigserv/pl/index.pl?p=35
My DVD Collection

 

[David Judah]

It's interesting you say that. The digital amp module they're using in their DPR digital receivers have 5 band parametric EQ cability built-in, but unless I missed it, I didn't see it on the spec. sheets.

Maybe it presented some problems in the overall design--I don't know--but I thought it was curious they excluded it. It should only be a matter of time, however.

DJ

 

[Shawn Solar]

Onkyo is slated to release its recievers with their own eq processing by the end of summer early fall. They are also gonna have connection conversion in their low price recievers too. Just talked to a rep the other day. Their top of the line model is also gonna support HDMI and is modular design.