Post by Iain August 11, 2013 (301 of 399)
|
|
mx2005 said:
I have no axe to grind, personally. My experiences with Pioneer have always been good over the years (DVD players "back in the day") - the way I see it I have a warranty that is the responsibility of the retailer not Pioneer. Everything you say is apt, but if Pioneer ceases to exist tomorrow I still own a capable player with a warranty. If I were concerned about web services my opinion may be different. For the mechanical faults that disc players suffer, support disappears (or repair becomes uneconomical) whether the maker fails or not. If we get to squeamish because of financial results, and flee like rats deserting a sinking ship, we just end up having a hand in hastening their demise.
I have no axe to grind either.
I still have my Pioneer DV-610 DVD player from 2007 and it has it's own rack space directly under my Sony BDP-790. Great build quality; but that was then.
As far as warranty, who do you think provides warranty support to dealer for your player?
You may be unpleasantly surprised of that if the worst happens.
|
|
|
Post by mx2005 August 11, 2013 (302 of 399)
|
|
No question: The retailer is wholly and singly responsible for the warranty. No wriggle room. If the thing is a paperweight and cannot be repaired, they need to replace with an equivalent. As a consumer, I have no contract with Pioneer UK and they have no responsibility to me. My legal relationship is with the dealer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
Then there is also, of course, the issue of equipment matching, where analogue output circuitry is of prime importance.
You probably do not want to hear this, but equipment matching becomes less important in an EQed system. I do not mean to dismiss it, because it still plays a role.
Though we call it "room EQ", if you think about it, it is actually EQing for final, overall response of the entire plaback system from the prepro, AVR or processor onwards including the room, but excluding source devices, such as players. So, that includes the processor output stage and DACS, wires, amps and speakers. The calibration test tones originate in the processor and follow the remainder of the same signal path into the room as does music. Yes, EQ is applied only to the frequency domain, and in some cases, e.g., Audyssey, to the time domain, as well. It cannot, if course, do anything about distortion, if any, of various kinds introduced by individual components.
But, I think that when good quality, even lesser quality, components are compared, it is frequency domain performance that is usually the major contributor to the differences in sonic signatures that we hear. With speakers, it gets a but more complicated. Two speakers with near identical direct response might have very different in room response we actually hear because of their differing dispersion patterns. (There may be other important differences such as bass extension, dynamics, etc.) This takes us into speaker/room interactions, but the frequency domain results can be EQed to the target curve to sound more alike at most listening positions.
Though creative audio writers over the years have invented quite a few speculative, descriptive rationalizations for subjective differences they claim to hear, they are largely just a result of frequency response differences. How many words in any subjective speaker review are devoted to describing the frequency response and the consequences of that? EQ the frequency response issues away, and they become much less significant, revealing perhaps other non-frequency-response-related differences, which are usually far less obvious, and perhaps less important. Most writers, of course, do not do this. Kal does, and so does REG at TAS, and I applaud them for that.
I am not saying that all EQed systems sound alike. They do not. But, I think they tend to sound quite a bit less different from one another than un-EQed systems do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fitzcaraldo215 said:
But, I think that when good quality, even lesser quality, components are compared, it is frequency domain performance that is usually the major contributor to the differences in sonic signatures that we hear.
Though creative audio writers over the years have invented quite a few speculative, descriptive rationalizations for subjective differences they claim to hear, they are largely just a result of frequency response differences. How many words in any subjective speaker review are devoted to describing the frequency response and the consequences of that? EQ the frequency response issues away, and they become much less significant, revealing perhaps other non-frequency-response-related differences, which are usually far less obvious, and perhaps less important. Most writers, of course, do not do this.
I am not saying that all EQed systems sound alike. They do not. But, I think they tend to sound quite a bit less different from one another than un-EQed systems do.
I am (almost) at a loss for words. Even amps often present significantly different audio characteristics. Any honest equipment comparison has to be done in the same space, obviously and I'm sure that is how Kal handles things. BTW, he once reported in a column turning off EQ'd equipment in favor of un-EQ'ed equipment that he felt sounded better.
Equipment matching is not all about room EQ and speakers are not the only part of the system that present audible variables. I'm sure you are not intending to argue otherwise. Anyone who has listened to different CD and SACD players knows, as I'm sure you do, that sonic signatures and level of detail vary in players with basically identical frequency response curves.
Unfortunately, as mentioned previously, there are far fewer stereo equipment choices with room EQ than are available in consumer and higher end mch equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
BTW, he once reported in a column turning off EQ'd equipment in favor of un-EQ'ed equipment that he felt sounded better.
Unfortunately, as mentioned previously, there are far fewer stereo equipment choices with room EQ than are available in consumer and higher end mch equipment.
I am always curious what I can hear with the range of variables at hand.
Right but if one is considering external EQs, there are more.
|
|
|
Post by trntbl August 13, 2013 (306 of 399)
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
Equipment matching is not all about room EQ and speakers are not the only part of the system that present audible variables. I'm sure you are not intending to argue otherwise. Anyone who has listened to different CD and SACD players knows, as I'm sure you do, that sonic signatures and level of detail vary in players with basically identical frequency response curves.
I agree. All digital sources have flat frequency response, as do most transistor amps to real-world speaker loads. They don't sound the same at all. This EQ-religion is way out of proportions. There is clearly a place for EQ, but come on now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
trntbl said:
I agree. All digital sources have flat frequency response, as do most transistor amps to real-world speaker loads. They don't sound the same at all.
Hmmm. I do not see any mention of speakers or room acoustics or some mention of the relative variability of each component.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
I am (almost) at a loss for words. Even amps often present significantly different audio characteristics. Any honest equipment comparison has to be done in the same space, obviously and I'm sure that is how Kal handles things. BTW, he once reported in a column turning off EQ'd equipment in favor of un-EQ'ed equipment that he felt sounded better.
Equipment matching is not all about room EQ and speakers are not the only part of the system that present audible variables. I'm sure you are not intending to argue otherwise. Anyone who has listened to different CD and SACD players knows, as I'm sure you do, that sonic signatures and level of detail vary in players with basically identical frequency response curves.
Unfortunately, as mentioned previously, there are far fewer stereo equipment choices with room EQ than are available in consumer and higher end mch equipment.
I think if you re-read my comments carefully, you will see that I did not say everything sounded alike. As to amps, I have had quite a few in my system for very careful listening. Are there differences? Sure. But, I still find those differences pretty small these days, given adequate power and load tolerance, compared to speakers and room effects. Are those differences just about frequency response? No, because the amps likely test flat into dummy loads. But, speaker impedance loading issues likely cause some small differences in actual frequency response.
Some time ago you saw me post about a listening comparison I did of a pair of Krell class A Monoblocks that cost tens of $thousands vs. a Parasound Halo A23 stereo amp that cost under $1,000. EQ was off for the comparison, but levels were matched. There was a noticeable difference in the bass, where the Krells delivered deeper, fuller bass. Other than that, differences were almost impossible to identify. I bought a pair of the Parasounds, and they have been serving well as surround amps, coupled with a bass manged subwoofer to handle the deep bass.
On the other hand, EQ tames measured frequency response variations of about +/- 7 dB in my room. Now, that is really profoundly audible to anyone who listens. Everyone who has heard my EQ switched off and on agrees it is a big difference, far, far bigger than any differences caused by electronics or wires. And, no one, so far has preferred the peaky un-EQed sound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
trntbl said:
I agree. All digital sources have flat frequency response, as do most transistor amps to real-world speaker loads. They don't sound the same at all. This EQ-religion is way out of proportions. There is clearly a place for EQ, but come on now.
As I said, there may be differences other than frequency response among components. But, if it is your belief that system frequency response variations of +/- 7 dB, as in my room and more in other rooms I have measured, should be ignored, while other differences are more important, well I cannot stop you. By the way, for the big differences you claim to hear between transistor amps, did you level match?
I do not think trying to get perceptually flatter, smoother frequency response in one's room and system, when room induced variations are as large as they are is a religion. It is a logical step one takes in order to get reproduction which is less colored and more true to the live source material. Or, are you saying these response variations do not exist or are inaudible, in spite of acoustic theory and actual measurements?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fitzcaraldo215 said:
As I said, there may be differences other than frequency response among components. But, if it is your belief that system frequency response variations of +/- 7 dB, as in my room and more in other rooms I have measured, should be ignored, while other differences are more important, well I cannot stop you. By the way, for the big differences you claim to hear between transistor amps, did you level match?
I do not think trying to get perceptually flatter, smoother frequency response in one's room and system, when room induced variations are as large as they are is a religion. It is a logical step one takes in order to get reproduction which is less colored and more true to the live source material. Or, are you saying these response variations do not exist or are inaudible, in spite of acoustic theory and actual measurements?
While it is, of course, a practical thing, you make it sound like religion. :-)
|
|
