Anyone use different output levels for different sources?

From what little I can gather the op is talking about a trim level function so he can set each source's level individually where they will stay once adjusted. I'm doubting your Onkyo receiver has that function.

This is just the case of someone who doesn't understand how to setup a system and is trying to learn how.
After sifting through all the bull crap I figured out what dude is trying to talk about.

My advise would be to do the following.
Setup your home theater system exactly how it should be.
If you like Audyssey then by all means use it. If you find most of your sources don't sound quite right? Well I'm here to tell you to recalibrate without that smack. I hate Audyssey as I think it does more harm then good. I prefer to calibrate my systems manually. If you don't know how to properly calibrate a system , do some research and learn.
The key is 75DB to all speakers. If your advanced you can slightly tweak from there but usually in most rooms that works great.

As for leveling out sources, some preamps and receivers have input level adjustments. You don't re adjust output levels as thats just mental.
Adjust each input source to the desired level or use a SPL meter to get each source close to the same level.

Sources are going to sound different due to recording quality, Source quality and transfer cable quality.

So -- I'll throw caution to the wind and mention here that, in the olden (analog/stereo) days, many "full functioned" (over-functioned!) pre-amps, and some other components, would include trimmer pots for the various inputs to normalize levels when switching from component to component.

The McIntosh preamps of the 1960s and 70s are classic examples -- for all I know, they may still offer such gizmos for their clientele. It's the kind of thing that Mac purchasers seem to like. That and huuuuuuge blue meters and colored LEDs to light up their vacuum tubes. OK, but that's another troll for another day

Anyway, anyway, anyway -- one may see the trimmers towards the top of the frame in this photo of a Mac C28 preamp.

C-28 innards by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

Heathkit's component kits also tended to have level trimmers; the AR-29 receiver is an example that springs to mind.

AR-29 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

vmaxer wrote: »

Guys, I think everyone is missis it. Below is the best explanation to be found. Listen to all of it, may take a few complete listens but the answer is there. It is a classic.

Let me know your thoughts please.


The lay ear may have problems though.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2fjcJp_Nwvk

I never realized that was part of an automatic transmission. I have always owned a manual, but if my next car does offer both a trifibulator and diktarobitron in its transmission then I will finally buy one. Thanks. Learn something everyday.

Back in the 70s my sister wanted a good stereo so I told her to buy a HK receiver, AR turntable, Shure cartridge, and Advent speakers. In those days Radio Shack ICs and speaker wire were used. Anyways, it sounded great.

Nightfall wrote: »

I'll never buy a vehicle with an auto transmission, stick shift for life.

I will always have at least one manual in the stable if possible.
It makes cars more interesting & just plain more fun to drive. 95 hp and a manual transmission is more fun than 400 hp and auto. OK, I don't really know that but I do believe it.

They (manual transmissions) get harder & harder to find, though in new cars. The only one we have at the moment is my '01 Toyota Taco[ma].

Even today, a manual transmission is one of the best forms of vehicle theft protection available. Soon it'll be the best.

Automatic trannies are way beyond what they once were. A great many have the option to manually shift.....a total blast.

It's just not the same, I hear you though.

One one? Sounds like you had one already.

Nightfall wrote: »

I'll never buy a vehicle with an auto transmission, stick shift for life.

Easy to say when you live in BFE
Live where there is traffic, auto Tran becomes a must

txcoastal1 wrote: »

Nightfall wrote: »

I'll never buy a vehicle with an auto transmission, stick shift for life.

Easy to say when you live in BFE
Live where there is traffic, auto Tran becomes a must

I lived in Denver for several years. Still wouldn't have traded it for an auto.

Automatics are just so uninspiring to drive to me. Plus a manual loses less power than an auto so more power to the wheels less lost to heat, better MPG, and as a broad generality more reliable.

BlueFox wrote: »

I use a manual in San Jose on 101 during rush hour with no problem. It keeps me alert, and on top of things. When it takes 45 minutes to go 12 miles there is a lot of clutch use.

Same in Chicago pal, and clutches wear out, cost money. Not for big metro areas in my view. Unless it's those auto trannies that have shift paddles on the steering wheel that work like a manual.....those are a blast.

Nightfall wrote: »

Automatics are just so uninspiring to drive to me. Plus a manual loses less power than an auto so more power to the wheels less lost to heat, better MPG, and as a broad generality more reliable.

I dunno, the MPG difference isn't that big anymore and as far as more reliable.....how about when that clutch starts to slip. Just one more thing to spend money on. I guess it depends on the type of car, nobody wants a race car that's an automatic. Nobody wants a grocery getter that's a stick shift, right ?

......and nobody wants to be stuck in stop and go traffic for 2 hours with a manual tranny, regardless of the type of car.