Difference Between Receiver Listening Modes

Cpyder

So I'm listening to music today and I'm thinking to myself, "I'm just not getting any effect out of music today. It's not making me happy. It's not pleasing like it usually is." I just assume I'm not in a listening mood. (Which rarely if ever happens)

Then I realize that my Marantz receiver is in "Stereo" mode. I switch it to "Source Direct" and a smile jumps onto my face. The sound stage opens up and the music is very realistic and convincing again.

So my questions is: What is the difference between these two modes. What does "Source Direct" do that makes is sound SO SO much better. (Or the opposite question: What does "Stereo" do that kills the music?) I know "Source Direct" bypasses any equalization but even in "Stereo" the equalizer is flat. So what's the cause of the difference in sound?

Jetmaker737

My Onkyo behaves the same way. In stereo mode the signal goes through the DSP which destroys the soundstage. Direct mode skips the DSP.

Erik Tracy

Cpyder wrote: »

So I'm listening to music today and I'm thinking to myself, "I'm just not getting any effect out of music today. It's not making me happy. It's not pleasing like it usually is." I just assume I'm not in a listening mood. (Which rarely if ever happens)

Then I realize that my Marantz receiver is in "Stereo" mode. I switch it to "Source Direct" and a smile jumps onto my face. The sound stage opens up and the music is very realistic and convincing again.

So my questions is: What is the difference between these two modes. What does "Source Direct" do that makes is sound SO SO much better. (Or the opposite question: What does "Stereo" do that kills the music?) I know "Source Direct" bypasses any equalization but even in "Stereo" the equalizer is flat. So what's the cause of the difference in sound?

Source Direct *can* sound better.

If you are listening to an analog connected source, then the signal stays analog all the way thru your AVR and like Jetmaker notes - there is no DSP and no additional Analog to Digital conversions and the final Digital to Analog conversion before leaving your avr to your speakers.

Depending on the AVR, 'no DSP' means no room equalization/PEQ profiles that you get by default when you run auto calibration features like Audessey or YPAO - instead you get no equalization - just straight signal.

And if your source is say a CD player and it is connected via analog, then you are listening to the CD player's DACs - not your AVRs.

If your source is digitally connected, again, say your CD player, or blu ray, then you are listening to the AVR's DACs, but again - no DSP effects which are bypassed.

One drawback to Source Direct, depending on the AVR, is that you do not get any sub output as Source Direct is a 2-channel mode only, not 2.1. But it does depend on the AVR.

Cpyder

Erik Tracy wrote: »

Source Direct *can* sound better.

If you are listening to an analog connected source, then the signal stays analog all the way thru your AVR and like Jetmaker notes - there is no DSP and no additional Analog to Digital conversions and the final Digital to Analog conversion before leaving your avr to your speakers.

Depending on the AVR, 'no DSP' means no room equalization/PEQ profiles that you get by default when you run auto calibration features like Audessey or YPAO - instead you get no equalization - just straight signal.

And if your source is say a CD player and it is connected via analog, then you are listening to the CD player's DACs - not your AVRs.

If your source is digitally connected, again, say your CD player, or blu ray, then you are listening to the AVR's DACs, but again - no DSP effects which are bypassed.

One drawback to Source Direct, depending on the AVR, is that you do not get any sub output as Source Direct is a 2-channel mode only, not 2.1. But it does depend on the AVR.

Well I run digital optical from my computer. So do you think in "stereo" mode, it's still doing some sort of processing even though the equalizer is flat/off.

And I'm not running a sub, but I didn't know that. Thanks! That could have caused some headaches in the future if I get a sub or put together a new setup.

samnor

Just my 2cents: I have an el cheapo onkyo avr and actually prefer it in stereo for the reason posted by E. Tracy since I prefer the sub output... gives much more headroom to my main LR towers speakers (even though the towers go down to 30hz its still much better to have the sub handle the lows while the towers handle everything above the 80hz crossover).

Erik Tracy

Cpyder wrote: »

Well I run digital optical from my computer. So do you think in "stereo" mode, it's still doing some sort of processing even though the equalizer is flat/off.

And I'm not running a sub, but I didn't know that. Thanks! That could have caused some headaches in the future if I get a sub or put together a new setup.

Not sure about your exact model of AVR. I've seen block diagrams of my AVR and in Source Direct, a digital input flows thru the AVR straight to the DACs and out to my speakers - bypassing any Digital Signal Processing (room EQ, special effects, multichannel synthesis, etc).

This may explain why you prefer the sound.

vc69

I will jump in here and say this: *most* AVR's and pre/pro's digitize analog inputs. This has been discussed at length on other sites and the common consensus is that the only inputs on the average AVR/PRE/PRO that are not converted within the unit are the multi-ch inputs which will actually pass through without any A/D conversion.

In the OP's case, the fact that the digital signal is by-passing the DSP is most likely the reason for the better sound. I know it's true with my Onkyo that "direct mode" is the best sounding for all music sources.

Erik Tracy

vc69 wrote: »

I will jump in here and say this: *most* AVR's and pre/pro's digitize analog inputs. This has been discussed at length on other sites and the common consensus is that the only inputs on the average AVR/PRE/PRO that are not converted within the unit are the multi-ch inputs which will actually pass through without any A/D conversion.

In the OP's case, the fact that the digital signal is by-passing the DSP is most likely the reason for the better sound. I know it's true with my Onkyo that "direct mode" is the best sounding for all music sources.

One should check their manual to be sure.

I did - analog stays analog at the 2-channel inputs when the AVR (yamaha v1800) is put into "Pure Direct".

vc69's warning is a valid one - especially for those that are looking to keep their TT and CDP with the 'killer DACs' as analog thru the signal flow.

Cpyder

Erik Tracy wrote: »

Not sure about your exact model of AVR. I've seen block diagrams of my AVR and in Source Direct, a digital input flows thru the AVR straight to the DACs and out to my speakers - bypassing any Digital Signal Processing (room EQ, special effects, multichannel synthesis, etc).

This may explain why you prefer the sound.

It's the latest version of the SR5003 by Marantz. I think you're right. Stereo mode must not bypass the DSP and I would think bypassing un-needed circuitry I'm not using would help with sound quality. If I was applying effects and using the DSP circuitry it may be a different story, but I'm not. I really don't even think it's subjective in this case - source direct sounds SO much better.

So in source direct, I'm only using the receiver's DAC and amp?

Face

Receiver and music don't mix.

Erik Tracy

Face wrote: »

Receiver and music don't mix.

Be nice...

We all start somewhere and make the best of what we have.

Cpyder

Face wrote: »

Receiver and music don't mix.

I don't agree with that. You should hear my setup in source direct mode. Pretty stunning in my opinion.

polkatese

Just FYI, I have a Marantz Pre/Pro AV8003. Cpyder observation is spot on. Kevin (vc69) is also spot on. Since I use multi-channels 7.1 input for all my audio, it's definitely better than any other modes that it has. Source direct in most cases produces almost identical SQ, with the exception of lower register. The low-end is more pronounced using multi-channels input mode, thus let me to believe that additional processing is being applied somewhere somehow when source direct is engaged. Having said that, source direct is still better than the other modes other than multi-channels direct mode.

reeltrouble1

Cpyder wrote: »

I don't agree with that. You should hear my setup in source direct mode. Pretty stunning in my opinion.

Face man gave the answer, the Hardcore here tell it like it is, if someone gets their feelings hurt, well better sooner than later, I will pass on hearing your reciever but thanks for asking, sorry, but I and others here have heard and used an awful lot of gear, I never heard a receiver that was anything more than ordinary, even my B&K 317 which is just passable at audio, if you dont know why, then you dont, enjoy your rig.


RT1

Knucklehead

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

Face man gave the answer, the Hardcore here tell it like it is, if someone gets their feelings hurt, well better sooner than later, I will pass on hearing your reciever but thanks for asking, sorry, but I and others here have heard and used an awful lot of gear, I never heard a receiver that was anything more than ordinary, even my B&K 317 which is just passable at audio, if you dont know why, then you dont, enjoy your rig.


RT1

I couldnt agree more....my simple 2 channel setup sounds MUCH better than my AVR for music.

Cpyder

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

Face man gave the answer, the Hardcore here tell it like it is, if someone gets their feelings hurt, well better sooner than later, I will pass on hearing your reciever but thanks for asking, sorry, but I and others here have heard and used an awful lot of gear, I never heard a receiver that was anything more than ordinary, even my B&K 317 which is just passable at audio, if you dont know why, then you dont, enjoy your rig.


RT1

I realize that separates are the better choice, but I also use my receiver for home theater use, and so it needs to be able to decode TrueHD and DTS-HD along with Blu-ray video. And at the time of purchase I was in no position to go the separates route. But anyway, I can guarantee you that if you heard my setup you would not say, "Hmmm... something is missing, you must be using a receiver and not separates." Not saying it's perfect, but there's no obvious defects from having gone the receiver route.

Trust me, if the funds were available, the first thing I'd grab would be a nice standalone DAC and amp.

vc69

Cpyder wrote: »

I realize that separates are the better choice,

That is correct

Cpyder wrote: »

but I also use my receiver for home theater use, and so it needs to be able to decode TrueHD and DTS-HD along with Blu-ray video.

Receivers are good at that stuff.

Cpyder wrote: »

And at the time of purchase I was in no position to go the separates route.

I understand.

Cpyder wrote: »

But anyway, I can guarantee you that if you heard my setup you would not say, "Hmmm... something is missing, you must be using a receiver and not separates." Not saying it's perfect, but there's no obvious defects from having gone the receiver route.

That's where you are mistaken.

I'm thinking you have never heard a really nice 2ch rig. There is absolutely no comparison.

Cpyder wrote: »

Trust me, if the funds were available, the first thing I'd grab would be a nice standalone DAC and amp.

That is just the tip of the iceburg.

reeltrouble1

its fine, enjoy the paths where the hobby may take you, as said, we all started somewhere and we should enjoy each rig along the way, trust in your ears, they will tell you when to stop.

RT1

vc69

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

its fine, enjoy the paths where the hobby may take you, as said, we all started somewhere and we should enjoy each rig along the way, trust in your ears, they will tell you when to stop.

RT1

RT1,

It's not my ears that keep telling me to stop.

Cpyder

vc69 wrote: »

That's where you are mistaken.

I'm thinking you have never heard a really nice 2ch rig. There is absolutely no comparison.

You may be right. I mean I've heard nice gear but maybe not really nice gear. I'd really like to demo some nice gear here in Iowa, but so far I've not been impressed by many higher-end audio shops. A lot the ones I've visited don't even have adequately sound treated rooms. When I added sound treatment to my listening room, it's like I had purchased all new gear. Know of anywhere near the Des Moines area by any chance?

reeltrouble1

vc69 wrote: »

RT1,

It's not my ears that keep telling me to stop.

RT1ism.........until your ears are full your wallet is empty. Remember the purchasing of necessaties is a self-fullfilling limit.

Jetmaker737

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

RT1ism.........until your ears are full your wallet is empty. Remember the purchasing of necessaties is a self-fullfilling limit.

Sir, I think you are a genius... or insane. I haven't decided which! :cool:

comfortablycurt

Cpyder wrote: »

I realize that separates are the better choice, but I also use my receiver for home theater use, and so it needs to be able to decode TrueHD and DTS-HD along with Blu-ray video. And at the time of purchase I was in no position to go the separates route. But anyway, I can guarantee you that if you heard my setup you would not say, "Hmmm... something is missing, you must be using a receiver and not separates." Not saying it's perfect, but there's no obvious defects from having gone the receiver route.

Trust me, if the funds were available, the first thing I'd grab would be a nice standalone DAC and amp.

You sound like someone who's never gotten their ears on a decent 2 channel rig before. There is a BIG difference between a receiver and 2 channel separates. I'm sure your system does sound fantastic, and much better than the average persons audio system.

Will it stand up against even really low end 2 channel gear though? I doubt it.

I'm in Dixon, IL...not too terribly far from you. You're welcome to come check out my very budget 2 channel rig anytime. It sounds absolutely incredible, especially given the fact that I've only invested around $1000 in it.

Although right now wouldn't be the best time really...I'm having issues with my SDA's and need to do some XO upgrades.

Face

Let me elaborate.

I've tried various receivers and pre/processors, from entry level HK to McIntosh. No matter what receiver or pre pro you're using, it's holding you back compared to what an external DAC, dedicated preamp and amp can do, even at much less $$$.

TECHNOKID

Cpyder wrote: »

I realize that separates are the better choice, but I also use my receiver for home theater use, and so it needs to be able to decode TrueHD and DTS-HD along with Blu-ray video. And at the time of purchase I was in no position to go the separates route. But anyway, I can guarantee you that if you heard my setup you would not say, "Hmmm... something is missing, you must be using a receiver and not separates." Not saying it's perfect, but there's no obvious defects from having gone the receiver route.

Trust me, if the funds were available, the first thing I'd grab would be a nice standalone DAC and amp.

It depends on your needs, 2 channels is for music and basically useless for HT just like HT AVRs are useless for music. Thus the reason for asking yourself this question at the start of your system building; what is the largest % of use for your rig? If mainly HT, going into separate is a waste of money and useless as you are missing MOST of the special effects of movies that an AVR will accurately generate. If your rig is mainly used for music and you can afford seperate, you better stay away from receivers or AVRs as they will not provide for the best music reproduction.

However, most people want to rig both their audio and video experience. Some (very few) may be able to afford to have dedicated rigs for their audio and video (good for them). For the average people with average income, the reality is they have to use wisdom and common sense to built combo rigs which will accomodate for both audio and video experience thus the reason for pure direct on most receivers and AVRs. Life is give and take and you have to make the choices according to your own needs. You have to set your priorities; purist audio and-or video or settle for a balance that will live you in the middle lacking slightly on both end.

Cheers!
TK

Cpyder

comfortablycurt wrote: »

You sound like someone who's never gotten their ears on a decent 2 channel rig before. There is a BIG difference between a receiver and 2 channel separates. I'm sure your system does sound fantastic, and much better than the average persons audio system.

Will it stand up against even really low end 2 channel gear though? I doubt it.

I'm in Dixon, IL...not too terribly far from you. You're welcome to come check out my very budget 2 channel rig anytime. It sounds absolutely incredible, especially given the fact that I've only invested around $1000 in it.

Although right now wouldn't be the best time really...I'm having issues with my SDA's and need to do some XO upgrades.

It'd be cool to demo your gear but I don't think I'll have any time in the near future to go on any road trips. But now I want to go grab a DAC and amp and swap them in place of my receiver and see just how much of a difference we're looking at.

reeltrouble1

Jetmaker737 wrote: »

Sir, I think you are a genius... or insane. I haven't decided which! :cool:

well, the rather common concenus is that RT1 is an insane genius lost somewhere in an Auditory Rabbit Hole.....go ask Alice how it happened.

Bernal

Hello,
I have a "Denon 4308Ci" - How to apply these concepts.
Thanks

Jer.War

Not to stir the pot but...

I started with a AVR and LSI all around. It sounded ok, but there wasnt much impact even on 2ch mode, and I knew from reading that the LSI15s like high current amps (which an AVR is not). I have recently added a B&K ST1400 II into the setup (using the pre-outs on my RXV1700) and result was better than I had anticipated. Sure it plays louder, but even at low volumes the music has more "weight" (The subtle details of the track are easier to distinguish). Also, the B&K is much smoother than the Yahama, the highs sounds smoother and clearer (I always felt my Yamaha was a bit bright).

Now all that being said.... Was I happy when I first hooked up my system? Of course, I was 20 with a small budget that already swelled (I intended to buy a starter reciever and a used Polk surround setup on e-bay.....) and a pile of student loans to pay. However, I knew there was more to get out of my speakers. Now I had the money to buy a quality used power amp to take the strain of powering the LSI15s. I use the Yamaha for the pre (in straight or pure direct) and a high end denon CD player(connected analogue via RCAs).
Now my system sounds much better what the average person listens to, and it puts a smile on my face (I am fairly critical, but until I strike it rich my being a student forces a healthy amount of pragmatism into my judgements).

Does my setup sound as nice as my bosses 2ch rig with tube stage pre, Jolida modded cd player (though he scoffs when I ask to use the CD player, as he prefers the sound of good old vinyl), gigantic legacy towers??? No, but I am not ashamed to have him over to hear my humble setup now that the AVR has been relieved of amp duty. I have a nice tidy setup, that allows me to listen to anything, movies, 2ch, SACD, Vinyl, stream from my PC, etc. This isnt the final stop on my audio journey; it is merely a pit-stop on the road to aural bliss.

Once I am done schooling, however, I would like to have a dedicated 2CH setup in ADDITION to the multi-purpose,hometheater setup I have now.

Just my opinion, of course.

reeltrouble1

Jer.War wrote: »

Not to stir the pot but...
Once I am done schooling, however, I would like to have a dedicated 2CH setup in ADDITION to the multi-purpose,hometheater setup I have now.

oooh the force is strong in this one, I sense great things for you.

RT1