Anyone use different output levels for different sources?

tonyb

This ^^^^^^^

Give the man a cookie.

motorstereo

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.

tonyb

Trim levels are for balancing out the sound in a given room, not necessarily volume. Different sources will always sound different for various reasons, different impedance, cabling, etc. The volume control compensates for line voltage, which is why F1NUT suggested simply using it.

When you try to make all sources sound the same volume wise by trim level adjustments, some are not going to sound so good. You sacrifice sound quality in one source for the benefit of equal volume. Using the volume control to compensate is the easiest way without sacrificing sound quality, and guess what ? Every AVR comes with a remote so it doesn't get any easier.

mantis

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.

vmaxer

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

mhardy6647

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

gudnoyez

The OP has a Denon I have a Denon in the secondary HT its rather easy to adjust settings in each source. I ran the calibration and tweaked the other settings manually such as in CD, source, Tuner, Phono, etc etc, its not to complicated. The OP states he does not use tone controls, so basicly, for the solution to his problem the volume control on the remote is his solution no reason to make it difficult when it really is not.

afterburnt

I like the way you talk, you sound like a race car motor.

EndersShadow

I have a Denon X4100 AVR. I have my Xbox set to be 12db lower than my U-verse. That way when I switch inputs the volume is the same or close enough between the two.

Otherwise my XBOX One at 50 is much louder than my U-verse, hence that setting being used. I found it tends to just be just thbXbox One with that issue. I don't have the same problem with my Squeezebox classic.

BlueFox

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.

mhardy6647

of course, that was back from the days when automatics were simple == "D" and "L".

Nowadays, whoo-boy! I recommend the Fiat-Chrysler nine-speeds. Sooooo many more things to go wrong with them, and packed chock full of the vaunted Fiat-Chrysler engineering, materials sciences, and quality control expertise. Only 10% or so spit flaming parts out onto the pavement as new owners drive their vehicles off the dealers' lots, as I understand it.



PS -- that was excellent. I understand automatic transmissions a bit better now.

BlueFox

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

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

mhardy6647

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.

BlueFox

BlueFox wrote: »

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.

Oops. Wrong thread.

F1nut

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

mhardy6647

F1nut wrote: »

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

But no clutch, right? -- it's all about the coordination

Obviously, just my perspective, but, heck, I listen to records & tapes and use - and abuse - vacuum tubes.

Nightfall

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

pitdogg2

F1nut wrote: »

I need a smoke.

One one big fatty, because this turned into one big circle jerk...

Nightfall

One one? Sounds like you had one already.

BlueFox

Depending on the day of the week I will use different input levels depending on the source.

txcoastal1

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

nooshinjohn

Anybody notice the OP has disappeared?

Nightfall

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.

BlueFox

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.

Nightfall

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

The only time I regretted having a manual was in the late 90s when I had left knee surgery, and couldn't bend my leg for a few weeks. I had to put the seat all the way back, and stiff leg the clutch. The car jumped around like a student driver was at the wheel. LOL.

tonyb

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.

BlueFox

I bought my car in October 2004 as a 2005 Mazda 3S. Still on the original clutch, although that is in the back of the mind as a future expense.

tonyb

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.