McIntosh MX150 [Text View]

edorr

08-02-10, 02:29 PM

Kal, it would be interesting for you to compare the SSPs using HDMI audio vs using
a top notch Universal player like the Marants UD9004 multichannel analog out into a top notch reasonably prices multichannel preamp! I recently got the UD9004 and into my Theta Six Shooter I am quite impressed.

Obviously (and unfortunately) aint gonna happen. What would be a more interesting issue to the broader Stereophile audience is this; Is there any point in getting an HDMI transport beyond a cheap Oppo 83 when used in conjunction with any of these mega bucks processors? If I interpret Kal's reviews to date correctly, with the Meridian HD621 the answer is no.

It would be interesting to compare the McIntosh MX150 in conjunction with their 10K universal, and the MX150 + Oppo. Same for Krell. I never quite understood why McIntosh would stick 7K worth of DACs and analog circuitry into a SOTA universal player and then replicate the expense in a SSP. Why not build a SOTA HDMI transport without all the analog stuff and sell it for 3K? May be just optimize 2 channel analog (like Ayre) to run through a 2 channel pre with HT bypass, but why the expense for 7.1 analog when the SSP will do the heavy lifting?

netroamer

08-02-10, 02:40 PM

I see no video processing as a step forward.

Most by an SSP of this nature for great audio processing. McIntosh is not known for VP and rightly, they stay out of it. The Anthem D2 thread scares me with all the repeated issues many users have. Too much crammed into one box... a master of none. IF you need a VP, there are many nice dedicated pieces. But as Blu Ray increases the number of titles, there is little need for a video processor as 1080P24 is the res of any display worth owning.

Your right if you live in a blu-ray only world. I however live in a TIVO, HD VCR and Laser Disc (Yes Laser Disc) world that needs help to correct their individual idiosyncrasies. After a new MICO 60 (waiting on) and $12k for this, allowing for a third party processor and the rack space needed to hold both is a major challenge. But, again, if the audio side can make a believer out of me, it still may be a player.

As for the D2v...your right about being scared. The unit, out for more than a year, still has WAY too many flaws. For Anthem, it is a half-step forward and one back with every firmware upgrade, beta or general release, they have issued. Well maybe it's not a step backwards, because they have never been able to get their other leg out of the deep mud hole they dug for themselves, so they just sink back!

Kal Rubinson

08-02-10, 03:42 PM

What would be a more interesting issue to the broader Stereophile audience is this; Is there any point in getting an HDMI transport beyond a cheap Oppo 83 when used in conjunction with any of these mega bucks processors? If I interpret Kal's reviews to date correctly, with the Meridian HD621 the answer is no. To be addressed directly in a future report on the Ayre DX-5.

It would be interesting to compare the McIntosh MX150 in conjunction with their 10K universal, and the MX150 + Oppo. Same for Krell. I never quite understood why McIntosh would stick 7K worth of DACs and analog circuitry into a SOTA universal player and then replicate the expense in a SSP. Why not build a SOTA HDMI transport without all the analog stuff and sell it for 3K? May be just optimize 2 channel analog (like Ayre) to run through a 2 channel pre with HT bypass, but why the expense for 7.1 analog when the SSP will do the heavy lifting?I agree with you here. It makes sense to me for inexpensive players to include DACs for all channels but I wonder what high-end buyers really use. Anecdotally, it seems that many AVS posters opt for the analog outs on players like the 9004 and the 83SE. I do not believe that it would be so with a broad statistically-valid survey but who knows?

edorr

08-02-10, 04:13 PM

To be addressed directly in a future report on the Ayre DX-5.

Can't wait to read about it. While you are at it, you probably want to do the Oppo / DX-5 HDMI transport comparison on both a HD621 and another high end HDMI SSP. It may be entirely possible the HD621 architecture makes it HDMI transport agnostic, while on other SSPs the transport may make a difference.

Anecdotally, it seems that many AVS posters opt for the analog outs on players like the 9004 and the 83SE. I do not believe that it would be so with a broad statistically-valid survey but who knows?

This would be the "high-end suckers" ratio; the percentage of Denon A1 / Marantz ud9004 / McIntosh universal / OppoSE owners that use their players strictly as an HDMI transport....

Kal Rubinson

08-02-10, 04:51 PM

Can't wait to read about it. While you are at it, you probably want to do the Oppo / DX-5 HDMI transport comparison on both a HD621 and another high end HDMI SSP. It may be entirely possible the HD621 architecture makes it HDMI transport agnostic, while on other SSPs the transport may make a difference. Or vice versa. :rolleyes:

netroamer

08-30-10, 03:52 PM

I had an MX-150 for a few days to audition with my system. Video processing was not important (the mx-150 is basically an HDMI switch that also converts analog video to digital) as I have a Radiance XE for feeding the projector directly and passing the audio to the MX-150.

First, I loved the IP control of the MX-150. The unit did have a few operational quirks, but what unit does not. Nothing that I could not overcome. In addition, the face plate of the MX-150 is just cool to look at.

After a very rough start in running "Room Perfect" and a couple days of email exchanges with the Mac people, who were very patient and helpful, the software was able to achieve up to a 97% room knowledge. But even after all of that, I never liked the way "Room Perfect" set up the room and without any graphical readouts of the correction process to figure out why, I finally concluded that MX-150 was not for me. I decided to go with the Anthem D2v and its' ARC software.

The price tag of the MX-150 would never be an issue if it "WOWED" me. It did not.

Perhaps I am in the minority in wanting to be hands-on with this unit as opposed to having a dealer come in, which McIntosh strongly advises, and set it up for me and not be involved. But, hey, I'm that kind of guy!

BIG RED

08-31-10, 11:56 AM

I had the same issues with my MX-150 at first. lesson learned. you must use a computer to "set it up" then it CAME TO LIFE!!

great piece of gear from Mc!

xtrips

09-07-10, 03:16 PM

Your right if you live in a blu-ray only world. I however live in a TIVO, HD VCR and Laser Disc (Yes Laser Disc) world that needs help to correct their individual idiosyncrasies. After a new MICO 60 (waiting on) and $12k for this, allowing for a third party processor and the rack space needed to hold both is a major challenge. But, again, if the audio side can make a believer out of me, it still may be a player.

As for the D2v...your right about being scared. The unit, out for more than a year, still has WAY too many flaws. For Anthem, it is a half-step forward and one back with every firmware upgrade, beta or general release, they have issued. Well maybe it's not a step backwards, because they have never been able to get their other leg out of the deep mud hole they dug for themselves, so they just sink back!

I had an MX-150 for a few days to audition with my system. Video processing was not important (the mx-150 is basically an HDMI switch that also converts analog video to digital) as I have a Radiance XE for feeding the projector directly and passing the audio to the MX-150.

First, I loved the IP control of the MX-150. The unit did have a few operational quirks, but what unit does not. Nothing that I could not overcome. In addition, the face plate of the MX-150 is just cool to look at.

After a very rough start in running "Room Perfect" and a couple days of email exchanges with the Mac people, who were very patient and helpful, the software was able to achieve up to a 97% room knowledge. But even after all of that, I never liked the way "Room Perfect" set up the room and without any graphical readouts of the correction process to figure out why, I finally concluded that MX-150 was not for me. I decided to go with the Anthem D2v and its' ARC software.

The price tag of the MX-150 would never be an issue if it "WOWED" me. It did not.

Perhaps I am in the minority in wanting to be hands-on with this unit as opposed to having a dealer come in, which McIntosh strongly advises, and set it up for me and not be involved. But, hey, I'm that kind of guy!

Funny, the progress you made in such a short time :rolleyes:
I am happy for you though.
I always thought McIntosh was hyped way above its true level.
Long live ARC!

Kal Rubinson

09-07-10, 04:32 PM

I had the same issues with my MX-150 at first. lesson learned. you must use a computer to "set it up" then it CAME TO LIFE!!
For what did you use the computer?

netroamer

09-08-10, 10:23 AM

Funny, the progress you made in such a short time :rolleyes:
I am happy for you though.
I always thought McIntosh was hyped way above its true level.
Long live ARC!

I have posted extensively in the Anthem forum about my frustration with the continuing HDMI issues of the D2v. I finally brought in a Lumagen Radiance XE to process the video. With that accomplished, I focused on the audio and decided to audition the MX-150 for its' audio processing as the video side is basically a switch and not a processor. The "Room Perfect" calibration system, just did not do the job for my system. So I decided to use the D2v's audio processing side as I concluded ARC did a better job for me, but mercifully, I no longer have to deal with its' HDMI quirks.

xtrips

09-08-10, 10:40 AM

I have posted extensively in the Anthem forum about my frustration with the continuing HDMI issues of the D2v. I finally brought in a Lumagen Radiance XE to process the video. With that accomplished, I focused on the audio and decided to audition the MX-150 for its' audio processing as the video side is basically a switch and not a processor. The "Room Perfect" calibration system, just did not do the job for my system. So I decided to use the D2v's audio processing side as I concluded ARC did a better job for me, but mercifully, I no longer have to deal with its' HDMI quirks.

What you are saying is very instructive though not of any use to me.
I am a very ardent D2v supporter and it is good to know what might its detractors say about it.
Mine is only connected to one projector at one end and to an HTPC and an Oppo player at the other end, so i don't have that many complaints about the HDMI switching.
But your POV on the Roomperfect RC, especially because you could compare it to ARC, was indeed needed and thank you for sharing it.

audiman

09-08-10, 04:24 PM

Did someone compared analogs IN from both D2v and MX-150?

scanido

12-18-10, 06:21 PM

Bulldogger

12-18-10, 08:03 PM

I spent several days checking it out. You should be very happy with the unit. Great sound.

Turbo Ron

12-18-10, 11:13 PM

Bit the bullet and bought an MX150 for xmas. It should be here anytime now. Will post my impression, but I am sure it will blow the doors off my Rotel RSX-1057!! :D

I auditioned the D2V and MX150, albeit at two different dealers, both sounded fantastic but i felt the synergies with my current equipment (MC205, B&W 800 series) were a better match with the MX150. As for 2CH, the MX150 with what i think were XRT1K sounded out of this world!

I am very happy with my MX150. I also have a 402 & 205. Martin Logan CLX speakers. The synergy with the B&W 800 series speakers, people comment how will it works.

Super7man

12-19-10, 07:01 AM

I spoke to Gow at audio clasics about the 150 and those that have purchased the MX150 have traded up from the MX119 or MX120 ( of which I have ) and they can't believe the sound quality difference. hard to believe, but Mac spend a bunch of time on this one to get it right. I am very pleased with the 119, but it would be nice to put evrything through the Mac and not have to run the HDMI to the monitor. Oh and the comment about ground loop... I have been wrestling with that for over a year and went to a Richard gray iso system with 240 outlet to isolate and still had it...Solution is to put a .59c two prong plug on each of your 150$ three prong plugs !! 0 -; UGH !

Super7man

12-19-10, 07:06 AM

Bit the bullet and bought an MX150 for xmas. It should be here anytime now. Will post my impression, but I am sure it will blow the doors off my Rotel RSX-1057!! :D

I auditioned the D2V and MX150, albeit at two different dealers, both sounded fantastic but i felt the synergies with my current equipment (MC205, B&W 800 series) were a better match with the MX150. As for 2CH, the MX150 with what i think were XRT1K sounded out of this world!
I have tried evry Rotel and they are just not what they used to be- that 1057 used to get so hot, with the heat sinks up front that it could literaly burn your hand !! I went back to Mac - There is no comparison- when you listen, your jaw will drop and you get teared up listening to an SACD and you cant believe it. Then when you put some B and W or Martin or McIntosh Speakers with a warm tone to match- Narvana !!!

rblnr

12-22-10, 11:47 AM

Is the MX-150, in fact, based on the Denon? And if so, does anyone know outside of Room Perfect how they differ operationally and sonically?

audiman

12-22-10, 03:23 PM

Did i read this right, or the mx-150 does not have analog direct? it will digitize anything comming from the analog IN, because of the room correction ?

netroamer

12-23-10, 11:06 AM

Did i read this right, or the mx-150 does not have analog direct? it will digitize anything comming from the analog IN, because of the room correction ?

Everything coming in is digitized. I, too, was surprised when I was told this by McIntosh tech support. There were various reasons that, after a week of eval, I reached a decision not to purchase the 150. The analog issue was definitely on the list.

audiman

12-23-10, 05:55 PM

Everything coming in is digitized. I, too, was surprised when I was told this by McIntosh tech support. There were various reasons that, after a week of eval, I reached a decision not to purchase the 150. The analog issue was definitely on the list.

Strange ideed and very un-mcintosh like. They offer 2 stereo balanced analog IN, but it would get digitized?

What i've read is that the mx-136 was the last of the mx series to have the C-45's analog stage.

netroamer

12-23-10, 06:57 PM

Strange ideed and very un-mcintosh like. They offer 2 stereo balanced analog IN, but it would get digitized?

What i've read is that the mx-136 was the last of the mx series to have the C-45's analog stage.

My specific question to the McIntosh was if there was an analog pass through. They responded that all incoming signals are processed digitally prior to output.

Kal Rubinson

12-23-10, 09:02 PM

My specific question to the McIntosh was if there was an analog pass through. They responded that all incoming signals are processed digitally prior to output.Same with the Meridian 861. ;)

gary cornell

12-27-10, 07:40 PM

For 2 channel listening of cd's i use a Parasound JC2 with Marantz BD8002 using the 2 channel outputs. For 5.1 i use the 5.1 analog outputs of the Marantz to a MC12.
Would replacing the MC12 with the MX150 give me better 5.1 sound?

sdurani

12-28-10, 12:12 AM

Would replacing the MC12 with the MX150 give me better 5.1 sound?How would you define "better"? FWIW, the MC-12 gives you the option of pure analogue pass-through OR digitizing the 5.1 analogue input (you can toggle back and forth at the touch of a button). Does the MX-150 have that option?

gary cornell

12-28-10, 01:41 AM

As the years go by i've upgraded most of my gear. I never liked the 2 channel performance of the the MC-12 which is why i have a separate Parasound rack. Truth is i think the blu ray 5.1 DTS HD MA to the MC-12 via 5.1 analog gives me really good sound, the best i've ever heard. I define better as hearing something different that you like more than what you have. I always trust my ears, not manfacturer hyperbole.

sdurani

12-28-10, 10:19 AM

I define better as hearing something different that you like more than what you have. I always trust my ears, not manfacturer hyperbole.From your description, "better" seems to be intangible as well as personal. After all, how is anyone else supposed to know whether it has qualities that "you like more than what you have"? In which case the only way to know whether the MX-150 is better is by listening for yourself. Anything else would be someone projecting their personal preferences onto you.

gary cornell

12-28-10, 10:55 AM

It would be fun to do a MX150 - MC-12 shootout but not practical. If anyone has heard both, please comment. Better yet, a high end surround processor shootout of several models - who wants to volunteer?:)

mmiles

12-29-10, 03:45 PM

KR [Kal] owns a Meridian 861V6 / 621 and has reviewed the Classe SSP 800, Arcam AV888 and most recent the McIntosh MX150. Other than the new hot rock from ADA [Rhapsody Mach IV] that should cover it.

gary cornell

12-29-10, 03:53 PM

CES soon, lot's of new toys - maybe a surround processor.

edorr

12-29-10, 03:53 PM

KR [Kal] owns a Meridian 861V6 / 621 and has reviewed the Classe SSP 800, Arcam AV888 and most recent the McIntosh MX150. Other than the new hot rock from ADA [Rhapsody Mach IV] that should cover it.

He actualy owns the v4 and is currently reviewing a v6 (which he does not own). Next in line for review is the ADA. If someone can convince him to also review the soon to be in production CBIII HD he would have covered all the contenders for the top spot (he also did the Krell). Given that performance of the roomEQ is always heavily featured in all his reviews, I am not holding my breath about a forthcoming CBIII HD review though.

mmiles

12-29-10, 07:15 PM

Hey BLAND I'm tossing you a bone... :D

Can you even get a CBIII HD?

bigbrother52

12-29-10, 11:03 PM

Can you even get a CBIII HD?

There is at least one dealer that we know of that is in possesion of
a CB-IIIHD, so we should be able to get them shortly.

It appears to me that what might very well be holding back a full release of the CB-IIIHD is, what to initially charge for the DACs that so many people will require in order to bring their system up from 5.1 to 7.1, or to meet the requirments to have their Casablanca be upgradable at all.
The only thing that seems to be written in stone is, the price of the actual upgrade itself.

It's very possible and I am hopeful, that when the new sales guy takes over, presumably on Jan.2nd, that these pricing decisions will then be made quickly and the CB-IIIHD will start to become generally available.

At least, that is what I am led to believe from speaking with various dealers about the current availability status of the CB-IIIHD.

netroamer

12-31-10, 01:54 PM

Kal Rubinson

12-31-10, 02:19 PM

Has anyone read the MX150 review in Stereophile? I see the cover on their website, but has it hit the street yet?Probably. It has been received by subscribers.

edorr

12-31-10, 02:20 PM

Has anyone read the MX150 review in Stereophile? I see the cover on their website, but has it hit the street yet?

Yes it did. I would say Kal's verdict was a "neutral". If you were already interested in this SSP you would not drop it from the shortlist based on the review, but if you were not you would not feel compelled to add it to your shortlist either. A contender in its price class, but not a gamechanger that sets a new standard for performance at its pricepoint.

If you did not have the opportunity to audition the units yourself and had to buy solely based on Kal's review you would probably get the Classe instead.

Kal Rubinson

01-01-11, 12:51 PM

Mr.SoftDome

01-01-11, 11:48 PM

Yes it did. I would say Kal's verdict was a "neutral". If you were already interested in this SSP you would not drop it from the shortlist based on the review, but if you were not you would not feel compelled to add it to your shortlist either. A contender in its price class, but not a gamechanger that sets a new standard for performance at its pricepoint.

If you did not have the opportunity to audition the units yourself and had to buy solely based on Kal's review you would probably get the Classe instead.

Thanks for the info. I so badly want to hear the Classe, MX150 and Arcam. I will be buying next month so I don't want to go kick tires just yet. I want to hear them, think about it a bit and make an offer.

The local store has the MX150, Classe, Anthem and even Integra. It will be a big plus to be able to hear all of these units in one store albeit not with Dynaudio but I will make them audition with the B&W 803D or 802D

I will try to report back what the verdict was. One more stop for the Arcam and I don't know if I should add Krell to the mix.

I really have become more 50/50 with music/ht. I really wonder if going for a lesser priced unit like the NAD M15HD or Arcam (I have the M15) and them adding a seperate pre/amp from Simaudio (my personal choice) would give me more of what I seek. I would like to add a TT as well. I know the NAD does not belong in this group but it has been a very solid performer (verge of outstanding) in my non-dedicated room for HT. I just crave a little more for 2.1.

Thanks for the heads-up on the review and if I can get it on-line I will.

Happy New Year.

Kal Rubinson

01-02-11, 10:36 AM

The local store has the MX150, Classe, Anthem and even Integra. It will be a big plus to be able to hear all of these units in one store albeit not with Dynaudio but I will make them audition with the B&W 803D or 802DIt is a truly remarkable store that would be able and willing to swap these processors in/out with the same speaker setup and with the assurance they were each configured properly for that setup. If they do that for you, buy from them. They are probably unique.

edorr

01-02-11, 11:27 AM

Thanks for the info. I so badly want to hear the Classe, MX150 and Arcam. I will be buying next month so I don't want to go kick tires just yet. I want to hear them, think about it a bit and make an offer.

The local store has the MX150, Classe, Anthem and even Integra. It will be a big plus to be able to hear all of these units in one store albeit not with Dynaudio but I will make them audition with the B&W 803D or 802D

I will try to report back what the verdict was. One more stop for the Arcam and I don't know if I should add Krell to the mix.

I really have become more 50/50 with music/ht. I really wonder if going for a lesser priced unit like the NAD M15HD or Arcam (I have the M15) and them adding a seperate pre/amp from Simaudio (my personal choice) would give me more of what I seek. I would like to add a TT as well. I know the NAD does not belong in this group but it has been a very solid performer (verge of outstanding) in my non-dedicated room for HT. I just crave a little more for 2.1.

Thanks for the heads-up on the review and if I can get it on-line I will.

Happy New Year.

You need to give very carefull consideration to how you want to run 2.1 in your setup before buying any SSP, especially if there is a TT in the mix. As you pointed out you can (1) use a separate preamp with HT bypass, (2) digitize the analog 2 channel in your SSP, or (3) use the analog bypass of the SSP (which for example the MX150 does not have). The problem with (1) and (3) is you need to get very creative to get 2.1 and 5.1 integrated if you really want to use the sub in two channel mode. For 2.1 and 5.1 integration option (2) would be by far the easiest configuration, but most folks with TTs would abhor digitizing their analog signal.

I would make my setup decision based on how I split my time between MCH music, 2 channel music (consider the vinyl and digital split in your case) and movies and how critical I am listening to each, and then optimize the system for what you get most gratification from.

gary cornell

01-02-11, 11:38 AM

My solution for 2.1 and 5.1 independence - Parasound JC2 and JC1's for 2 ch. MC12 with Citation amp for 5.1. The RF, LF and sub autoswitch with a Niles SAS-1. Simple and effective.

edorr

01-02-11, 11:49 AM

My solution for 2.1 and 5.1 independence - Parasound JC2 and JC1's for 2 ch. MC12 with Citation amp for 5.1. The RF, LF and sub autoswitch with a Niles SAS-1. Simple and effective.

How does this give you 2.1? The JC2 has no crossover. You could run your mains at full range for stereo playback and use the low pass filter in your sub for the .1, but then when you switch to 5.1 you want to use the crossover in your MC12 so you would need to manually deactivate the crossover in the sub.

MikeSp

01-11-11, 09:57 PM

I only mentioned the iTouch because more of the readers of this thread are familiar with it -- personally, I am oriented toward Android appliances, so iPod docs are out of the question but a USB connection is not.

My goal is to use lossless audio ripped from Redbook CDs and purchased as singles online -- but want to use FLAC or ALAC or WAV or ...?... format.

Since the MX150 processes everything in the digital domain (no analog stereo passthrough as I understand it even though it has analog balanced stereo XLR inputs), is there any reason to use a dedicated USB DAC such as the Bel Canto DAC3 to improve the audio from a portable player?

How do I obtain the highest audio quality from a portable player when using my MX150 as a preamp??

Thanks,

MikeSp

Armand07

01-26-11, 03:59 AM

How do I obtain the highest audio quality from a portable player when using my MX150 as a preamp??

Thanks,

MikeSp
Use a high quality USB to S/PDIF converter. There are several, but I think one of the finest is dCS Puccini U-clock. http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/product/puccini-u-clock

Armand07

01-26-11, 06:40 AM

MikeSp

01-26-11, 12:44 PM

Another fine option would be to add the new McIntosh MCD1100 SACD/CD player. This has a dedicated USB input for "superior playback of stored music" according to McIntosh.

McIntosh MCD1100 SACD/CD player (http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/1587.asp)

So many solutions involve an outboard DAC when in reality, that would probably not work as well as a direct connection to the MX150 since it does everything in the digital domain -- the MCD1100 would provide the reclocking and perhaps cleanup the digital audio from a portable music player or a computer music server. Too bad I cannot use XLR cables to connect the MCD1100 to my MX150 but the XLR inputs are reserved for analog audio.

Drool -- I want!!!! :cool:

MikeSp

Armand07

01-26-11, 02:54 PM

MikeSp

01-26-11, 03:17 PM

Since you seem to be a MX-150 owner, it would be very nice if you could comment on some of my questions below (which I have borrowed from the Theta thread, but are of interest in genereal for most SSPs I think). I think many in this forum would be interested in knowing more about the McIntosh, so if you as well as others would comment it would be very welcome. Thanks.

Regarding HDMI handshaking. Any hiccups? Even the tiniest. How long does it take to lock onto HDMI source?

Instantaneous

Speaker pops?

None

Any issues with strange video colors (ie: green) when activating sources requiring re-selection of source or power cycle (HDMI pass through).

No such issues at all

Any problems with software? Glitches? Lock-ups?

None -- never a single freeze-up

How is the lip-sync control. Is there one?

No problems with lip-sync but there is a control in the setup

Can you easily expand 5.x to 7.x? Does the MX-150 work smooth also then?

Very easy -- but going beyond 7.x is possible but confusing in the manual

What about sound quality? Compared to other SSPs?

I have not been able to do an A-B comparison in my living room, so I cannot comment other than the audio quality IMHO is superb and Room Perfect is great.

Be aware that the entire setup is super easy and can be done on any computer on the network to which the MX150 is connected or it can be done on-screen.

Any other Q's -- let me know

Mike

Armand07

01-26-11, 04:54 PM

MikeSp

01-26-11, 06:53 PM

Wow, sounds great. Thanks. I think I need to check out this SSP some more.

So you say that 5.x to 7.x works fine also with HD audio like DTS HD?
And does it have a memory for preferred applied settings like Neo or PLIIx for different inputs or various source material like pcm2.0, dts 5.1, dolby True HD 5.1 etc?

The MX150 will automatically decode lossless (both DTS HD and True HD) when it is bitstreamed or will play pre-decoded lossless and does a fantastic job with DD 5.1 and DTS 5.1. Of course it will play LPCM for those discs that have DD 5.1 and the lossless LPCM but usually in that case it is necessary to hit the audio button on the remote and click LPCM. There is a button on the remote that shows on screen for a few moments, all of the video and audio details including the setting for Room Perfect (main listening position or global and which voicing is being used with Room Perfect).

AFAIK, it will automatically apply the correct setting of Neo or PLIIx for the appropriate source material BUT -- although it is applying those codecs, it does not use that terminology which is perhaps the only thing I dislike about the MX150 -- it is necessary to look in the manual (which is nothing to brag about) for what kind of default setting is used for each source and of course the user can change to any of the codecs but again, the terms PLIIx or Neo is not used in the menu but may be used in the sub menus (I forget) -- they are used in decoding but applied according to more "friendly" naming. Sorry that I am not much help on the Neo or PLIIx -- I use the unprocessed stereo for CDs and lossless audio for Blu-rays.

Here is the link to the manual that might offer some ensight:
http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/downloads/product_manuals/mx150om01.pdf

Mike

scanido

01-27-11, 12:57 PM

There are definitely software issues.:mad:

I currently own an MX150 and i should share with you my experience with it as I have been having my share of issues. I am still waiting word from McIntosh which they have been looking into the issues for me since the beginning of the year. No word yet and still waiting...

Here are the issues i am experiencing:

1. I get speaker pops whenever changing from a PCM Stereo input to any of the Dolby Digital formats. I get this from my satellite box when i change from a music only channel to a regular HDTV broadcast channel. Never had this issue before on my receiver. Connected via TosLink.

2. PCM Stereo takes a few seconds to lock in. The menu clicks in the PS3 home menu takes awhile to lock in. It works and doesn't depending on how long and frequent you send the signal to the MX150. I decided to completed turn this feature off due to the inconsistency.

3. Lip Sync causes Room Perfect to distort on surround channels. I am able to replicate this everytime. If you apply any lip sync during a Dolbby TrueHD or DTS MasterAudio source and later listen to a PCM stereo source that is output in multichannel ie (Dolby Prologic), the rear channels would sound distorted if lipsync is not changed back to it's default 0ms value.

These issue all seam to stem from PCM stereo input so this is why i speculate it is software related. Mcintosh thus far is aware about the issue and I hope something is being done about it. Unfortunately the lack of communication or customer service is disconcerting on a product of this magnitude.

... But I have to say the sound is awesome if you are willing to take the risk!!!

MikeSp

01-27-11, 07:45 PM

scanido -- I noticed your posting on the other McIntosh forum but since I had no answers, I did not respond -- am sorry to hear of your issues because a high end piece of such pricing is expected to perform better.

I cannot relate to the lip-sync vs. Room Perfect issues because I have never had to adjust the lip-sync setting and have never had any problems with instant connectivity (LPCM, DD or the new lossless audio codecs) -- whether from my PS3, Oppo, or either Tivo and the video and often audio is piped into the Kuro Plasma, -- all are connected via HDMI and I also have the balanced XLR analog connections between the Oppo and MX150 and never experienced issues with them when used in pure stereo analog mode (although frankly, I prefer feeding digital audio directly into the MX150 instead of the high quality DACs in the Oppo SE and having the MX150 go through A/D and then back to D/A conversion. I am surprised that there was no pure analog pass-through.

I wonder if reflashing the firmware (assuming you have the one firmware upgrade) would help? And a quick edit added here -- have you tried different HDMI cables -- sometimes they can make a difference.

Frankly, I am awestruck with the ease of use and audio quality of the MX150 and did not make the purchase easily but have never once regretted it...

Surely a call to Chuck Hinton at McIntosh would yield some answers -- he is a great guy to visit with.

Good luck,

MikeSp

audiman

02-03-11, 07:06 PM

i will have the mx-150 at home for reviewing.

One question : does it accept DSD in bitstream mode? or will the player have to do a DSD->PCM conversion over hdmi?

ultra 150 pilot

02-11-11, 05:04 PM

so whats the verdict?

Im deciding between the mx 150 and classe ssp 800

Bulldogger

02-11-11, 06:06 PM

so whats the verdict?

Im deciding between the mx 150 and classe ssp 800

I have compared both same system. I like the MX150 more for movies and the Classe more for music. It is a matter of preference. The Mcintosh was more laid back with music while the Classe had a sharper and lightly more forward sound. The MX150 was able to very effectively blend all speaker channels with movies. Both are fine processors. You can not go wrong at the price point with either.

ultra 150 pilot

02-11-11, 06:09 PM

how do they compare the your casablanca?

ultra 150 pilot

02-11-11, 06:26 PM

also, did you use the room correction on the mcintosh? talking to mac support it takes a good hour to set up and should be done by someone who is trained.

bob

MikeSp

02-11-11, 07:09 PM

also, did you use the room correction on the mcintosh? talking to mac support it takes a good hour to set up and should be done by someone who is trained.

bob

There are some crib sheets with pointers on how to more effectively use Room Perfect BUT I do not see any reason that a trained person is needed to set up RP -- it takes almost an hour but is VERY easy to do. I use my computer (in a separate room) and use the MX150's excellent web interface to set ALL parameters, name various inputs, add distances, etc. and run RP = piece of cake.

The potential buyer must decide which sounds better to them or works better in their system OR sets up and works in a manner that is easiest to master -- SSP800 or MX150.

MikeSp

ultra 150 pilot

02-11-11, 07:45 PM

Mr.SoftDome

02-11-11, 09:41 PM

thanks mike, we spoke via pm the other day. I decided to bite the bullet and go for either of these 2 pieces. Its good to know the setup is easy, I spoke with chuck today at mac and he did say a pro should set it up.

I can try each processors in my room, but its a pain running all over the state switching gear around but, I know better than anyone the only way to know for sure is try em in your room:)

any glitches with your unit yet.

on a side note the classe ssp 800 I would be demoing is a 1.4v fresh out of the factory. chuck said the mx 150 is not upgradable to the 1.4. on the other hand the mac has the room correction, quite a dilema:p

bob

Good luck and I will be following your decision. I auditioned both pieces but to be honest in sperate rooms. The Mac was beautiful to look at no doubt and yes I guess room correction is nice (disclaimer I have not owned a unit with room correction before), but we do the best we can I guess when we audition. To be honest I felt nothing towards Mac one way or the other, speaking sound quality. It was quite nice.

The Classe won my heart almost instantly. It is the best sounding SSP to me I have heard yet. So room corection vs no 1.4 upgrade vs sound quality I pick sound quality any day of the week.

Once again I am full disclaimer here but at least I got to hear them within an hour a part though not in the same room. This was at a B&W dealer.

Like I say, they are both nice units but something about the Classe just sold me instantly. For me and me only it was the easy choice and what I seek in my next pre/pro.

I will take my chances without room correction. I don't have it now on my very low end pre/pro that the Classe is replacing so I guess I continue without..

Good Luck

ultra 150 pilot

02-11-11, 09:50 PM

thanks for the imput, I see your paitently waiting for your ssp 800:D

I told my buddy today its like choosing between a ferrari and lambo both great just which you prefer most(not that I can afford either:D).

bob

MikeSp

02-11-11, 09:51 PM

thanks mike, we spoke via pm the other day. I decided to bite the bullet and go for either of these 2 pieces. Its good to know the setup is easy, I spoke with chuck today at mac and he did say a pro should set it up.

SNIP

on a side note the classe ssp 800 I would be demoing is a 1.4v fresh out of the factory. chuck said the mx 150 is not upgradable to the 1.4. on the other hand the mac has the room correction, quite a dilema:p

bob

The upgrade to HDMI 1.4a is no little thing -- that means a new video board and the availability of 3D if that is of interest to you. This is something that Mc has never been prone to do -- engineer an A/V piece that can be modified (even if sent back to the factory) to an upgraded status.

While I like Chuck Hinton at Mc and feel that he is not only a nice guy but a knowledgeable person, I do not understand why he would feel that a pro should set up an MX150 -- it is just too easy for anyone familiar at all with the concept of EQ'ing and using the easiest Web interface on the planet. There is a small white paper or two that I wiggled out of Chuck and/or Ron that helped a bunch in deciding where to point the microphone during Room Perfect set up which is fully automated -- dunno what a "professional" would do different in setting it up unless suggesting changes in positions of speakers, subs, adding acoustsic treatments, etc.

The MX150 manual is not the finest specimen of a manual -- there needs to be information about using the nice remote with other pieces (which allegedly is possible) as well as using channels 9 & 10 with stereo subwoofers (zero info).

My MX150 has been rock solid and a true joy to use.

MikeSp

ultra 150 pilot

02-11-11, 09:59 PM

The upgrade to HDMI 1.4a is no little thing -- that means a new video board and the availability of 3D if that is of interest to you. This is something that Mc has never been prone to do -- engineer an A/V piece that can be modified (even if sent back to the factory) to an upgraded status.

While I like Chuck Hinton at Mc and feel that he is not only a nice guy but a knowledgeable person, I do not understand why he would feel that a pro should set up an MX150 -- it is just too easy for anyone familiar at all with the concept of EQ'ing and using the easiest Web interface on the planet. There is a small white paper or two that I wiggled out of Chuck and/or Ron that helped a bunch in deciding where to point the microphone during Room Perfect set up which is fully automated -- dunno what a "professional" would do different in setting it up unless suggesting changes in positions of speakers, subs, adding acoustsic treatments, etc.

The MX150 manual is not the finest specimen of a manual -- there needs to be information about using the nice remote with other pieces (which allegedly is possible) as well as using channels 9 & 10 with stereo subwoofers (zero info).

My MX150 has been rock solid and a true joy to use.

MikeSp

thanks mike, I love the fact that I can use my laptop and change the room correction parameters as i sit there and listen to it.

they both are outstanding units, its a very tough call for me which one to go with,

thanks, bob

audiman

02-12-11, 12:35 PM

I'm with Bulldogger as the mx-150 is very good for movies. Alll analog inputs in the mx-150 will be redigitized to 24/192. SACD via HDMI is not bad at all, but lacks focus and transparency. I do have a video glitch with my fat PS3 as the image is blanking and i have to swith inputs back and forth to make it go away. I will have to verify is the PS3 is causing this.

I previously owned a C-42 pre-amp is the mx-150 is not quite as good with it's analog IN.

I also owned a theta CB3 with extreme dacs and i have yet demoed something with the same dynamic range as the CB3.

I'll try to demo the SSp-800.

Kal Rubinson

02-12-11, 12:40 PM

Bulldogger

02-12-11, 02:00 PM

also, did you use the room correction on the mcintosh? talking to mac support it takes a good hour to set up and should be done by someone who is trained.

bob

Yes to all.

Bulldogger

02-12-11, 02:10 PM

how do they compare the your casablanca?

Can only compare Redbook to Casablanca. Mine is not upgraded. However there is a Classe SSP800 owner who says the Casablanca HD is superior to the SSP800 as well. Redbook is superior on the Casablanca III non-HD to both of these processors,IMO. Did not really want to get into the Casablanca VS others. I think both of these processors are fine products. I would own either without a second thought for movies. I do not use the processor I own for music either. That's just me. The Classe though crossed the line where I think if you did not hear a better music pre-amp, you would not care if better existed.

Bulldogger

02-12-11, 02:18 PM

chuck said the mx 150 is not upgradable to the 1.4. on the other hand the mac has the room correction, quite a dilema:p

bob
I have never been that impressed with room correction. Mcintosh's version however has changed my mind. I think it is a big plus and much more advanded than just parametric EQ.

audiman

02-12-11, 03:00 PM

Compared to what?

Anthem D2, Krell showcase, Theta CB3 with extreme dacs.

ultra 150 pilot

02-12-11, 04:48 PM

thanks for the feedback guys, I owned a casablanca a while back, definetely up there performance wise.

right now Im leaning towards the classe, less money, newly upgraded to 1.4 and owners sure do love em:)

with my focal utopia be speakers it would be a nice match.

ultra 150 pilot

02-12-11, 05:39 PM

Im picking up my dealers demo -150mx to try monday after work for a couple of days.

any setup tips?

thanks, bob

Kal Rubinson

02-12-11, 06:07 PM

Anthem D2, Krell showcase, Theta CB3 with extreme dacs.Don't know the Theta from personal experience but are you talking about the CD3 HD? I disagree about the D2.

ultra 150 pilot

02-12-11, 06:36 PM

Don't know the Theta from personal experience but are you talking about the CD3 HD? I disagree about the D2.

what are you referring too with regards to the d2?

Kal Rubinson

02-12-11, 06:45 PM

what are you referring too with regards to the d2?I do not think it was superior to the MX150 with SACD via HDMI but I did not do a direct back-to-back comparison.

ultra 150 pilot

02-12-11, 06:50 PM

gotcha

MikeSp

02-12-11, 10:13 PM

Im picking up my dealers demo -150mx to try monday after work for a couple of days.

any setup tips?

thanks, bob

Dunno if this is too long to post -- but here are some tips that I obtained from McIntosh in regard to setting up Room Perfect -- if you do not take the time to set up RP, you are really missing an opportunity to hear the MX150 at its best. This can all be easily done from your computer if you connect the MX150 to your network: (also, if you are also going to audition stereo and are feeding the MX150 from a CD player or other digital source, you might get better results using the digital inputs since everything would then stay in the digital domain until it hits the excellent DACs before sending the analog to the amplifiers.)

You can toggle in and out of the RP mode and various voicings with the remote control so you can see (rather, HEAR) the difference between the audio with and without RP as well as with the various voicings or played flat.

Room Perfect Microphone Measurement Techniques
The purpose of this brief explanation is to gain a better understanding of how to efficiently calibrate Room Perfect as used in the McIntosh MEN220 room correction system and MX150 A/V Control Center.

STEP ONE is to decide how the speakers are configured in the system.

When using MX150 the distance measurement from each speaker to the listening seat will need to be put in the set up menu. This is done by measuring with a tape measure and then entering:
Installer Menu-> Speaker and Room Setup-> Speaker Configuration-> Edit/Select Setup at the bottom of menu:

Next step is to enter the size/ crossover points for each speaker. If no speaker is used in a position this must show a – under the right hand size designation window. Room Perfect will throw an ERROR code if a speaker is designated but not connected during the measurement process. Once speakers are decided go to VERIFY CURRENT SETUP and run test tones through all of the speakers. You may use a sound pressure meter to adjust the sub woofer gain control levels to match the mains. All other speaker levels will be automatically set by Room Perfect during the measurement process.

Next go to DISTANCE SETTINGS and enter the distance of each speaker to the primary listening position. For the first Focus Position measurement, an arbitrary position in the area of your main seating area and centered on the video display is fine.

Important, BEFORE STARTING MEASUREMENT PROCESS! Once the Room Perfect measurement process is started it is assumed that the speakers will not be moved from the entered positions. Any time speakers are moved or changed a new full set of measurements will need to be taken.

THE FIRST MEASUREMENT: The MX150 uses a GUIDED measurement system that will prompt the user through the measurement process.
The first measurement is called FOCUS POSITION. This should be with the microphone placed at normal head height and pointed forward to a point centered between the main left right speakers. The McIntosh microphone stand will allow easy positioning of the microphone. A 25 foot long cable is included and more cable may be added for very large rooms.

All measurements are accomplished with two sets of test tones. These are specific 1/12 octave tones which will play in each speaker in two groups. 50 tones are below 350Hz and 71 tones are above covering all 10 octaves of the musical spectrum. Since test tones are used there can be background noise in the room but noise will slow down the measurement process.

The MX150 will initially indicate the correct volume setting up or down as needed to achieve 80Db at the microphone. This may be uncomfortably loud to some and a lower volume may be used in some situations. If a lower volume is used all other sounds in the room should be minimized.

After the first FOCUS position measurement is finished the front panel display of MX150 (or Web interface) will show a ROOM KNOWLEDGE read out in percentage. This may be a number from 20 to 60%. The next series of ROOM MEASUREMENTS will add to the ROOM KNOWLEDGE base after each measurement is taken. The goal is 95 to 100% ROOM KNOWLEDGE.

THE SECOND SERIES of MEASUREMENTS are ROOM POSITION measurements. The microphone placement rules for efficient measurement are:
1-Do not measure behind or within the immediate area of any speaker. Four foot distance or more is preferred. Take measurements in the rear 2/3 of the room when possible.
2-Do not point the microphone directly at any speaker. This is a bit tricky with multi-channel systems where speakers are placed throughout the room.
3-Measurements of the floor, walls, and ceiling yield accurate Room Knowledge.
4-Point the microphone at bookcases, doors, coffee tables, or any large surface while staying back at least two feet. Under tables or behind furniture is allowed as is pointing the microphone at the rear walls.

It may take 5 to 10 measurement positions through the room to gain over 90% ROOM KNOWLEDGE. When this is attained the choice is offered to end or take more measurements. Once ‘Continue- NO’ is selected the correct filter will be created to correct the room. This will take one or two minutes to create.
ADDITIONAL MEASUREMENTS: Up to eight focus positions may be added. These may be labeled in MX150 such as couch, left recliner, desk chair or whatever is appropriate. When a Focus Position is selected the sound will be, well, Focused in that position for maximum imaging, frequency balance and spaciousness. If multiple listeners are in the room the Focus Position may be switched or the GLOBAL Room Perfect setting can be chosen to blend all of the Focus positions such as when watching a movie with a full house of guests.
Room Perfect is a powerful tool that will correct the problems caused by a room’s dimensional effect on the natural sound of a speaker. The implementation of Room Perfect in the MX150 will deliver a startlingly real audio reproduction experience.

ultra 150 pilot

02-13-11, 09:04 AM

wow mike thanks!

that should give me the ability to have a good evaulation of the piece.

audiman

02-13-11, 12:27 PM

Don't know the Theta from personal experience but are you talking about the CD3 HD? I disagree about the D2.

Sorry if i wrote it in the wrong order: I do prefer the mx-150 over the D2 and the krell. CB3 was not the HD version, but still had more slamm. All tests were done without room correction as it was not available for every units. I do have a treated room.

I would like to know also if you prefered the arcam av888, especially for music (hdmi or analog IN).

MikeSp

02-13-11, 03:04 PM

wow mike thanks!

that should give me the ability to have a good evaulation of the piece.

As I recall with my aging sieve-like memory (do not have my system in operation right now to confirm) you can even save several different room calibrations and then pick and choose the one that is right for you. Like any EQ'ing system, if you move a piece of furniture, then a new calibration needs to be run.

I am using a Velodyne SMS-1 sub equalizer with three subs (its output is fed into my MX150's LFE XLR input) and with a real time graph on the screen, it is VERY surprising how much difference that moving one throw pillow 12 inches can make, for example, or changing the phase control of one subwoofer just a quarter turn...

I can envision an audio perfectionist with golden ears running Room Perfect over and over again to achieve nirvana to them, but I do not have golden ears and after trying several Room Correction trials, found it to work similarly with the microphone pointed in different exact locations as long as I followed the directions from McIntosh that I earlier included. My preference is to enjoy the audio and vidieo whereas at an earlier age, I would have tweaked the system for hours a week EVERY week driving my family nuts.

Hopefully, after your audition of the MX150 in your home, you can provide us with your observations -- either good, bad or indifferent. I cannot help but think that everyone perceives audio in their own way just like they perceive colors in their own way -- an image may be a shade of red for eg., but as shown on a calibrated monitor and printed out on a calibrated printer, it is slightly different depending upon who processed the image -- same for audio in the audio realm.

MikeSp

ultra 150 pilot

02-13-11, 04:26 PM

mike I owned a d2 with arc for the past 4 years so Im a little familar with the tweaking. The anthem tends to be a bit involved as well takes like 45 min to complete all the info is done using my laptop and then downloaded to the anthem. I was very pleased with what arc did in my system and I have a pretty good dedicated sealed room.

I was very happy with my recent demo of the mx 120 last week, I would assume the mx 150 will not dissapoint. whats gonna decide it for me is how the classe and mac sound in my room.

of course I have to complicate things, I have been tossing around the idea of picking up another casablanca and upgrading it to hd. the stellar sound still lingers in my mind from movies but the bugs my unit had still haunts me:eek:

granted the one I owned was a casablanca 1 several years ago and I know they worked out a lot since then.

ultra 150 pilot

02-13-11, 04:29 PM

Sorry if i wrote it in the wrong order: I do prefer the mx-150 over the D2 and the krell. CB3 was not the HD version, but still had more slamm. All tests were done without room correction as it was not available for every units. I do have a treated room.

I would like to know also if you prefered the arcam av888, especially for music (hdmi or analog IN).

I agree my casablanca1 was amazing with movies!

scanido

02-15-11, 07:13 PM

I do have a video glitch with my fat PS3 as the image is blanking and i have to swith inputs back and forth to make it go away. I will have to verify is the PS3 is causing this.

I do get the same HDMI handshake issue now and then. I have noticed it when you turn the MX150 on before allowing time for the source to turn on first. Not sure if this is the cause but I get this issue less frequently now if i set the source to turn on first and give a several seconds before turning the MX150 on.

scanido

02-15-11, 07:15 PM

MikeSp

02-16-11, 12:15 PM

Any owners have an issue with the backlight on any of the labels on the front panel?

I noticed that the "SELECT" label is partially dim on one side. Minor issue but it is annoying seeing this given the price of such a unit!

IF IF IF I look really, really close, I actually can see a VERY slight dimming toward the right side of the Select label, but I had to look for it, it is so slight.

If it is obvious, then it needs fixed and should not exist given the price of the unit, but anything made by the hand of man can have flaws whether McIntosh, Krell, ML, etc.

BTW -- I checked a few minutes ago and there was a few seconds while it locked onto the PS3 as you described.

MikeSp

ultra 150 pilot

02-16-11, 02:24 PM

I have to say, Im a bit dissapointed in the mx 150. that being said , I owned briefly a marantz 7005 pre pro and sold it. the two units are startlingly close in comparison (obviously the mac has a better build with better parts)
to me they had similar sounds and the imaging with 2 channel on both units were idendical both in sound characteristics and the way the imaging was way off to the left speaker. I had a few glitches with the unit popping, crackling etc.. nothing major though. The mx 150 is a very nice looking and well working unit overall and the sound is pleasant, but it lacks focus and transparency as well as a 3 dimensional soundsage. It also lacks dynamics for movies, I tried this with the room correction at 97% and tried all the different modes.

to me its not the same as the other mac pre pros, I recently tried the mx 120 and it had it all just no audio through hdmi:D

its a bit disappointed especially at 12k:(

btw my speakers are no slouch focal utopia bes

audiman

02-16-11, 04:31 PM

ultra 150 pilot

02-16-11, 05:45 PM

For movies, i found that uncompressed LPCM sounds the best.Battle scene in kill bill vol 1 is incredible.

Core DTS is a bit edgy and metalic sounding.

What movies did you tried? Did you try mch sacd thru hdmi? I'm not using the RP right now.

Can you describe your setup also?

the rest of my set up, my room is a dedicated 15x24 sealed, carpet, curtains on screen and windows. focal front 3, dipole sides, mark seaton submersive(seperate eq)sub
blu ray player, hddvd player oppo universal player, nad m25 7 channel ultra 2 amp.

I listened to the hulk on blu ray, toy story 3 and a bunch of others that are my demo disks, I tried dvd audio and sacd disks as well.

keep in mind in the past month or so I had the anthem d2,cary cinema 11a , mac mx 120 and marantz 7005 in my system.

all were very dynamic and very good with 2 channel,

with the exception of the marantz and mx 150 which had very similar characteristics, I spoke to a few mac dealers that said it wouldnt surprise them if they were built off the same platform.

anyways Im not here to knock it, just wanted to be honest with my findings so I hope no-one take offense to it:)

audiman

02-17-11, 07:42 AM

The only surprise is that you would find the anthem more dynamic, (or equal ?) than the mx-150. Are you talking about analog IN or hdmi ?

i do hear more details from PS3 SACD HDMI->mx-150, than with oppo 83SE analog to the krell, wich is a bit strange. As stated, the mx-150 sound is not yet smooth sounding. Didnt played much and it is brand new.

Did you try the mx-150 without RP? mine is set as L/M/L (40/80/40) for front.
and M (80) for surrounds.

ultra 150 pilot

02-17-11, 08:07 AM

scanido

02-17-11, 02:32 PM

I returned the unit back to the dealer,

unfortunately the mx 150 didnt fit my needs, although a very nice unit but Ive moved on:)

I am looking for a classe ssp 800 to audition, but its possible that I could end up going back the theta in the end:o

Sorry to hear the MX150 didn't fit with your setup. I'd be intrested to hear your findings on the SSP800.

Did you get a chance to manually calibrate the unit with RP disabled?

scanido

02-17-11, 02:34 PM

IF IF IF I look really, really close, I actually can see a VERY slight dimming toward the right side of the Select label, but I had to look for it, it is so slight.

If it is obvious, then it needs fixed and should not exist given the price of the unit, but anything made by the hand of man can have flaws whether McIntosh, Krell, ML, etc.

BTW -- I checked a few minutes ago and there was a few seconds while it locked onto the PS3 as you described.

MikeSp

Mine is noticeable from about 6ft away. Something to nick about but will try to get over it.

Looks like our units are behaving the same with regards to the PS3 locking issue. Hopefully this can be address as i think there is more to it as i've been having other PCM stereo issues.

audiman

02-17-11, 04:10 PM

I'd be intrested to hear your findings on the SSP800.

+1
This the next one i will audition also.

arcam av888 is also on the list.

ultra 150 pilot

02-17-11, 05:14 PM

Sorry to hear the MX150 didn't fit with your setup..

me too!

Did you get a chance to manually calibrate the unit with RP disabled?

yes

ultra 150 pilot

02-17-11, 05:23 PM

too bad you guys are so far away, I could use some extra trained ears! I could have the wife make some snacks, we could have a few beers. :D

audiman

02-18-11, 01:42 PM

too bad you guys are so far away, I could use some extra trained ears! I could have the wife make some snacks, we could have a few beers. :D

You are not that far. In fact, you are nearer than the Toronto guy. It is a 5 hours drive from MTL i believe to MASS.

MikeSp

02-23-11, 11:07 PM

As much as I like my MX150 (and I like it VERY much), if I had it to do over again, I would have purchased the Denon AVP-A1 -- Denon released its fourth upgrade that includes 3D and the newest Audyssey EQ system.

IF Denon (owned by the same company as Mc) engineers can produce such a future-proof and rock-solid pre, then Mc should also have accomplished the same result.

While I have little interest in 3D, it would be nice to know that a $12K pre-pro can be as future-proof as a $8K pre-pro whose specs are just as good and feature set is superior.

Just an observation...

MikeSp

Kal Rubinson

02-24-11, 11:29 AM

While I have little interest in 3D, it would be nice to know that a $12K pre-pro can be as future-proof as a $8K pre-pro whose specs are just as good and feature set is superior.What parts of the "feature set" distinguishes these two pre-pros?

MikeSp

02-24-11, 11:51 AM

What parts of the "feature set" distinguishes these two pre-pros?

Off the top of my head -- Air-Play, WiFi, online firmware updates

Kal Rubinson

02-24-11, 04:51 PM

Off the top of my head -- Air-Play, WiFi, online firmware updatesOK. I can accept that. I tend to think of these as facilities obtainable in other ways but that is only my perspective.

MikeSp

02-24-11, 05:03 PM

OK. I can accept that. I tend to think of these as facilities obtainable in other ways but that is only my perspective.

You are, of course, 100% correct -- and I would never utilize Air-Play since I am not an Apple Fanboy.

My main issue was the inherent lack of upgradeability that the Mc pre's seem to have whereas the Denon AVP seems to be pretty future-proof up to a point.

Still -- I am thrilled with my MX150 -- it has been rock solid and sounds fantastic and is extremely easy to set up and use. Should I eventually utilize 3D, I can always get another BD player, but one that has twin HDMI outputs and I don't see anything coming down the pike for a few years that would obsolete the MX150 which is head and shoulders above my MX134 that I used for years.

MikeSp

Kal Rubinson

02-24-11, 11:14 PM

My main issue was the inherent lack of upgradeability that the Mc pre's seem to have whereas the Denon AVP seems to be pretty future-proof up to a point.I do not believe that the MX150 is not upgradeable but it sure ain't as easily upgradeable as the Denon and some others.

netroamer

02-24-11, 11:32 PM

Kal Rubinson

02-25-11, 09:13 AM

The problem with "auditioning" RoomPerfect (or any other room EQ) is that one has to rely on the assumption that the person who set it up did it properly and as carefully as you would in your own system/home.

MikeSp

02-25-11, 09:22 AM

I do not believe that the MX150 is not upgradeable but it sure ain't as easily upgradeable as the Denon and some others.

Kal -- while I understand some of the reasoning by McIntosh engineers about them not using a card cage/backplane design, it would seem to me that there still could be some way to engineer modules for audio and video in a manner that anticipated some changes that were coming (such as HDMI 1.4) which could later be incorporated by sending the piece back to Mc Labs for modification at the owner's expense. That would have to be less expensive for the owner than the beating taken by their owners for depreciation due to obsolescence that some pre-pros exhibit. Some companies like Parasound just gave up their efforts at building new pre-pros. Obviously, no piece can be made totally future-proof -- for example, the cost to retrofit the internals as well as the front of the MX136 for lossless audio would have been prohibitive. OTOH, Theta has (or had) a tremendous trade-up program for their latest pre.

MikeSp

MikeSp

02-25-11, 09:56 AM

I awaiting delivery on a MX150, MR88, and MC205 to go with the MC303 I brought in a few weeks ago. I auditioned a MX150 in September and decided against it as I was not impressed with Room Perfect. However, after discussing it with my dealer and being assured it will meet my approval I decided to try it again with the other units as support. The next few weeks should be interesting.

Were I a decade or two younger, I would have been more interested in a pre with the new Audyssey MultEX XT32 and would have probably have messed with new calibrations, acoustic arrangements, furniture being moved, speakers being moved an inch that way or this way, etc. on a weekly basis, always seeking the slight improvement that my straining ears could perceive and would have had a divorce as a result -- AND would have spent more time tweaking the system than enjoying its results to my eyes and ears.

BUT -- at my tender age, I want all of my electronics to be as push-button and plug and play easy as possible so that I can just sit back and enjoy the audio and video results (as long as that audio and video is great to my ears and eyes) -- Room Perfect permits that. It IS easy to run it and it is possible to re-run it and save previous trials, but I found it to be good enough that if I used the suggestions in a white paper by McIntosh (by Ron C. or Chuck H. -- I forget which) -- it gave outstanding results the first time and a couple of subsequent trials in which I pointed the microphone in slightly different angles or directions did not improve the sound -- just made it a little different. Should we move the furniture or add furniture, etc., then I would re-run Room Perfect.

I would hope that any responsible Mc dealer would, IF they moved speakers, swapped out speakers, changed the seating or acoustic panels, etc., that they would have re-run Room Perfect before a potential new purchaser has a chance to audition the MX150.

Good luck,

MikeSp

Kal Rubinson

02-25-11, 03:29 PM

Kal -- while I understand some of the reasoning by McIntosh engineers about them not using a card cage/backplane design, it would seem to me that there still could be some way to engineer modules for audio and video in a manner that anticipated some changes that were coming (such as HDMI 1.4) which could later be incorporated by sending the piece back to Mc Labs for modification at the owner's expense. That would have to be less expensive for the owner than the beating taken by their owners for depreciation due to obsolescence that some pre-pros exhibit.What you describe is similar to what Denon has announced for their top prepro.

netroamer

02-25-11, 04:17 PM

Were I a decade or two younger, I would have been more interested in a pre with the new Audyssey MultEX XT32 and would have probably have messed with new calibrations, acoustic arrangements, furniture being moved, speakers being moved an inch that way or this way, etc. on a weekly basis, always seeking the slight improvement that my straining ears could perceive and would have had a divorce as a result -- AND would have spent more time tweaking the system than enjoying its results to my eyes and ears.

BUT -- at my tender age, I want all of my electronics to be as push-button and plug and play easy as possible so that I can just sit back and enjoy the audio and video results (as long as that audio and video is great to my ears and eyes) -- Room Perfect permits that. It IS easy to run it and it is possible to re-run it and save previous trials, but I found it to be good enough that if I used the suggestions in a white paper by McIntosh (by Ron C. or Chuck H. -- I forget which) -- it gave outstanding results the first time and a couple of subsequent trials in which I pointed the microphone in slightly different angles or directions did not improve the sound -- just made it a little different. Should we move the furniture or add furniture, etc., then I would re-run Room Perfect.

I would hope that any responsible Mc dealer would, IF they moved speakers, swapped out speakers, changed the seating or acoustic panels, etc., that they would have re-run Room Perfect before a potential new purchaser has a chance to audition the MX150.

Good luck,

MikeSp

The MX150 audition was in my home and, with the remote help of the McIntosh support and engineering people, I did the calibration. I ran a total of 5 separate calibration sweeps achieving, at the best, 97% room knowledge. I was never pleased with the results. Hopefully with some in-room help, it will meet my approval this time.

gigimonagas

03-03-11, 08:59 AM

MikeSp

03-03-11, 09:52 AM

I need some help getting room pefect to work. Here's my problem:

Just after Room Perfect finishes reading the first focal position it says the following error: "Measuring error - No Signal". I tried for over two hours to get it to work, unplugging the microphone over and over making sure there wasn't any noise in the room and changing the microphone position.

Anyone has an idea off what might be the problem. Do I have a corrupt software? Without room perfect the room has an excessive amount of base, even with the speakers set to small.

Any suggestions are welcome.

Thanks in advance.

FWIW -- my guess is a bad microphone -- I had a similar issue the first time I tried to run Room Perfect and it turned out to be the microphone (swapped one with my dealer and issue was solved). As unlikely as it is, a bad mic cable could also happen.

See if you dealer will trade you a microphone, at least to determine if that is the issue and either he or you could call Chuck Hinton at Mc and get them to replace it IF that is the issue.

Otherwise, talk to you dealer or Chuck Hinton at Mc -- always starting with the dealer.

Good luck,

MikeSp

ultra 150 pilot

03-03-11, 05:49 PM

I need some help getting room pefect to work. Here's my problem:

Just after Room Perfect finishes reading the first focal position it says the following error: "Measuring error - No Signal". I tried for over two hours to get it to work, unplugging the microphone over and over making sure there wasn't any noise in the room and changing the microphone position.

Anyone has an idea off what might be the problem. Do I have a corrupt software? Without room perfect the room has an excessive amount of base, even with the speakers set to small.

Any suggestions are welcome.

Thanks in advance.

I had the same issue, make sure you have the correct speakers hooked up and correctly chosen in the menu. room perfect does not pick that up, you have to manually tell it everything correctly or it will give you an error.

most room corrections will tell you for example your out of phase or your rears arent hooked up etc...

the base thing happened with the marantz 7005 and the mx 150

good luck, bob

scanido

03-04-11, 10:51 AM

gigimonagas

03-07-11, 10:40 AM

Thanks, that fixed it.

What’s everyone room perfect preference? For me, the Global Position sounds much better; actually like a high end processor. With the first focal position sounds awful.

I also found that the flat voicing is the better choice for both movies and music. I also like it better when there’s no additional processing over True HD and DTS-HD tracks.

I got room perfect up to 99% of room knowledge and only 69% of room correction? Who got it higher?

Best,

MikeSp

03-07-11, 10:35 PM

Roger Dressler

03-08-11, 01:33 AM

The MX150 audition was in my home and, with the remote help of the McIntosh support and engineering people, I did the calibration. I ran a total of 5 separate calibration sweeps achieving, at the best, 97% room knowledge. I was never pleased with the results. Hopefully with some in-room help, it will meet my approval this time.How would you characterize the displeasing aspects of the sound?

netroamer

03-08-11, 10:37 AM

How would you characterize the displeasing aspects of the sound?

Bass lacked punch and the middle/upper middle was overly bright.

gigimonagas

03-08-11, 11:07 AM

"only" 69% of room correction :rolleyes: Mine was slightly worse (higher) -- you and I appear to need some acoustic panels appropriately applied:D

MikeSp

My room was designed by Rives audio with bass traps, BAD panels from RPG, carpet, the whole nine yards. I'm coming from a Krell S-1200 and S-1500 amp to the MX150 and MC205 amp. I truly prefer the sound of my new Mcintosh.

I don't know why room perfect only got 69% of room correction.

More positions maybe. Any suggestions are welcome.

scanido

03-15-11, 06:51 PM

I can't seem to put a nail on this one to resolve and i would like to avoid purchasing a new $500 Bell Sat receiver as there are no refunds on that.

Has any Canadians with the MX150 and either the Bell 9242/9241 HD PVR's experiencing a loud popping noise when changing, or even pausing, channels??

I seem to be getting this frequently, especially when going from any of the Galaxy audio channels (915-920) which are in PCM Stereo to any Dolby digital channel. Or sometimes pausing a channel and continuing playback. I'm at the point where i'm just fed up and need confirmation from others that it is with the Sat Receiver. :mad:

I am worried my tweeters are going to get blown one day if the volume is louder than usual!!!

Any help is appreciated.

buttecreeker

03-23-11, 03:58 PM

I currently am running a (non HDMI) McIntosh MX-132 pre/pro, with all my source components audio outputs via analog multichannel and analog stereo. I listen to 2.1 channels, as well as a lot of multichannel music, mostly DVD-A, some Bluray and a handful of SACD titles. Also 5.1 movie watching is in there as well.

My source components are; an Oppo 83se, a Tosh A-35 HD-DVD, a McIntosh MVP851 DVD-A/V, a McIntosh MLD 7020 laser disk player( yep still have use one of these), an old pioneer CTF-900 tape deck, as well as an B&O turntable.

I use a Zektor 7.1 multichannel analog audio/HDMI audio video switcher for switching analog audio to the pre/pro multichannel inputs, switching the HDMI Hi Def video, and receive 1080p video signal from a DVDO HD+ scaler/switcher, all out to a 1080p projector.

Between the pre/pro and the amps (main=McIntosh MC352, Surrounds=Belles400, and center=Adcom GFA555II), is an Outlaw ICBM bass management unit with crossover settings from 40Hz to120Hz ( in 20Hz increments) for 6 channels. All directed to a Velodyne DD-18 sub. (I do use the sub to augment the <40Hz to my mains even for 2.1 listening). The main/front speakers are OHM Walsh 4's, the center is a Bohlender-Greabener 220 Planer-Hybrid, and the surrounds are a pair of bookshelf "Precise" speakers on stands at ear height.

I have all the components located in a cabinet with an external IR receiver connected to the MX-132. I have IR emitters to all the source components which the MX-132 sends the signals too.

I have been pleased with the sound quality and functionality from this system thus far, but I am looking to modernize as well as eliminate cabling and switching components, and if the result gives me better sound that’s an extra bonus.
I have been following this thread for some time, as well as the Classe SSP-800 thread, and the Anthem D2v thread. The D2v seems to have all the necessary audio/video processing, in one box. The MX-150 and the Classe SSP-800 trans-code the video in, to be output though HDMI at the same res. So I would still need a video scaling device, which is not a problem.

One of my main requirements are; that I want the crossover/bass management function be able to be applied to the analog 2 channel, as well as the analog multichannel, input section of the pre/pro mainly for my DVD-A player (thereby eliminating the ICBM).

Since there is no McIntosh dealer nearby for a demo, I am just trying to get some additional opinions mainly regarding the audio section and it's capability in handling the newer hi res codec's, as well as the previously stated bass management concern. I have really liked the McIntosh sound, build quality and reliability, but I am need of more reassurance before dishing out that kind of money.

Thanks in advance, Dave

audiman

03-23-11, 05:29 PM

One of my main requirements are; that I want the crossover/bass management function be able to be applied to the analog 2 channel, as well as the analog multichannel, input section of the pre/pro mainly for my DVD-A player (thereby eliminating the ICBM).

The MX-150 will re-digitize all incoming analog signal to 24/192, so no problems for your concern.

The mx-150 is very good for HT, a little less for music. It is the first of the mx series that doesnt have pure analog passthru.

buttecreeker

03-23-11, 08:17 PM

The MX-150 will re-digitize all incoming analog signal to 24/192, so no problems for your concern.

The mx-150 is very good for HT, a little less for music. It is the first of the mx series that doesnt have pure analog passthru.

Thanks for your response.
If you've owned any earlier MX pre/pro's; how does the MX-150 measure up for
music? I certainly don't want to lose any fidelity.
Dave

ultra 150 pilot

03-23-11, 08:35 PM

Thanks for your response.
If you've owned any earlier MX pre/pro's; how does the MX-150 measure up for
music? I certainly don't want to lose any fidelity.
Dave

Ill chime in here! I recently home demoed an mx150 and now I own the mx 135 which is 2 generations behind, Imo theres no contest with the 135 being better both in music and movies. I found the 2 channel is amazing compared to most pre pros and I am very happy with not only the dynamics but the dialouge as well with movies.

I have been at this game for some time now owning and home demoing just about every piece out there and I can tell the older mac stuff is amazing.

just one guys opinion:)

Steve Bruzonsky

03-23-11, 10:18 PM

The MX-150 will re-digitize all incoming analog signal to 24/192, so no problems for your concern.

The mx-150 is very good for HT, a little less for music. It is the first of the mx series that doesnt have pure analog passthru.

This is what happens when a classy audio and home theater company listens to The Bland!!!@@@ Lack of musicality is his trademark!;)

buttecreeker

03-24-11, 01:17 PM

Ill chime in here! I recently home demoed an mx150 and now I own the mx 135 which is 2 generations behind, Imo theres no contest with the 135 being better both in music and movies. I found the 2 channel is amazing compared to most pre pros and I am very happy with not only the dynamics but the dialouge as well with movies.

I have been at this game for some time now owning and home demoing just about every piece out there and I can tell the older mac stuff is amazing.

just one guys opinion:)

Thanks for the feedback. I was hoping to modernize a bit and maybe get something with some room correction capabilities, I could use it, but maybe I'll just stay where I'm at. Hey, my MX-132 has been, and still is, a wonderful sounding work horse for many years now. And I certainly don't want to go backwards in the fidelity dept., since that is my primary goal. Again, thanks for your input!

Dave

MikeSp

03-24-11, 03:34 PM

I am surprised that Mc did not include a pure analog passthrough since the MX150 is otherwise all digital and handles everything in the digital domain.

For those of us that are not into analog -- the MX150 serves as a high quality preamp with only the need for its DACs before sending the signal to the amps.

For those with analog sources, then the MX150 will convert the analog to digital for processing or no processing as chosen by the user and then back to analog and is probably the reason why there is a feeling that the MX150 is not the best analog preamp.

Perhaps Mc engineering felt that since the only way that Room Perfect could be used is in the digital domain, they would keep the piece totally digital even though RP can be easily defeated.

While I am a happy camper with only digital sources going into my MX150, I do feel that there should have been a pure analog passthrough for analog fans that prefer to use an outboard stereo preamp.

MikeSp

ultra 150 pilot

03-24-11, 09:24 PM

Thanks for the feedback. I was hoping to modernize a bit and maybe get something with some room correction capabilities, I could use it, but maybe I'll just stay where I'm at. Hey, my MX-132 has been, and still is, a wonderful sounding work horse for many years now. And I certainly don't want to go backwards in the fidelity dept., since that is my primary goal. Again, thanks for your input!

Dave

While room correction can be useful, theres no substitute for great sound, I recently owned an anthem d2 with arc for the past 4 years and although I think the arc is wonderful, my mx 135 still sounds better in movies and music.

I also recently picked up the oppo 95 and tested the optical through the mac which gives you the highest form of dts vs the analouge imputs with blu ray movies and after much testing I was hard pressed to find a difference between the two.

I understand you want to moderinize but I feel a lot of the new gear today maybe have modernized but I think the quality and performance has taken a step backwards with some brands( maybe due to economy, finding cheaper ways to build the stuff)

you know the old saying "if it aint broke dont fix it":D

gigimonagas

03-25-11, 10:59 AM

Just and opinion:

After owning the MX150 for a little over 3 weeks, I must say that it is the best HT processor I've ever owned. Coming from a Krell S-1200, Anthem D2, and a Marantz AV8003 I find the MX150 to be much richer and powerful to my ears.

The beauty of the MX150 lies in the Room Perfect implementation. I must confess that I had to redo the whole calibration process three times before I got the MX150 to sound to its potential. The first time I got 69% percent of room correction and found my system lacking base and details. After talking with Chuck Hinton from Mcintosh I redid the calibration process placing the microphone at least 2 1/2 feet away from any surface (ceilings, walls, floor, etc) and 6 focus positions. My god, the global results where amazing with only 19% of room correction. I only watch movies and now I'm hearing so much details that I was missing, especially in low and upper mids. Base is deeper and tighter than ever, just wonderful.

By the way, my system:

MX150 Pre-amp
MC205 Amp
Marantz VP-11S2 Proyector
Stewart Studiotek 130 92”
Marantz UD8004 Blu Ray Player
Oppo 83 Blu Ray Player
PS3 Slim
Canton Reference 3.2
Canton Vento Center Channel
Canton Vento 820 Surrounds
Canton Venton 850 Sub

audiman

03-25-11, 05:01 PM

Just and opinion:

After owning the MX150 for a little over 3 weeks, I must say that it is the best HT processor I've ever owned. Coming from a Krell S-1200, Anthem D2, and a Marantz AV8003 I find the MX150 to be much richer and powerful to my ears.

What did you think of the Marantz AV8003 ?

I also owned the D2. Not much comming out of this pre-pro. Pretty sterile sound.

I found the mx-150 to perform best with hi-rez signal. regular DTS/DD sounded harsh. Dont know why.

gigimonagas

03-28-11, 09:48 AM

What did you think of the Marantz AV8003 ?

I also owned the D2. Not much comming out of this pre-pro. Pretty sterile sound.

I found the mx-150 to perform best with hi-rez signal. regular DTS/DD sounded harsh. Dont know why.

For the money the Marantz cannot be beaten. I never liked the D2, not that is bad machine in any way, just that for my taste never impressed me, especially in low frequencies range. The Krell is amazing, a beautiful piece. Is better than the MX150 in some features, but the Mc with Room Perfect is a better machine overall.

avsBuddy

04-28-11, 10:39 PM

As an owner of Marantz AV8003, I absolutely love it. Ergonomics, sans remote, is great and it's a quality piece of audio engineering. When using this unit it feels that engineers put analogue first and digital second - and that's what I want in my pre pro. I'm a lot more critical in my music listening (both 2ch and Mch SACD) then I am in the movie soundtrack.

It appears though that Marantz lowered quality with their follow up AV7005, with lack of XLR input, no support for DSD decoding and half the asking price. If the overall sound quality is the same though, then AV7005 is even bigger bargain than my 8003.

So back to MX150. I spoke with the McIntosh dealer in the showroom about MX150, and he was insisting that it absolutely has analogue bypass for both XLR stereo in and RCA m/ch. I mentioned that I've heard otherwise, including very good review by Kal Rubinson. Unfortunately he didn't have MX150 at that location, but I'll get to check the pre out this w/end at a different store.

Kal Rubinson

04-28-11, 10:48 PM

It appears though that Marantz lowered quality with their follow up AV7005, with lack of XLR input, ....Not true.

...........no support for DSD decoding.........Not a problem.

...........and half the asking price.Not a matter of quality.

So back to MX150. I spoke with the McIntosh dealer in the showroom about MX150, and he was insisting that it absolutely has analogue bypass for both XLR stereo in and RCA m/ch. I mentioned that I've heard otherwise, including very good review by Kal Rubinson. Unfortunately he didn't have MX150 at that location, but I'll get to check the pre out this w/end at a different store.How would you test it in a store? Why not just ask McIntosh?

MikeSp

04-28-11, 10:50 PM

[QUOTE=avsBuddy;20371407]So back to MX150. I spoke with the McIntosh dealer in the showroom about MX150, and he was insisting that it absolutely has analogue bypass for both XLR stereo in and RCA m/ch. I mentioned that I've heard otherwise, including very good review by Kal Rubinson. Unfortunately he didn't have MX150 at that location, but I'll get to check the pre out this w/end at a different store.

[SNIP]QUOTE]

I sincerely hope you can find out that the MX150 has analog pass-through but I cannot locate it in any menus or in the so-called manual. When you find it, please let us on this forum know.:D

MikeSp

avsBuddy

04-29-11, 09:26 AM

Kal, regarding my comments.
AV7005 does lack XLR stereo inputs. For a home processor, where it's assumed that there's ton of components mashed together, I think it's important to use XLR connectors for high quality music reproduction to minimize effects of RF and cross talk. Therefore, AV7005 lack of XLR input in my view is a step backwards.

You say No support of DSD in AV7005 is not a problem, yet you have been championing the use of DSD via HDMI over analogue m/ch outputs for all of last year on the forums. From your reviews of latest processors however, it seems you are now comfortable having players convert DSD to PCM first and then pass it via HDMI. However, I feel it's a compromise of a SACD performance, even from a perspective that conversion introduces extra step in the chain for SACD playback. I think your opinion has more to do with the fact that there is simply no option to pass pure DSD to new high end processors being introduced to the market.

I agree with you that substantially lower price of AV7005 compared to it's predecessor does not in itself means lower quality. That's why I said, that it's still possible new Marantz pre can match AV8003 sound. However, there is no denying that Marantz did strip new unit of features that I mentioned.

Finally, I will ask again about MX150 analog bypass at the different store location later this week.

I know I can contact McIntosh to get this information straight from the source. But aren't we constantly being reminded by the Audio Press and the very same manufacturer's that local dealers value lays in the Service, Knowledge and Representation of the product they sell? I actually happen to still hold on to this notion, because if I can't rely on my local dealer to give me accurate information about product they sell, what's the point of shopping locally?

netroamer

04-29-11, 10:27 AM

gigimonagas

04-29-11, 11:05 AM

As an owner of a MX150, I can attest to the fact that there is a "Pure Stereo" mode that bypasses "Room Perfect" and the sub woofers, sending the signal to only the L/R speakers as full range. BUT, all analog signals, whether balanced or unbalanced, are processed A-D/D-A.
Also, a dealer's lack of knowledge is not necessarily their fault, but the result of a very poorly managed dealer training program by McIntosh.

This is true. I use my Marantz UD9004 in stereo through XLR to the MX150 XLR analog input in Pure Stereo Mode and bypasses Room Perfect and digital output. Sometimes when I switch back to HDMI Room Perfect doesn't go back to GLOBAL position and have to set it up manually.

netroamer

04-29-11, 11:46 AM

This is true. I use my Marantz UD9004 in stereo through XLR to the MX150 XLR analog input in Pure Stereo Mode and bypasses Room Perfect and digital output. Sometimes when I switch back to HDMI Room Perfect doesn't go back to GLOBAL position and have to set it up manually.
Your statement "Pure Stereo Mode and bypasses Room Perfect and digital output" is somewhat misleading. The signal does bypass "Room Perfect" and the sub woofers, but the analog signal IS processed A-D/D-A. The MX150 in not capable of A-A signal bypass..

audiman

04-29-11, 04:35 PM

The guy from mcintosh did confirm that ALL analog signal are converted A/D
(24/192) and than in analog again.

There is no analog passthru as there was in the other MX series (119-120-135-136) and it shows anyway when you listen to lets say mch sacd in the 6 ch analog IN in the MX-150.

i do have now the av8003 at home and it does perform well with the analog in and HDMI hi-rez format. SQ from the HD-STB is much worst than the mx-150. Hockey was fantastic with the later.

Kal Rubinson

04-29-11, 09:38 PM

Kal, regarding my comments.
AV7005 does lack XLR stereo inputs. I stand corrected. I responded from (faulty) memory but was thinking about the Integra 80.2 that replaced it in my system.

You say No support of DSD in AV7005 is not a problem, yet you have been championing the use of DSD via HDMI over analogue m/ch outputs for all of last year on the forums. From your reviews of latest processors however, it seems you are now comfortable having players convert DSD to PCM first and then pass it via HDMI. However, I feel it's a compromise of a SACD performance, even from a perspective that conversion introduces extra step in the chain for SACD playback. I think your opinion has more to do with the fact that there is simply no option to pass pure DSD to new high end processors being introduced to the market.Well, I am not so sure about your analysis of my position. For one thing, my first HDMI/SACD setup was the Oppo 980 and the Integra 9.8 and I preferred the PCM output over the DSD output at that time. For another, even with DSD output to a capable processor/AVR, conversion to PCM is required in order to do any post-processing including bass management or roomEQ. In most cases, those will more greatly enhance listening than the avoidance of the PCM conversion.

Finally, I will ask again about MX150 analog bypass at the different store location later this week.

I know I can contact McIntosh to get this information straight from the source. But aren't we constantly being reminded by the Audio Press and the very same manufacturer's that local dealers value lays in the Service, Knowledge and Representation of the product they sell? I actually happen to still hold on to this notion, because if I can't rely on my local dealer to give me accurate information about product they sell, what's the point of shopping locally?Good luck. I have little contact with dealers these days but RonC from McIntosh did email me that there is no analog passthrough as all analog inputs are digitized.

avsBuddy

04-30-11, 02:03 AM

Kal and all - I went to a different McIntosh independent dealer who confirmed to me that MX150 converts everything to digital first, even in the "Pure" mode. He wasn't very happy about it, but hasn't heard the unit himself.
In the end, dealer hinted preference for a Classe preamp due to its ability to do pure analog bypass and how Classe supports the unit with dealer installable upgrades for new technologies (DTS Master, then HDMI 1.4). He conceded that it was no fun for his McIntosh customers to be left with inability to upgrade their unit every time new digital standard was introduced.

Waboman

04-30-11, 03:54 AM

In the end, dealer hinted preference for a Classe preamp due to its ability to do pure analog bypass and how Classe supports the unit with dealer installable upgrades for new technologies (DTS Master, then HDMI 1.4). He conceded that it was no fun for his McIntosh customers to be left with inability to upgrade their unit every time new digital standard was introduced.

Or simply get the Denon AVP-A1HDCI and be done with it. Put your feet up and actually enjoy your system.;)

MikeSp

04-30-11, 09:44 AM

Kal Rubinson

04-30-11, 11:50 AM

He conceded that it was no fun for his McIntosh customers to be left with inability to upgrade their unit every time new digital standard was introduced.The simple workaround for that is to decode in the player and send PCM to the MX150.

MikeSp

04-30-11, 12:06 PM

The simple workaround for that is to decode in the player and send PCM to the MX150.

Kal -- no need to do so with even with the Oppo 83SE and Oppo 93 that is in my near future UNLESS I opt to go 3D (possibility) then I can still run two HDMI 1.3a's from the 93 (HDMI 1 one to MX150 and HDMI 2 to the FP) and still have Room Perfect and oustanding audio and not miss anything regarding video.

For BD movies, I have tried lossless decoding in the 83SE vs. lossless decoding in the MX150 and can not distinguish any difference, but since I could give a rodent's pitut about the online special features of BD movies, I usually let the MX150 do the decoding -- if you know of a difference, please advise.

BTW -- Using the Oppo 83SE's analog outputs vs. HDMI, with my non-golden ears, I could not distinguish any difference between the two using the MX150 and I think it would have shown up with my Aerial Acoustics Model 9's -- nor could I distinguish any difference using balanced stereo outputs of the Oppo 83SE vs. coax digital output and since it seems more logical, with the MX150 keeping everything in the digital domain, to avoid an extra conversion or two, to just use coax digital output from the 83SE and stay digital (and waste the extra quality analog DAC's in the 83SE).

My experiences with the MX150 have been outstanding although the Denon AVP with its upgradeability is still one awesome piece and superior in many ways to the MX150 -- just does not match the McAmps at all and my left brainness likes matching components.

IMHO, Mc engineering should have had Denon engineering assist with at least a limited degree of upgradeability of the MX150, like replaceable video boards or video circuits by the dealer or the unit being sent back to the factor for refit not unlike the Classe piece.

MikeSp

Kal Rubinson

04-30-11, 12:08 PM

Kal -- no need to do so with even with the Oppo 83SE and Oppo 93 that is in my near future UNLESS I opt to go 3D (possibility) then I can still run two HDMI 1.3a's from the 93 (HDMI 1 one to MX150 and HDMI 2 to the FP) and still have Room Perfect and oustanding audio and not miss anything regarding video.I believe the issue was future decoding needs as the MX150 is perfectly up to date at the moment.

BTW -- Using the Oppo 83SE's analog outputs vs. HDMI, with my non-golden ears, I could not distinguish any difference between the two using the MX150 and I think it would have shown up with my Aerial Acoustics Model 9's -- nor could I distinguish any difference using balanced stereo outputs of the Oppo 83SE vs. coax digital output and since it seems more logical, with the MX150 keeping everything in the digital domain, to avoid an extra conversion or two, to just use coax digital output from the 83SE and stay digital (and waste the extra quality analog DAC's in the 83SE).Why not use the HDMI as S/PDIF will not carry HD audio?

thebland

04-30-11, 12:40 PM

MikeSp

04-30-11, 02:16 PM

Slightly OT: I have 3 BD players in my rack and 1 HD DVD player, too.. I can't see much of any difference between them at 1080P24 (HDMI). My display is calibrated. What is the thinking or your experience on this? Yes players may have different video decoders but in my subjective analysis, I see little difference from a $400 BD player vs a $2000 model.

Some video decoders were better than others a couple of years ago but today, I sincerely doubt if modern decoders have much difference in picture quality between a $200 and $2000 BD player. OTOH, there could be significant differences in audio quality in playing SACD's when the audio decoding is considered between the various units. There used to be a tremendous difference in length of start times after inserting a BD disk but that too has narrowed to insignificance. YMMV

MikeSp

Armand07

05-02-11, 07:50 AM

Some video decoders were better than others a couple of years ago but today, I sincerely doubt if modern decoders have much difference in picture quality between a $200 and $2000 BD player. OTOH, there could be significant differences in audio quality in playing SACD's when the audio decoding is considered between the various units. There used to be a tremendous difference in length of start times after inserting a BD disk but that too has narrowed to insignificance. YMMV

MikeSp

It´s not only about decoders, but transport mechanism, power supply etc as well. My Theta Compli Blu betters the Oppo player with the exact same decoders becuase of this kind of enhancements Theta has done over the standard Oppo, but that is of course discussed over in Theta threads...;)

thebland

05-02-11, 09:00 AM

It´s not only about decoders, but transport mechanism, power supply etc as well. My Theta Compli Blu betters the Oppo player with the exact same decoders becuase of this kind of enhancements Theta has done over the standard Oppo, but that is of course discussed over in Theta threads...;)

For analog output... but unimportant for digital. Since I am all HDMI, I think the Oppo is as good as any modified model.. Read below from the Blu Ray forum (Keith is the man on this subject):

The outputs of the video decoder blocks on the SoCs are bit-accurate for H.264 and VC-1, meaning the decoded video quality at that point is exactly the same for all players.

So, the differences in players is in the post-processing of the video, such as scaling, deinterlacing, edge enhancement, noise reduction, color correction, etc. This is where the "art" comes in.

Some player manufacturers (and consumers) may also tweak various settings (such as brightness, contrast, hue, saturation, sharpness, edge enhancement, 2D/3D noise reduction, gamma, color conversion, etc.) to achieve the specific "look" to the video that they want. The most accurate picture, although possibly not the most personally visually pleasing picture, is when all those type of controls are bypassed or zero'd out.

Once the power supply is of sufficient threshold in quality to reliably handle the player, and a good PC board design is used, it is largely irrelevant with digital.

However, they could affect the drive electronics as that contains analog circuitry. Once some of this analog front-end stuff is integrated onto the main SoC decoder (like the new NEC chip that was just announced), these things become more important.

These things can also affect the analog audio and video outputs, however, as the audio and video DACs should have nice, clean power as any power supply noise is pretty much coupled directly onto the analog outputs.

The quality of the HDMI output is important, as that could be considered analog due to the frequencies and levels involved. We have seen differences in HDMI outputs in their ability to drive various cables and cable lengths, and some HDMI switchers, without introducing some sparkling in the video.

campbellh

05-11-11, 11:14 PM

Is that over- kill? I have the C500T and love it for 2-channel. I found all the hi-end HT processors pretty sub-par for 2 channel (I.e., found the Classe and Meridian very flat, clinical, stale). Was wondering if I could use the passive pass- thru on the C500T for hooking up the MX150 only for HT (use the C500T only for 2-channel). Does this make sense to do? Thanks in advance for your advice!

Bob

avsBuddy

05-12-11, 12:39 AM

I think that if you appreciate music, having a dedicated high quality preamp in your home theater system makes a lot of sense. As long as preamp has a dedicated HT pass through option, you'll enjoy both state of the art music and movie reproduction.
In my case though, I NEED a high quality processor with pure analogue m/ch input because of m/ch SACD. Now, there are some workarounds being pushed by the industry, like SACD player trans-coding DSD into PCM and passing it to the processor this way. But as long as I have an option of doing pure DSD to analogue conversion and having processor take analogue in, I'll take that. Why settle for a compromise when you can have a real thing? It's like asking LP aficionados to enjoy their vinyl by converting it to PCM first and then pass it to their preamps. No thanks.

Scott6ave

05-12-11, 01:58 PM

The audio quality is excellent especially for those with a keen appreciation for music and hearing every detail

MikeSp

05-12-11, 02:05 PM

The audio quality is excellent especially for those with a keen appreciation for music and hearing every detail

IF I correctly understand you, Scott, you are saying that the audio quality of the MX150 is excellent -- IF my understanding of your posting is correct (not disputing anything at all!!!) I am curious as to how you are inputting digital sources into the MX150 -- via coax, Toslink or analog and if analog, are you using a dedicated DAC before the MX150 inputs.

Thanks,

MikeSp

avsBuddy

05-12-11, 06:07 PM

I want to note that I don't dispute a fine audio quality of MX150, on a contrary, everything I've read about it makes me believe is a great pre/pro. My post was in comment whether an analogue pre makes sense in a system driven by MX150. Honestly, in the end, your ears should decide.

mikefl52

07-15-11, 12:17 PM

MikeSp

07-15-11, 02:07 PM

I have hunted through the owner’s manual for the MX150 and it really does not address the use of the additional AUX outputs or how they are used. I have two SVS PB13U subwoofers and at the moment handle them through a SVS AS-EQ1 since my current processor (Anthem D1 with ARC) though it has two sub outputs just replicates one in the other so any time domain as opposed to frequency domain issues are not addressed.

It is difficult (at least for me) to get the phase correct on subs especially when you have more than one as the measured distance is not always the acoustic distance. The SVS does a good job on my current system of handling the two subs, but I was curious about how the MX150 would handle them since I am thinking of upgrading my now somewhat long in the tooth D1 and with the HDMI issues on the D2Vs I am reluctant to go there.

I realize that the MX150 does not carry out any video processing, just video switching and transcoding, but I currently do my video processing externally using a VP50 and I am happy to use that still as it does the task I need. In fact I actually like the idea of using two boxes, one for the audio and one for the video as I think some processors are trying to cram too much into one box and further having two enables you to update one without giving up what you love in the other, same principle as having separate amplification.

Anyway my question was really about the subs so anyone has any experience I would be very happy to hear it.

It is VERY obvious that the Mc manual for the MX150 looks VERY nice, but in reality, sucks big time -- especially in regard to using the AUX outputs for subwoofers and how that relates to using multiple subs together with the Lyngdorf Room Correction.

Currently, I am using two JL Audio F113 subs which contain their own version of room correction and they can be daisy chained with one simultaneously controlling the room correction for both subs which works great IF their placement is symmetrical in the room, which mine are not. I am using fully balanced connections from the MX150 to the F113's and am NOT using any of the AUX outputs due to confusion of how they are incorporated. I am feeding the MX150 by bitstreaming HD audio from my Oppo BDP83SE staying strictly in the digital domain (not using its quality analog outputs -- just HDMI).

While my mains (Aerial Acoustics Model 9's) go down to 24 Hz or so, I was not getting the LFE that the F113's were capable of, so I contacted the chief engineer at JL Audio and he spent an hour with me regarding crossovers, placement, etc. (fried my brain!!!) I now cross over the mains and center at 80 Hz as he STRONGLY suggested (which I had always resisted with previous subs). Since the MX150 has ONE measly LFE output, that means that I would either have to use the AUX outputs or split the LFE OR run one LFE output to one sub and then use it as the master and connect the second sub as a slave to the first (worked very well but not perfect in the present acoustically lousy room).

Because the Aux is so confusing, I stuck with the LFE output and balanced sub cables -- bought an inexpensive balanced XLR splitter from Emotiva and ran one subwoofer cable to one sub and the other one to the other sub and ran both subs as masters -- running their built-in room EQ separately. THEN I used a test CD of test tones and a Rat Shack SPL meter and set the phase for each of the subs by looking for the highest levels when playing the 80 Hz tone -- it was amazing how much difference the smallest phase adjustment made in total volume. THEN I ran the MX150's built-in Lyngdorf Room Correction with the LFE purposely turned down about 5 dB then boosted it back up after Room Perfect was finished. This produced remarkable results for me in my current lousy acoustic situation (awaiting me to finish my dedicated HT downstairs). There is a white paper out there (did not come with my MX150) from Ron Cornelius at McIntosh regarding exactly HOW to run the Lyngdorf Room Correction in the MX150 and that helped a LOT.

I am sure that you could call McIntosh and talk to Chuck Hinton (nice guy) and he would give me some help with the Aux scenario, but I prefer to continue using the LFE with which I am more familiar since this is my 3rd prepro (and my last).

ALSO -- I had a Velodyne SMS-1 parametric EQ in the mix at one time which could be used to fine tune (much like the AS-EQ1) the peaks and made sure that I had the crossover portion of that EQ turned off -- AVOID at all costs, double crossing over because that really can screw things up. Eventually, I just removed the SMS-1 and proceeded as in the previous paragraph. If you are using the Room Perfect EQ process in the MX150, then you are going to be using the MX150's crossovers -- make sure you are not using the x/o's in your subs -- defeat them by switching them off if possible or raise the LP on your subs above 80 Hz or whatever you have the LP set in the MX150.

BTW -- it is really kewl how easy it is to set the various parameters of the MX150 such as x/o, Room Perfect, distances, etc. from a computer -- Mc did a surprisingly great graphic user interface for this.

If you want to read some great material about subwoofer usage, placement, crossing over, EQ'ing, etc. -- here is a Site that contains links from the chief engineer at JL Audio (with his 4+ decades of experience) and I bought his test CD of test tones although there numerous brands of test tone CD's out there. LOTS of good info here: http://www.soundoctor.com/whitepapers/index.htm

Dunno if this was a help since you inquired about Aux and I refuse to play with them due to lack of information but have found the LFE output to work great for my needs -- if I were running stereo subs, then I would probably be using the Aux outputs.

Good luck,

MikeSp

mikefl52

07-15-11, 02:34 PM

Mike - Thank you very much for the detailed response.

wildmda

07-31-11, 04:35 PM

I am considering an MX150... if I am 70% music and 30% movies, I am wondering if a MX150 from a MX120 would be a good idea. Any comments and help is appreciated.

Bulldogger

07-31-11, 06:22 PM

I am considering an MX150... if I am 70% music and 30% movies, I am wondering if a MX150 from a MX120 would be a good idea. Any comments and help is appreciated.

The MX120 can not decode the new formats, DTS-Master Audio And Dolby True-HD. Of course you can get a good player that decodes that. The Oppo 95 has gotten high marks and you can use the analog bypass on the MX120. The next big factor is the very good room correction on the MX150. Exactly how useful this will be will depend on your room. As Ron-C from Mcintosh says, room correction is not a replacement for room treatments, or something like that:). Still the MX150 will help you tame the acoustics of the room. Combined with room treatments, it can sound really superb. I heard a demonstration of it in a treated room and the sound was great and four other rooms untreated and it was still good. I think it excels with movies. How are you doing audio for the new formats now? Using a good player's analog outs?

wildmda

07-31-11, 07:20 PM

I have an Oppo 83SE NuForce and I am connecting to the MX120 via analog.. Is there anything I would lose in sounds by going to the MX150 compared to the above configuration?

MikeSp

07-31-11, 07:25 PM

I fully agree with what was just said -- the BDP95 Oppo could be used with its great analog 7.1 outputs into your MX120. The biggest advantage with the MX150 is its Lyngdorf Room Correction and IMHO, it is remarkable. ALSO, the setup of the MX150 can be handled in your computer and has a truly well-done graphical user interface in which to input speaker distances, x/o frequencies, naming/renaming inputs, etc. although the remote control is well done and it can also be used (computer is MUCH easier) and my desktop computer is in another part of the house on the network.

While I am not a big fan of adding a second pair of glasses in order to watch 3D on less than a 74 ft. IMax screen, my MX150 is superb for my needs which are 2D, HOWEVER, I feel that for the price of the MX150, there should have been adequate engineering in the video circuitry (even if some help was obtained from Denon engineering) to permit the MX150 to be sent back to the factory or authorized repair shop and modified video circuitry (at owner's expense) be installed with HDMI 1.4a and 3D such as can be done with the competing pre-pro from Classe and the rock solid venerable AVP from Denon.

I suspect that when resale values of the Denon AVP and Classe pre-pros WITH 3D HDMI 1.4a circuitry are compared to the MX150 with HDMI 1.3, the MX150 is going to take a huge beating -- far more than that of the other two pre-pros.

BTW -- in case you would like to keep an analog passthrough as in your MX120, you cannot do so with the MX150 -- it handles ALL audio in the digital domain -- no issue for me but could be for others.

Good luck,

MikeSp

MikeSp

07-31-11, 07:32 PM

I have an Oppo 83SE NuForce and I am connecting to the MX120 via analog.. Is there anything I would lose in sounds by going to the MX150 compared to the above configuration?

I previously used an Oppo 83SE and MX134 and the only two real things of value that I gained with the MX150 was LED/fiber optic illumination (my MX134 needed new bulbs) AND Lyngdorf Room Correction and that was really significant.

MikeSp

wildmda

07-31-11, 07:43 PM

MikeSp

07-31-11, 08:22 PM

Mike,

Would a person really hear a difference with analog passthru that I have with the Oppo 83Se and MX120 vs the analog to digital of the MX150?

Sounds like the main difference in my setup to the MX150 would be the room correction. Mike (or others) do you agree? If so, it sounds like you are saying the room correction is incredible and by itself is worth the upgrade price..correct?

I have tried BOTH the 7.1 analog from my BDP83SE as well as HDMI inputs on my MX150 and using Room Correction for both, could not distinguish the difference in audio quality -- BUT I do not have golden ears -- a very discerning listener might distinguish the difference. For me, since the MX150 handles everythiing in the digital domain, I prefer to keep it that way using HDMI -- that would be one less conversion. It would seem reasonable to me that the fewer the number of conversions should yield better audio quality IMHO even if I cannot hear it:D . [ D-->A instead of D-->A in the Oppo and A-->D then D-->A in the MX150] 1 conversion vs. 3??

MikeSp

wildmda

07-31-11, 09:45 PM

Makes sense Mike. Appreciate it.

wildmda

07-31-11, 11:44 PM

MikeSp

08-01-11, 09:42 AM

Just one more clarifying question..

Are you saying that connecting and Oppo via analog to the MX120 would yield virtually the same sound as and Oppo to HDMI to an MX150 (excluding the room correction)?

If so, this would basically make the room correction the deciding factor in upgrading from the MX120 to the MX150...is that the way to look at the decision? And if so, what I am understanding is that room correction is worth the upgrade cost..?

thanks for the help

Without any golden ears to distinguish enough difference to matter -- that is what I was meaning. The Oppo does an oustanding job at decoding lossless audio and using the high quality DACs in the OppoSE or Oppo 95 for 7.1 should work great. Again, my only concern with that is the number of conversions of digital vs. analog = 1 for HDMI and 3 for using the analog out and I cannot help but think that would have an effect on the audio quality -- but I never gave it a thorough testing and as I stated, no golden ears here to hear...

Mike

scanido

08-12-11, 02:54 PM

victor53

08-19-11, 08:12 PM

That would be primarily comparing the DACs between the two processors, and from what i read the MX150 have excellent DACs!

I had the MX-120. A the time of manufacture it had the best Burr Brown dacs money could buy. I loved the two channel audio produced from this processor!
I had my Pio BDP-09 hooked up for home theater analog out to the external inputs of the MX-120. I was very pleased with the sound. I also loved the loudness feature of the MX-120 processor.

That being said the MX-150 is a really outstanding piece of audio equipment. The MX-150 has a infinite number of possibilities for setting up your systems speakers, subs, crossovers etc. There really is no comparison in that regard to the MX-120.
As you know there is usually a workaround for different set-up issues.

My only (and it is small) gripe about the MX-150 is that it does not have a loudness feature. Some would not even consider this an issue, but I really liked what this feature did to the dynamics of my music. I am hoping that they will address this with a firmware upgrade in the future. I am not holding my breath though.

Once again I have a work-around (almost) for this. I have created a voicing set that has a frequency responce curve that is close to a Munson loudness curve. The only issue with this is it does not move in concert with the volume control.

After all that I can say with pleasure that I love my MX-150. I wish you all the best and hope this info helps you with your decision.