MiniDSP NanoAVR HDMI Audio Processor at CES 2014 - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-05-2014, 07:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jpmst3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Davidsville, PA
Posts: 8,262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trepidati0n View Post

I think now that you got it dialed in you need to switch back to your old player about 6 months from now. That is when you can tell if it was placebo or not. Be hard to do double blind...but it will indicate something even doing it yourself.

Perhaps. I did some A/B testing by default when I was first troubleshooting things and there was no difference whatsoever. If I had to give up a piece of gear, I would not hesitate for a second to offer up the Oppo and go back to my former player.

______________________________________________
Joe = LFE Addict
Joe's LOWARHORN build
Dual LMS-5400 Ultra Endtables build
jpmst3 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-05-2014, 11:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,776
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 397 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martycool007 View Post

I was told, by Oppo, that the only models that they recommend straight into an amp are the BDP-105 and the BDP-95. They said that,for what ever reason, the BDP-103 or BDP-93 would not be a good fit for this application.

Do you think that I could make this work with a BDP103 or BDP-93? I have been looking for a good price on some used Oppo's but they cost 80%+ of the new value on the used market, and most of the time they are 90%+ on the used market! I may be interested in using the BDP-103 or BDP-93 in a straight to amp setup with the nanoAVR in the chain.

Also, are you saying that the BDP-103 has a better analog output stage than the BDP-105? I could not tell in your post which model you were referring too?

How would the connections work if I were to go with a BDP-103 or BDP-93 connected straight into the amps and also using the nanoAVR?

I'd ask Oppo to elaborate on why they said that. They're very responsive.

Brainfade on my part, I was thinking HDMI, but I don't know how you'll get that into an amp.

Noah
noah katz is offline  
Old 02-05-2014, 01:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,494
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martycool007 View Post


1.  I was told, by Oppo, that the only models that they recommend straight into an amp are the BDP-105 and the BDP-95. They said that,for what ever reason, the BDP-103 or BDP-93 would not be a good fit for this application.

2.  Do you think that I could make this work with a BDP103 or BDP-93? I have been looking for a good price on some used Oppo's but they cost 80%+ of the new value on the used market, and most of the time they are 90%+ on the used market! I may be interested in using the BDP-103 or BDP-93 in a straight to amp setup with the nanoAVR in the chain.

3.  Also, are you saying that the BDP-103 has a better analog output stage than the BDP-105? I could not tell in your post which model you were referring too?

4.  How would the connections work if I were to go with a BDP-103 or BDP-93 connected straight into the amps and also using the nanoAVR?

1.  The only reason is that the 95/105 have superior DACs, volume controls and analog outputs compared to the 93/103 but they're outputs are, otherwise, functionally equivalent.

2.  Yes, they will work.  However, you cannot use a nanoAVR with the analog outputs.  nanAVR requires HDMI.

3.  Dunno what he said but the 105 outputs are superior.

4.  Again.  nanoAVR is HDMI only.  So, Oppo-to-nanoAVR-to-AVR via HDMI.  However, if you insist on using the analog outputs because your amps are just power amps, your setup would have to be Oppo-to-miniDSP 10z10hd-to-amps.  See: http://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-64

Scott Simonian likes this.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is offline  
Old 02-05-2014, 02:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Troyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dallas,TX
Posts: 217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
If I have multiple subs in my setup. I won't be able to eq the subs individually with the nanoAVR, right?
Troyd is offline  
Old 02-05-2014, 02:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Trepidati0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,127
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyd View Post

If I have multiple subs in my setup. I won't be able to eq the subs individually with the nanoAVR, right?

Nope. But, that wasn't the point of it. You are modifying/filtering known and defined audio channels. There is no such thing as X.2 or x.3..or X.4. There is X.1. That is all that "really" exists. Just because an AVR says 7.2...it is really 7.1 with two sub outputs which are mirrored in nearly every single case. Now, if you have multiple subs..that is where something like a miniDSP comes in handy.

I must be guilty because people say I am guilty because they chose to call me guilty because they refuse to see the truth. Much easier to be part of the mob..
Trepidati0n is offline  
Old 02-05-2014, 02:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Troyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dallas,TX
Posts: 217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
yeah, that's what I thought.. Just making sure. smile.gif
Troyd is offline  
Old 03-17-2014, 04:26 AM
Newbie
 
jakenz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So here's a slightly leftfield idea. If your goal was to keep using the Oppo 105's high quality dacs (ie analogue outs direct to amps) AND use the nanoAVR's equalisation /customisable crossovers while having only the one DA conversion (and no A-D) in the entire signal path you could do it like so:

Blu-ray player X > hdmi out > NanoAVR > hdmi out > oppo 105 hdmi in > oppo DAC's analogue line outs > amps

Unsure how dependent the 105's video and sound quality would be on that of the source BD player but on the video side at least by all accounts it does a great job of cleaning up lower qualiy inputs. If you were lucky the 105 would be similarly source agnostic on the audio front also so perhaps a modest but solid ~$100 BDP would suffice as the X 'server'.

The alternative would of course be to substitute a HT/music server PC & equalisation/x-over software for the BDP X & nanoAVR.
jakenz is offline  
Old 04-13-2014, 01:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 674
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 215
I've been looking into the nanoAVR and I've concluded that unless the documentation and the app notes are completely wrong, the bass management is flawed. The bass management app note is here. Also, a block diagram of the system is shown in the plugin documentation in this PDF file.

The bass management app note shows a block diagram of a correctly implemented configuration as found in most AVRs, in which each full-range channel has a high-pass and low-pass filter, and the low-pass filter outputs sum with the low-pass filtered LFE to form the subwoofer output. But the block diagram in the plugin documentation shows a full matrix mixer at the input, and the filters are all applied after summation instead of before as they should. At first I thought this was just an oversimplification of the system, since the actual block diagram of a correctly implemented system needs to be a lot messier than what is shown. Then I started reading in Section 3 of the bass management app note, where it says the following:
Quote:
Typically, the crossover frequency for bass management is 80 Hz. It's not recommended that you reduce it below this frequency as that could potentially remove some of your LFE content.

Anyone who says something like that either doesn't know what they're talking about, or they may be correctly describing an incorrect implementation, or both. Thinking that it's unlikely they botched it this badly, I read through the description of setting up the crossovers. They first talk about setting up the so-called "subwoofer crossover". This is just a low-pass filter. Then they talk about setting the so-called "crossover" of the full-range channels. Note in the figure that the "crossover" is only a high-pass filter, with the low-pass disabled. Apparently, it's not a crossover at all, but a cascade of low- and high-pass filters (single-input, single-output).

So it appears what's going on is that to set it up correctly, the crossover frequencies of all full-range channels must be the same*, and the same as the LPF of LFE. I consider that to be a huge screwup. Of course, it's possible that the documentation is completely wrong too. Given the rest of miniDSP's documentation, that wouldn't surprise me either.

*with the exception that you could deliberately make the cutoff frequency of the mains high-pass filter different from that of the sub's low-pass filter, but that's a pretty dumb thing to do unless it's a minute adjustment.
andyc56 is offline  
Old 04-13-2014, 02:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,494
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 142

I suspect you are right because, as the flowchart shows, the HPF/LPF are applied after the routing matrix to each output channel. Theoretically, the LFE has only frequencies below 120Hz but, obviously, subjecting the LFE to the same 80Hz LPF as the rerouted main channel bass could potentially remove some useful signals and lower cutoff would do more of it.  

 

There is the same constraint in their 10x10 plug-in.


Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is offline  
Old 04-13-2014, 04:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 674
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 215
At least with the 10x10 one has the option of putting it downstream of the AVR. If one uses the AVR's bass management with the nanoAVR EQ in the path, that's putting EQ ahead of bass management, which is an error. So then one is either stuck with the faulty nanoAVR bass management, or doing it in the player, which of course has its own problems.
andyc56 is offline  
Old 04-14-2014, 06:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Martycool007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 280 Post(s)
Liked: 172
So what exactly does the nanoAVR have to offer someone who already has a very capable receiver with say...XT32 or just XT?

From what I can tell; this unit is just a room correction devise with possibly crappy bass management?
Martycool007 is offline  
Old 04-14-2014, 07:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,494
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martycool007 View Post

So what exactly does the nanoAVR have to offer someone who already has a very capable receiver with say...XT32 or just XT?

From what I can tell; this unit is just a room correction devise with possibly crappy bass management?

It offers a much more tweakable and customizable EQ.  Some other things, too.  Review in preparation now.


Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is offline  
Old 04-14-2014, 03:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
MKtheater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Hartford, NY
Posts: 14,782
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 376 Post(s)
Liked: 521
It looks like they built this thing for me! I have no Bass EQ(I use a Bassis for lower extension) and also use PCM from my PS3 so all HDMI. So basically this will send a EQ'd PCM to my AVR. Looks like I will order.

AVR-Yamaha A830
amps-5 Adcom 555 in 850 watt monoblock mode
sub amp-Sanway FP14K
LCR-Dual stacked BFM DR-250's
Surrounds- Dual stacked BFM W10's
subs-12 SI 18's ported 6hz.
MKtheater is offline  
Old 04-15-2014, 04:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 19,348
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2286 Post(s)
Liked: 2144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martycool007 View Post

So what exactly does the nanoAVR have to offer someone who already has a very capable receiver with say...XT32 or just XT?

From what I can tell; this unit is just a room correction devise with possibly crappy bass management?

It offers a much more tweakable and customizable EQ.  Some other things, too.  Review in preparation now.

 

One of the main things that seems to be against the nanoAVR is where it sits in the chain. Coming prior to the processor means that it will have applied EQ before any DSP gets hold of the signal. Given that DSPs such as PLii make their decisions on how to route their information based on the incoming signal content, changing this prior to the DSP could mean that the DSP is now working on unexpected data which in itself could mean that the DSP fails to work as expected or intended. This may not matter to some, who never use a DSP, but it will perhaps matter to anyone who, for example, upmixes 2.0 content to 5.1.

 

I wonder if you will be able to take a look at this in your review, Kal? While definitely the case, it may be that the practical impact is not too significant. In the absence of this knowledge, I wouldn’t want to insert EQ into the chain between the source and the processor for the reasons given, but if my fears were unfounded in a practical sense, then the unit may well be worthy of consideration. It seems to be well-featured and easy enough to use.

kbarnes701 is online now  
Old 04-15-2014, 08:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,494
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
 

 

One of the main things that seems to be against the nanoAVR is where it sits in the chain. Coming prior to the processor means that it will have applied EQ before any DSP gets hold of the signal. Given that DSPs such as PLii make their decisions on how to route their information based on the incoming signal content, changing this prior to the DSP could mean that the DSP is now working on unexpected data which in itself could mean that the DSP fails to work as expected or intended. This may not matter to some, who never use a DSP, but it will perhaps matter to anyone who, for example, upmixes 2.0 content to 5.1.

 

I wonder if you will be able to take a look at this in your review, Kal? While definitely the case, it may be that the practical impact is not too significant. In the absence of this knowledge, I wouldn’t want to insert EQ into the chain between the source and the processor for the reasons given, but if my fears were unfounded in a practical sense, then the unit may well be worthy of consideration. It seems to be well-featured and easy enough to use.

I will give it a try.  Such post-processing is not usually on my agenda because I do not generally use any.


Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is offline  
Old 04-15-2014, 08:08 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 19,348
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2286 Post(s)
Liked: 2144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
 

 

One of the main things that seems to be against the nanoAVR is where it sits in the chain. Coming prior to the processor means that it will have applied EQ before any DSP gets hold of the signal. Given that DSPs such as PLii make their decisions on how to route their information based on the incoming signal content, changing this prior to the DSP could mean that the DSP is now working on unexpected data which in itself could mean that the DSP fails to work as expected or intended. This may not matter to some, who never use a DSP, but it will perhaps matter to anyone who, for example, upmixes 2.0 content to 5.1.

 

I wonder if you will be able to take a look at this in your review, Kal? While definitely the case, it may be that the practical impact is not too significant. In the absence of this knowledge, I wouldn’t want to insert EQ into the chain between the source and the processor for the reasons given, but if my fears were unfounded in a practical sense, then the unit may well be worthy of consideration. It seems to be well-featured and easy enough to use.

I will give it a try.  Such post-processing is not usually on my agenda because I do not generally use any.


Thanks Kal. Appreciated,

kbarnes701 is online now  
Old 04-16-2014, 10:21 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
MKtheater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Hartford, NY
Posts: 14,782
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 376 Post(s)
Liked: 521
I am about to pull the trigger on this as I see this as the only option for total EQ for AVR users. Besides Audyssey what other options are there for EQing on the fly every speaker without using separate amps? The sherbourn 8100 and Ada Cinema Rapture are the only Two AVR's I know of that could but they have to be put in manually.

AVR-Yamaha A830
amps-5 Adcom 555 in 850 watt monoblock mode
sub amp-Sanway FP14K
LCR-Dual stacked BFM DR-250's
Surrounds- Dual stacked BFM W10's
subs-12 SI 18's ported 6hz.
MKtheater is offline  
Old 07-29-2014, 11:42 PM
Newbie
 
minidsp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
At least with the 10x10 one has the option of putting it downstream of the AVR. If one uses the AVR's bass management with the nanoAVR EQ in the path, that's putting EQ ahead of bass management, which is an error. So then one is either stuck with the faulty nanoAVR bass management, or doing it in the player, which of course has its own problems.
Andy,

Thanks for the feedback, we're always happy to see how we can improve products. :-)
FYI that a new app note now describes the updated bass management DSP structure + GUI for plug-in which was just released. Here is the link:
http://www.minidsp.com/applications/...ass-management

Hoping it makes sense.

Tony
minidsp is offline  
Old 07-30-2014, 04:28 AM
Senior Member
 
MX48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Metter
Posts: 431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 33
I've asked this before but have not gotten and answer yet.
Can the NanoAVR be used with a Dish Network receiver?


Thanks,
Moto
MX48 is offline  
Old 07-30-2014, 06:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 674
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by minidsp View Post
Andy,

Thanks for the feedback, we're always happy to see how we can improve products. :-)
FYI that a new app note now describes the updated bass management DSP structure + GUI for plug-in which was just released. Here is the link:
http://www.minidsp.com/applications/...ass-management

Hoping it makes sense.

Tony
That's a great improvement Tony. Good work by the team!
andyc56 is offline  
Old 07-30-2014, 07:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
MKtheater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Hartford, NY
Posts: 14,782
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 376 Post(s)
Liked: 521
Mine works great! I sometimes need to plug in and unplug HDMI on my computer to correct the handshake issues.
MKtheater is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 10:57 PM
Newbie
 
minidsp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
That's a great improvement Tony. Good work by the team!
Thanks Andy, glad that you like it. :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post
Mine works great! I sometimes need to plug in and unplug HDMI on my computer to correct the handshake issues.
Glad it works great but would love it even better if you don't have some handshake issues. :-) Feel free to contact our tech support team about this to see if the custom HDMI app we've designed can help. HDMI isn't as plug&play as the PR make it look as you all know. Different manufacturer, different firmware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MX48 View Post
I've asked this before but have not gotten and answer yet.
Can the NanoAVR be used with a Dish Network receiver?
Thanks,
Moto
Good question but unfortunately we don't have a DishNetwork receiver in HK and google doesn't seem to help since too many models.. :-( The basic question you must answer looking at menus/configuration of that box (or any unit actually) is if the device can handle multichannel PCM out. If it only handles bitstream (i.e. encoded dolby format), it won't work with a nanoAVR knowing we don't have a dolby/dts decoder. Simple?

Note that there is an official thread here.. Not sure if a mod wants to move all comments there from now on?
minidsp is offline  
Old 09-02-2014, 10:09 AM
Member
 
DefRay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi everyone,

as a user of the 2x4 for bass management (actually between my AVR pre-out and main in->amps) I puzzled why some of you think the nano cannot do bass management?
Yes it only has one input (.1) for the LFE and the bass from the other channels and possibly only one high-pass frequency for all speakers, but I can still take that one bass input and output it to, say, 4 subwoofers using different filters/romm corrections individually.

Here's my current situation:
I currently have a setup of 2 fronts, 2 rears and 2 subs for home cinema, using a phantom center as that works very well for my listening position.
The two subs are already custom made and individually controlled (for room correction) via a miniDSP 2x4.

Now, as I plan to also custom-make the other speakers, with the nanoAVR I could do the following:
Split the 2 front input channels into 4 channels, actively crossed over (dedicated tweeter and woofer) for fully active 2way front speakers.
Use the regular 2 channels for rear speakers with passive crossovers.
Use the bass input for two, individually controlled subs or one combined sub output and a center with passive crossover.

This will give me excellent, active front speakers (mainly for music listening) and still the whole home cinema setup I had before while also offering the possibility of full Dirac Live room correction (or a manual one via REW measurements and the filters/PEQ for each channel).
Plus I can use my existing AVR's 7 amps to drive everything (or probably use one or two additional mono blocks for the subs).

You could also use the nanoAVR to fully activate three- or even four-way speakers in a stereo setup, etc. though you'd be more flexible with a 4x10 or 10x10 int hat case...
I find all those possibilities really exiting for a 300$ unit, don't you guys?

The only downside I can think of right now is that the AVR is after the nanoAVR, thus the latter has to be used for source selection (only 2 HDMI inputs, no analogue sources) and the AVR is basically reduced to a DAC+multi channel amp.
Also you could easily fry your individually driven tweeters if you're not careful during the setup or switch the AVR outputs accidently.
But other than that above applications might be possible, right?
DefRay is offline  
Old 09-02-2014, 01:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,494
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by DefRay View Post
Hi everyone,

as a user of the 2x4 for bass management (actually between my AVR pre-out and main in->amps) I puzzled why some of you think the nano cannot do bass management?
Yes it only has one input (.1) for the LFE and the bass from the other channels and possibly only one high-pass frequency for all speakers, but I can still take that one bass input and output it to, say, 4 subwoofers using different filters/romm corrections individually.
No one said it cannot do it. What was said was that the original firmware put the bass management after the EQ and that is a no-no. The new firmware puts BM before the EQ where it belongs.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is offline  
Old 09-02-2014, 01:51 PM
Member
 
DefRay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ah, sorry, I thought it was meant as a general limitation of the nanoAVR.
But using individual crossover for every channel's bass is still not possible if the EQ section is after the mixing, right?

Would my plan to use the nano as both a means to activate front speakers and set up the channels for home cinema work with an regular AVR (I have the Pioneer VSX-2020)?
If I just use the AVR for DAC+amping and pass through the HDMI signal to all channels I guess it should work?
DefRay is offline  
 

Tags
Ces 2014
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off