Best Surround Processor Currently Available? - Page 13 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Best Multi-Channel processor currently on the market?
Classe SSP800 26 10.20%
Bryton SP3 23 9.02%
ADA Mach IV 4 1.57%
ADA Mach IV+Trinnov 28 10.98%
Datasat RS20i 50 19.61%
Theta CB3 HDMI + Extreme Dacs 34 13.33%
Krell Evolution 707 14 5.49%
Mcintosh MX151 25 9.80%
JBL Synthesis with SDEC 4500 18 7.06%
Other (comment on your answer) 35 13.73%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 255. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 3Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 851 Old 07-19-2013, 10:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 505 Post(s)
Liked: 276
There is no case that can be made against all EQ. Only against bad EQ.

Roger

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Roger Dressler is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 851 Old 07-19-2013, 10:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
djnickuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 791
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 37
I have heard Genesis Techs full 15.4 pro audio tech speakers and amps with and with out full Dirac room correction.

It sounds quite a bit better with Dirac engaged! Much tighter and more cohesive.
djnickuk is online now  
post #363 of 851 Old 07-19-2013, 11:05 AM
Advanced Member
 
thezaks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Laveen, AZ
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

There is no case that can be made against all EQ. Only against bad EQ.

I pretty much agree - especially since I have limited experience with EQ. So far, if I had to state any case that can be made against all EQ, it would be that there seems to be some degree of reduction in transparency - probably since something else is being added to the signal path. Of course, again, limited experience comes into play, so I cannot and would not make that broad statement. And, even if true, it's possible that folks would accept the reduction in transparency in exchange for the benefits of EQ. For me, it's not a closed book, and I would love to get the McIntosh to try some day - especially since Tony and thrang have found favor with it (and especially considering all the processors they have been through!)

Dave

FOR SALE: Wireworld Platinum 6 1M HDMI Cable. Originally $1000, selling for $500 obo. Please PM me, if interested.
thezaks is offline  
post #364 of 851 Old 07-19-2013, 11:58 AM
Advanced Member
 
Brucemck2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

There is no case that can be made against all EQ. Only against bad EQ.

smile.gifsmile.gif Absolutely. Good EQ improves "transparency", "imaging", "dynamics", you name it. smile.gifsmile.gif
Brucemck2 is offline  
post #365 of 851 Old 07-19-2013, 12:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,500
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1116 Post(s)
Liked: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cayman S View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Indeed, in Sean Olive's blind comparison of various room correction technologies a few years back, Lyngdorf was one of the only to score better than no room correction. I often cite their research papers on finding target curves that sound natural to listeners.

I received a link from James Tanner a couple days ago. It has a video on room correction that I (being a newbie at this) found very interesting and I wanted to ask ya'll what you thought of what was presented in the video. I must warn you it's a bit long...it's 1:09:07. eek.gif Yikes! Here's the link: The Science of the Room Scott Wilkinson chats with Paul Hales of Professional Home Cinema about the science behind optimizing audio for a room.
Entire thread dedicated to discussing that video:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1478854/the-science-of-the-room-with-paul-hales

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #366 of 851 Old 07-19-2013, 01:05 PM
Member
 
Cayman S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Entire thread dedicated to discussing that video:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1478854/the-science-of-the-room-with-paul-hales

sdurani, thank you for the link. And thank you to everyone for your input on this. I'm learning a great deal from your experience. Thank you very much. smile.gif
Cayman S is offline  
post #367 of 851 Old 07-20-2013, 04:58 AM
Senior Member
 
dminches's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ
Posts: 457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

And that's fine, since folks are absolutely entitled to their own subjective experiences. Indeed, those fortunate enough to have anechoically flat on-axis speakers with good off-axis performance and who enjoy acoustically ideal rooms may well find no correction to be preferable. The latter, at least, probably represent a very small percentage of the population. The vast majority who live in real-world, acoustically challenged rooms are those who will best benefit from RC.

What surprises me is the sudden proliferation of folks using blurbs from Messrs. Hales and Tanner to assert that room correction is fatally flawed, in general.

I am assuming you watched the whole video. If so, I am surprised that this is what you have concluded from Hales' comments. What I got from them was that room correction is very important but some current techniques are flawed. Our takes are very different.

David M.
dminches is offline  
post #368 of 851 Old 07-20-2013, 04:59 AM
Senior Member
 
dminches's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ
Posts: 457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

There is no case that can be made against all EQ. Only against bad EQ.
Exactly. I think that was one of Hales' points.

David M.
dminches is offline  
post #369 of 851 Old 07-20-2013, 06:10 AM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California Republic
Posts: 2,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by dminches View Post

I am assuming you watched the whole video. If so, I am surprised that this is what you have concluded from Hales' comments. What I got from them was that room correction is very important but some current techniques are flawed. Our takes are very different.
If you parse my last sentence, I'm commenting not on the podcast, itself, but on the myriad posts recently in response to it, as well as to similarly critical remarks from Bryston owner James Tanner.

Yes, I watched the entire podcast, as well as Hales' earlier interview with CEPro.
RUR is offline  
post #370 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 02:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jima4a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by thezaks View Post

I'm a real person, and my preference thus far has always been "no correction", even though I have zero acoustical treatments. Keeping in mind though that the only correction I've experienced thus far is (up to) Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (in various processors and forms) and Arcam's room correction. I would like to hear McIntosh's correction and others, and it's very possible that I would like those better than "no correction". If that ends up being the case, then "subjectively" for "me", some corrections are not to my taste and other(s) sound right to me. For me, no matter how good the objective data looks, it still may not be my preference.


Dave
I would concur, even though I utilize digital sources, I have never liked excessive digital processing and I put Audyssey in that category. I do however let the Velodyne EQ itself. I have been impressed by the SP3 but now would love to hear the MX-151 and it's Room Perfect.

Main Kef: Reference 205/2 & 202/2c, Surrounds: Kef XQ40, Velodyne Optimum 12, Integra DHC 80.3, Oppo BDP-103, Bryston 4Bsst2, Parasound Halo A31. Second B&W: 685 (3), CCM618, Def Tech Powerfield 1500, Onkyo TX-NR1008, DBP 2010, Samsung BD-C7900, Zone 2 Klipsch AW650. Sitting still CCM616, Kef...
jima4a is online now  
post #371 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 06:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by jima4a View Post

I would concur, even though I utilize digital sources, I have never liked excessive digital processing and I put Audyssey in that category. I do however let the Velodyne EQ itself. I have been impressed by the SP3 but now would love to hear the MX-151 and it's Room Perfect.

Many months after installing the 151, I am still genuinely thrilled with its performance, especially when I play back a movie for the first time on it. The 151's core sonics and the implementation of Room Perfect is just incredible. And the way Room Perfects works, disconnecting the room calibration from the target curves, gives you tremendous flexibility to switch between different sonic characteristics instantly, to tailor the final output based on source/mix. More on this and the ability to create your own custom curves in the MX-151 Owners Thread....


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
thrang is offline  
post #372 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 07:06 AM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California Republic
Posts: 2,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

....disconnecting the room calibration from the target curves, gives you tremendous flexibility to switch between different sonic characteristics instantly, to tailor the final output based on source/mix....
One of the best characteristics of SoTA pre-pros, this ability is shared with Trinnov and Dirac. Trinnov has 29 presets, dunno about Dirac.
RUR is offline  
post #373 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 07:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

One of the best characteristics of SoTA pre-pros, this ability is shared with Trinnov and Dirac. Trinnov has 29 presets, dunno about Dirac.

There are 6 (plus Neutral) available at a time, though you can load multiple sets into the 151 and switch between them in a few moments. For now, I have a movie set and a music set.

As noted earlier in this thread, addino and I tried to get impressed with Datasat and ADA, but that never happened. Especially at the price point for the Datasat.

I think we still chalk it up more to bad demo room and poor product knowledge more than anything else, but the price/performance of the 151 make it an uncovered gem. The Datasat probably makes more sense in larger theaters that are thinking more channels of output. I went as far as 11 channels, but without discrete mixes, I ultimately prefer 5.x/7.x, and there was no reason for me to invest in the delta for future expansion potential, even if I got past the fact I was never blown away by the two Datasat demos we sat through.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
thrang is offline  
post #374 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 08:24 AM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California Republic
Posts: 2,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 69
IMHO, the challenge with any of these SoTA pre-pros is proper setup. Unless one has a truly knowledgeable dealer to handle this, or is willing to invest the time to learn and properly implement all of the many, many features, the result could easily sound unsatisfactory.

I've heard a friend's dealer-installed MEN 220 and it sounded terrific in a challenging room. He's since moved up to an MX-151 and, though I've yet to hear it, I'd be surprised if it wasn't equally terrific.
RUR is offline  
post #375 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 09:57 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
adidino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

And the way Room Perfects works, disconnecting the room calibration from the target curves, gives you tremendous flexibility to switch between different sonic characteristics instantly, to tailor the final output based on source/mix. More on this and the ability to create your own custom curves in the MX-151 Owners Thread....

Another example of this is I engaged the SDEC/JBL curve Roger uploaded for Star Wars New Hope on Bluray. This seemed to be the perfect target curve for this movie. I felt like a kid again and watched this movie as if it was the first time. My brother was visiting from out of town and was blown away. The ability to create custom target curves and engage them on the fly (6 plus neutral) really raised the bar for this processor. I couldn't be happier.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Owner, AudioXtream.
Authorized Dealer for Kef, Triad, Bryston, Auralic, Audeze, Grado, Audioquest, Marantz
adidino is offline  
post #376 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 10:01 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
adidino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

IMHO, the challenge with any of these SoTA pre-pros is proper setup. Unless one has a truly knowledgeable dealer to handle this, or is willing to invest the time to learn and properly implement all of the many, many features, the result could easily sound unsatisfactory.

I've heard a friend's dealer-installed MEN 220 and it sounded terrific in a challenging room. He's since moved up to an MX-151 and, though I've yet to hear it, I'd be surprised if it wasn't equally terrific.

I agree 100%

When you get around to hearing it, I'm sure you will be impressed. Especially since you have some experience with the MEN220 and know what it's capable of.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Owner, AudioXtream.
Authorized Dealer for Kef, Triad, Bryston, Auralic, Audeze, Grado, Audioquest, Marantz
adidino is offline  
post #377 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 10:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
edorr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by adidino View Post

I agree 100%

When you get around to hearing it, I'm sure you will be impressed. Especially since you have some experience with the MEN220 and know what it's capable of.

What surprises me about the MEN 220 is it has no digital inputs. I can't imagine too many people would be interested in doing A/D/A conversion for their 2 channel digital sources. With a few digital inputs and a volume control, this box would be a digital preamp with DRC. Throw in DLNA streaming and you have the functional equivalent of the Trinnov Amethyst (whatever happened to that? Shipping yet?). A lot more commercial potential in my estimation. Thankfully I don't run an high-end audio company though - so easy for me to MM QB McIntosh.
edorr is offline  
post #378 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 10:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post

What surprises me about the MEN 220 is it has no digital inputs. I can't imagine too many people would be interested in doing A/D/A conversion for their 2 channel digital sources. With a few digital inputs and a volume control, this box would be a digital preamp with DRC. Throw in DLNA streaming and you have the functional equivalent of the Trinnov Amethyst (whatever happened to that? Shipping yet?). A lot more commercial potential in my estimation. Thankfully I don't run an high-end audio company though - so easy for me to MM QB McIntosh.

Eh, I am doing a/d/a from the D100 to the MX 151 for two channel ( to take advantage of Room Perfect) and it sounds awesome. Perhaps it could sound better without the additional conversion, but the with the level of detail, spaciousness, and natural effortlessness I'm already hearing, it seems it would be a subtle improvement at best.

Perhaps adding a D100-like DAC to the next version of the 151 would be easiest for an all-in-one solution


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
thrang is offline  
post #379 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 10:55 AM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California Republic
Posts: 2,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post

Throw in DLNA streaming and you have the functional equivalent of the Trinnov Amethyst (whatever happened to that? Shipping yet?).
Released and apparently selling well.
RUR is offline  
post #380 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 10:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
edorr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

Eh, I am doing a/d/a from the D100 to the MX 151 for two channel ( to take advantage of Room Perfect) and it sounds awesome. Perhaps it could sound better without the additional conversion, but the with the level of detail, spaciousness, and natural effortlessness I'm already hearing, it seems it would be a subtle improvement at best.

Perhaps adding a D100-like DAC to the next version of the 151 would be easiest for an all-in-one solution

I went from running my Marantz ud9004 A/D/A into a Trinnov to all digital in though modded Oppo and as good as the A/D/A was, the digital direct route is a lot better. Others have reported similar improvements.

Now, for MCH there is obviously a constraints in being able to do this (unless you use HDMI). However, for 2 channel a digital input should be extremely cheap and simple to implement, so I just don't understand why this is not a standard feature on the MEN 220.

You could of course try to implement everything in the SSP, but the MEN 220 is catering to the 2 channel audience, and they would obviously be very reluctant to buy a SSP for a 2 channel application (or rather 4 processing channels, if you consider the Xover).

The solution would be to have digi in on the MEN-220, and better still to have digi out as well, so you can hook up an audiophile DAC to it.
edorr is offline  
post #381 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 11:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post

I went from running my Marantz ud9004 A/D/A into a Trinnov to all digital in though modded Oppo and as good as the A/D/A was, the digital direct route is a lot better. Others have reported similar improvements.

Now, for MCH there is obviously a constraints in being able to do this (unless you use HDMI). However, for 2 channel a digital input should be extremely cheap and simple to implement, so I just don't understand why this is not a standard feature on the MEN 220.

You could of course try to implement everything in the SSP, but the MEN 220 is catering to the 2 channel audience, and they would obviously be very reluctant to buy a SSP for a 2 channel application (or rather 4 processing channels, if you consider the Xover).

The solution would be to have digi in on the MEN-220, and better still to have digi out as well, so you can hook up an audiophile DAC to it.

The reverse challenge is a 151 owner is not likely to buy a MEN just for 2 channel, not only for the cost and complexity, but to try and figure out how to integrate subs into that environment. So if anything, I'd like to see the D100 DAC integrated into the (future) 151 so I can remove one box from my setup, and that would remove one a/d stage if it does matter


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
thrang is offline  
post #382 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 12:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
edorr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

The reverse challenge is a 151 owner is not likely to buy a MEN just for 2 channel, not only for the cost and complexity, but to try and figure out how to integrate subs into that environment. So if anything, I'd like to see the D100 DAC integrated into the (future) 151 so I can remove one box from my setup, and that would remove one a/d stage if it does matter

It would make little sense to integrate one high grade DAC into a SSP for the mains only to cater to the needs of folks like you that want to integrate an audiophile 2 channel system with a very good surround system - which I assume is what you have in mind. The best way to do it is to provide a digital output on the SSP, so you can integrate with your DAC of choice. This is what Theta is doing with the digi out card. To be able to do synched up volume control on all channels in MCH mode, the SSP would have to have a digital volume control that is applied to the outboard DAC. This is how the Trinnov MC and ST2 work.
edorr is offline  
post #383 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 01:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post

It would make little sense to integrate one high grade DAC into a SSP for the mains only to cater to the needs of folks like you that want to integrate an audiophile 2 channel system with a very good surround system - which I assume is what you have in mind. The best way to do it is to provide a digital output on the SSP, so you can integrate with your DAC of choice. This is what Theta is doing with the digi out card. To be able to do synched up volume control on all channels in MCH mode, the SSP would have to have a digital volume control that is applied to the outboard DAC. This is how the Trinnov MC and ST2 work.

Sorry , you've lost me a bit here...I don't input my 2 channel directly into the 151 - I input into a D100, which then is connected analog into the 151, converted to digital for xover's and RP, and then out the amps.

What would digital out from the SSP give me?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
thrang is offline  
post #384 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 01:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
edorr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

Sorry , you've lost me a bit here...I don't input my 2 channel directly into the 151 - I input into a D100, which then is connected analog into the 151, converted to digital for xover's and RP, and then out the amps.

What would digital out from the SSP give me?

It would give you a lot.

Right now, you do D/A conversion into the best DAC in the chain first. You then convert analog output of the DAC back to digital in the MX151 (if I understand correctly) and apply DRC and do D/A conversion in the MX151. You are effectively listening to the DAC and output stage of the MX151 (which is inferior to the D100).

IF the MX151 had digital out, you would connect your digital source directly your MX151, let it do all the processing in the digital domain without any D/A or A/D conversions, and then when the processing is done you would send the digital signal to your D100 for superior D/A conversion.

This is a far superior signal path, because you eliminate two D/A - A/D conversions, AND you have the best DAC + its analog output stage at the end of the chain.
edorr is offline  
post #385 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 01:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post

It would give you a lot.

Right now, you do D/A conversion into the best DAC in the chain first. You then convert analog output of the DAC back to digital in the MX151 (if I understand correctly) and apply DRC and do D/A conversion in the MX151. You are effectively listening to the DAC and output stage of the MX151 (which is inferior to the D100).

IF the MX151 had digital out, you would connect your digital source directly your MX151, let it do all the processing in the digital domain without any D/A or A/D conversions, and then when the processing is done you would send the digital signal to your D100 for superior D/A conversion.

This is a far superior signal path, because you eliminate two D/A - A/D conversions, AND you have the best DAC + its analog output stage at the end of the chain.

Well, this is a ground up change it seems, and is still only two channel in concept

I did try connecting my Mac Mini directly to the 151 via toslink, but I preferred the final sound chain going USB to the D100 and then to the MX151. I suspect there is a benefit to the async USB input design of the D100 that is beneficial to presenting a higher quality source signal output to the 151.

I can try the D100 directly to my amps using the variable output and see what's up with that...(though no RP)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
thrang is offline  
post #386 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 01:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
edorr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

Well, this is a ground up change it seems, and is still only two channel in concept

I did try connecting my Mac Mini directly to the 151 via toslink, but I preferred the final sound chain going USB to the D100 and then to the MX151. I suspect there is a benefit to the async USB input design of the D100 that is beneficial to presenting a higher quality source signal output to the 151.

I can try the D100 directly to my amps using the variable output and see what's up with that...(though no RP)

Not sure how much mileage you are getting out of your subs for 2 channel, but If you are strictly using a computer audio for 2 channel, your could also consider install Dirac Live on your Music Server and take the MX151 out of the loop completely. (You can try the Dirac trial, and if this path improves SQ enough to warrant the investment, you spend the $600).

You would avoid the D/A A/D conversions, and use the better DAC and analog output stage into your amps. However, you would need to manually change connectors on your poweramp when you switch between 2 channel (D100) and MCH (MX151) source.
edorr is offline  
post #387 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 02:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post

Not sure how much mileage you are getting out of your subs for 2 channel, but If you are strictly using a computer audio for 2 channel, your could also consider install Dirac Live on your Music Server and take the MX151 out of the loop completely. (You can try the Dirac trial, and if this path improves SQ enough to warrant the investment, you spend the $600).

You would avoid the D/A A/D conversions, and use the better DAC and analog output stage into your amps. However, you would need to manually change connectors on your poweramp when you switch between 2 channel (D100) and MCH (MX151) source.

I think you underestimate the quality of the 151 and the benefits of Room Perfect and integrating subs. Whatever negative there theoretically might be (and if even audible) it is far outweighed by the other benefits of the chain as described. I just spent some time listening to the D100 directly to my amps and there's no comparison - the D100 to the 151 with RP and subs is far superior


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
thrang is offline  
post #388 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 02:49 PM
wse
AVS Special Member
 
wse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 6,791
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 418 Post(s)
Liked: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post

Not sure how much mileage you are getting out of your subs for 2 channel, but If you are strictly using a computer audio for 2 channel, your could also consider install Dirac Live on your Music Server and take the MX151 out of the loop completely. (You can try the Dirac trial, and if this path improves SQ enough to warrant the investment, you spend the $600).

You would avoid the D/A A/D conversions, and use the better DAC and analog output stage into your amps. However, you would need to manually change connectors on your poweramp when you switch between 2 channel (D100) and MCH (MX151) source.

Have you tried DIRAC? $600 is a lot to spend just for music from the computer?

My humble Cinema
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
wse is offline  
post #389 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 02:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
edorr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

I think you underestimate the quality of the 151 and the benefits of Room Perfect and integrating subs. Whatever negative there theoretically might be (and if even audible) it is far outweighed by the other benefits of the chain as described. I just spent some time listening to the D100 directly to my amps and there's no comparison - the D100 to the 151 with RP and subs is far superior

In most rooms the benefits of DRC will far outweigh any degradation from A/D - D/A conversions - yours is apparently no exception. All I am saying is all else being equal avoiding the conversions will significantly improve SQ in most systems as well. You could do the "Dirac" experiment just for kicks, but will be quite a bit of work, and if you really need your subs for full range it is also a non starter.
edorr is offline  
post #390 of 851 Old 07-22-2013, 02:57 PM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California Republic
Posts: 2,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

I did try connecting my Mac Mini directly to the 151 via toslink, but I preferred the final sound chain going USB to the D100 and then to the MX151. I suspect there is a benefit to the async USB input design of the D100 that is beneficial to presenting a higher quality source signal output to the 151.
eek.gif This is crazy, if I may say so. Get yourself a USB to S/PDIF (and/or digital XLR - your 151 has both inputs) async converter and run that directly from Mac to MX-151. Sell the D100 and buy your wife something extravagant.
RUR is offline  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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