AVS Forum banner

Best Sound Processor

9K views 65 replies 27 participants last post by  The Bogg 
#1 ·
Krell Evolution 707 ,Meridian 861v8 , Macintosh mx 151
I just want to upgrade my sound processor to touch new heights of detailing currently i am using Marantaz 8002 if some body share any experience or knolwedge in which sound processor i do my investment which will benefit me for the long run as now a days technology is changing every year like 4k is in the market now hdmi 2 is coming plus Dolby Atmost & Auro 3d etc what to do pls advise which above sound processor is a good option for the movie watching

All i want best sound with deep details of effect

My Current setup is Fronts Focal Stella Utopia Center Viva Utopia Surround Electra 1000 Be and Rear Surround is Diablo Utopia Sub I am using JBL EON 500 Pro audio
 
#4 ·
Someone will even inject the long defunct Lexicon isn't on your list. HA!
 
#6 · (Edited)
To me an SSP is just one cog in the machine - albeit an important one. Good speakers, speaker placement, acoustical treatments, etc all do far more than any SSP. At this level, the differences are more nuanced than anything else. They're all good though the Meridian is old school. It's a debate with only sujective opinions.
 
#10 · (Edited)
To me an SSP is just one cog in the machine - albeit an important one. Good speakers, speaker placement, acoustical treatments, etc all do far more than any SSP. At this level, the differences are more nuanced than anything else. They're all good though the Meridian is old school. It's a debate with only objective opinions.
So true. Given I did a blind comparison between the $20,000+ Datasat and a $2,000 Marantz, 99% of the difference was Dirac vs Audyssey. A properly treated and calibrated room far out trumps any differences between processors.

In fact, I will go so far as to say (I have heard the following example), that I would rather have $7,000 speakers in a properly calibrated and treated room with a nominal room correction system than a $150,000 set of speakers (and in this case, about $200,000 worth of electronics) in a not-very well treated room and NO room correction). Not even close. While there were certain aspects of the very expensive system that were off the charts spectacular, the overall experience was awful. My wife was with me when we hear the expensive system and even shethought the same. And this was but one example.

Again, The Bland is spot on!!!

And by the way, if I were interested in spending that kind of money on an SSP, I would select the Datasat. 16 channels and upgradeable to more and if that's not enough, stack them; Dirac; modular; and sounds terrific.

Second on the list would be Trinnov. And once Mcintosh gets 3D audio, I would add them. Room Perfect (used by Mcntosh) is an excellent room correction product.
 
#12 ·
I wouldn't be lumping a McIntosh in with heavy hitters such as Meridian and Krell. As mentioned Datasat, Trinnov and Theta should be there, toss out the McIntosh.

If need be and you are partial to McIntosh then group it properly with Classe, Anthem, Bryston, etc.
 
#16 ·
I got the new Krell Foundation Processor/ 4K UHD upgrade and love it: it does not have all the newest audio formats but there is the possibility of an upgrade: my system is 5.1 so not an issue

just my .02 cents :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nomy
#18 · (Edited)
Today the digital performance with advanced codecs should be identical. The algorithms are licensed blocks you load into an FPGA or even use an OEM chip. No room for tweaking or secret sauce here. However the simulated surround modes is where you will find some debate. That was Lexicon's specialty too.

The fine differences are in the analog sections but even at that, all the high end brands are very good.

I would measure processor brands today by feature sets. I'm not saying they all sound the same but that's highly subjective. Some may like one units sonic signature over another.
 
#23 ·
Glimmie:

That is assuming incorrectly that all processors are receiving the same advanced codecs, this is not correct as some are receiving different/advanced codecs based on their ability to process these beyond a limited FPGA chip. The trinnov Altitude is processing up to 32 channels of Atmos, no other "consumer" processor I am aware of has the processing power to do this.
 
#19 ·
Glimmie;34251994 I would measure processor brands today by feature sets. I'm not saying they all sound the same but that's highly subjective. Some may like one units sonic signature over another.[/QUOTE said:
100 % correct. Based, however on over 20 years of evaluatng and selling room correction products, the various processors can have both measurable (objective) and audible (subjective) differences based upon which room correction product they support. The dark horse (based upon past crappy performsnce on meeting quoted delivery schedules) is Emotiva. They have "announced" a processor with 16 channels and support for all 3D audio formats - all alledgedly available at the end of the year. And running Dirac. And at a price of about $5000. The Emotiva question, based upon past performance is what year!!
 
#66 ·
I had never heard of Emotiva until a few months ago. Just bought an XMC-1 to replace my Anthem D2 because I wanted to try Dirac Live. I was planning on just getting one of the miniDSP products to try out DL but the Emotiva made sense b/c I wanted to go up to 7.1 and my original Anthem only took 5.1 in (it had 7.1 out but the extra 2 were used with prologic IIx etc...). It gave me the opportunity to try out DL without "gambling" on the purchase of a Datasat unit.


Well I must say that the XMC-1 is a great sounding unit. Very quiet (no hiss/hum even when close to drivers), decent sound which belies its modest price. But when you turn on the Dirac Live it takes the performance way beyond the Anthem with ARC, which was no slouch. I have the Trinnov ST2 and my original plan was to get the Altitude. At this point I'm not sure if I'm going to do ceiling speakers etc...., unless I move and build another theatre. The XMC-1 was meant to be something to use while I wait but I have to say I have no urge to get rid of it (and I'm a picky/fussy mofo when it comes to sound quality). It's possible that the Datasat version or the Theta version of Dirac will sound better with 24/96 processing but I haven't heard/seen either of those units. I do like what Dirac does so I've now added Datasat and Theta to the short list with the Altitude as contenders for my dollars. Assuming I ever want/need to sell the XMC-1. IMHO, it's the bargain of the century.
 
#20 ·
Krell Evolution 707 ,Meridian 861v8 , Macintosh mx 151
I just want to upgrade my sound processor to touch new heights of detailing currently i am using Marantaz 8002 if some body share any experience or knolwedge in which sound processor i do my investment which will benefit me for the long run as now a days technology is changing every year like 4k is in the market now hdmi 2 is coming plus Dolby Atmost & Auro 3d etc what to do pls advise which above sound processor is a good option for the movie watching

All i want best sound with deep details of effect

My Current setup is Fronts Focal Stella Utopia Center Viva Utopia Surround Electra 1000 Be and Rear Surround is Diablo Utopia Sub I am using JBL EON 500 Pro audio
Very few of the high end processors are designed as upgradeable platforms. The Krell isn't, the McIntosh isn't. Not sure about Meridian...maybe. Certainly Datasat RS20i, Theta Casablanca and Trinnov Altitude are all upgradeable platforms. I've not yet got hands on time with the Altitude but the RS20i and Casablanca are both exceptional, both in their own slightly different ways.
 
#21 · (Edited)
I love datasat for dirac on 16 channels and Trinnov for 32 channel 3d spatial resolution.

If you will be based on blue ray and the upcoming 4k blu-ray these are the guys to consider I guess with new Theta too.

Not trying to start a racous here but have you considered that DCI may be a better way to go for high end home with laser 4k and all....?

This processor wiped the floor with everything at CEDIA 14.Took the Gold all the way , silver medal went to Datasat and James with auro. But for sheer around your head dynamic personal space invasion multi orbit havoc....


CP-850 is the Benchmark. Maybe home atmos is a compromise and no one asked us about us willing to live with the trade-offs...

Now if you are considering a DCI laser PJ, and soon I will post a list of DCI content for home, KNOW FORE SURE dci color space on a RGB laser projector is like 80% of the Dolby cinema experience and that is not PEANUTS, so if are going to consider dci content for home never have the options been so succulently seductive...

Why not want to watch these movies with incredible color, resolution, better optics and immerse in the sound of 300 movies (on blu-ray or hotel window and some day and date) in with 3x increased stem resolution of the ATMOS cinema format, then you have to consider the Dolby cp-850 as the mother of all processors, how feasible is getting this content, if 10% feasible 2 years ago it's 90% feasible now. So looking into a full blown DCI system is something I will or will not give my final recommendation until I return from Display Summit. Stay tuned there could be a Dolby Cp-850 in your future.... Like the one that won best sound with the jbl synthesis display using 34 $450 dollar surround speakers, SFM four corner subs, and three big m-2 horns up front, imagine this processor with some Quested or Alcons Ribbons, ouch!!

Besides 64 channel atmos CP-850 plays home atmos bd's and upscales using dolby surround. Im studying using jbl quantum logic as a side option with the cp-850.



 
#22 · (Edited)
I had been the most fervent opponent to the jbl synthesis sound for decades (that is what resides in Pharrells PH's Moon Pherobe) at cedia 2014 I took foot, dozed with turmeric to aide digestion and swallowed.;D.

The show stopper cp-850 was not connected with silver interconnects but cat 6.





List price dropped from 30 with 2 x 32 dacs 3201 to like 26, that is 4 64 channels!






a simple cp-850 amplifier solution with full internal crossover and a kitchen sink dsp suite.

Just daisy chain system with cat 6 with blu-link.DOLBY ATMOS CONNECT IS EITHER BLU-link or aes 64 (cat 6).









Also there is a way of dac'ing this to feed other amps like the BGW from ATI look awesome too... I'll post over on other side.
 
#24 · (Edited)
Krell Evolution 707 ,Meridian 861v8 , Macintosh mx 151
I just want to upgrade my sound processor to touch new heights of detailing currently i am using Marantaz 8002 if some body share any experience or knolwedge in which sound processor i do my investment which will benefit me for the long run as now a days technology is changing every year like 4k is in the market now hdmi 2 is coming plus Dolby Atmost & Auro 3d etc what to do pls advise which above sound processor is a good option for the movie watching
All i want best sound with deep details of effect
My Current setup is Fronts Focal Stella Utopia Center Viva Utopia Surround Electra 1000 Be and Rear Surround is Diablo Utopia Sub I am using JBL EON 500 Pro audio


Very nice setup with the Focal speakers - extremely dynamic, detailed, and always fun to listen to. The "best" sound on any system depends on what you are looking for, and system matching, so I would suggest:
***if at all possible, borrow one from a dealer to listen to before making a decision (there are Theta and Datasat dealers here - VGI for Theta and Datasat, Cineramax/Peter for Datasat, etc., ask if they could lend you one for auditioning if you are serious about buying)
***only upgrade to companies that have announced plan for future upgrades to Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro

Focal has a brighter sound so even though I am a huge fan of Krell, I would recommend instead a processor with a full bodied sound, not lean or bright, with smooth high end. The two top choices in my opinion would be Theta, or Datasat. Theta sound I know for sure, and Datasat is based on impressions I've read and the fact that it's designed by an ex Theta engineer. The warm sounding Meridian (too warm for my personal taste but might be a good match for Focal) would also be on the list if it does include Atmos. Datasat and Theta have 16 channels and up and to me this is more, much more, than enough for my idea of an ideal home system at 7.1.4 (quality of sound of front 3 channels more critical than number of channels beyond 7.1.4 to me). All 3 processors would very likely bring your system to top-notch level - but bottom line is you have to listen with your ears, hence an audition is critical.

Cost wise, Theta would probably be the cheapest of the 3, possibly by large margin, as its street price is CONSIDERABLY less than list price you see (check with dealer for street price). Also, if you are using the system for music and are looking for absolute best, no-compromise movie AND music sound, then the choice narrows down to one, Theta Casablanca with a stand-alone DAC, the Theta Gen VIII. All other systems use a "card" system, and based on my experience, a card system will not sound as good as a stand alone DAC.

BTW, my impression of the tremendous Focal Grand Utopia
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...hy-test-our-ultra-systems-6.html#post24781598 .
Focal: One word to describe the Grand Utopia - overwhelmingly dynamic. Ok so it's 2 words :) but you get the picture; I was blown away. One of the most impressive demo's I've been to and this big bad boy put my Thiel to shame in the low end. Reserved for large sized room only as the bass could be too much in smaller rooms. The high frequency is similar to Wilson, highly detailed but a bit bright. This means how this speaker sounds, not surprisingly, is highly dependent on the quality of material being played and the amplification (tube vs. solid state, etc.). With non-audiophile material, could be a little harsh.
 
#32 · (Edited)
By reading all reviews i come to a point that Data Sat & Theta Casablanca is the most likeable option and both have a capacity for the future upgrades and 3 rd one is Trniov


All IMHO: Despite of the seeming race for gazillion channels as if that is the most critical measure of good sound (not ;-)), for an "audiophile" setup for 1-2 rows of seats using high end speakers such as yours, the law of diminishing return and some common sense would suggest that 7.1.4 or at most 9.1.6 is beyond good enough, so to me a 16 channel unit such as Datasat or Theta Casablanca IV (with 24? channels) is more than adequate. My personal preference is to use lesser number of high quality big speakers with good amplification, over many cheap little speakers and ****ty amp. (More speakers become more important only for largish theater with multiple rows of seats.)

On the all important issue of cost, it would be a good idea to compare cost of buying unit now then upgrade to Atmos/DTS:X later VERSUS waiting to buy the unit once it has already had Atmos/DTS:X. For example with Theta the upgrade cost is already announced at 3k for Atmos + Auro (street price should be much less), but for Datasat it has not been (anyone pls correct as needed). Talk to dealer and get definite answer in black and white before jumping in as you don't want a nasty surprise. Nothing is finalized but Theta should be the cheapest (ah - "cost effective") of the 3 you mentioned, by nearly half in one case with no sacrifice in sonic quality in a typical "audiophile" setup. Au contraire :).

While the digital signal coming out of the decoder board should be nearly identical for cheaper receivers as it is for high end units such as Datasat and Theta, the important end result - analog sound coming out of your speakers - have NEVER sounded the same to my ears, between the several different DAC units I've owned over the years. This is likely due to multiple factors on the all important analog part of the unit (makes sense; it is after all a Digital ANALOG Converter) including design of power supply, analog output stage, analog (vs. digital) volume control, board layout, quality of components, etc. My cheaper DAC's, in general, tend to have harsher high end, less layered soundstage, and warm, but loose bass. Your Focal speakers are very revealing and have very high resolution and well-designed high end speakers like Magico, Wilson, or Focal tend to magnify differences among DAC's, making them more obvious. It is for this reason that I suggest Theta or Datasat, for their known sound quality particularly the Theta, and to try out the processors at home - your ears must be the final arbitrator.
 
#30 · (Edited)
#34 · (Edited)
I don't know of anyone that has heard a typical datasat install and say it don't sound good, I have heard it with plenty of bad horn speakers and it makes it so much closer to hi fi, and on good speakers it sounds great, ceratinly with ribbon surrounds and behind microperf amt's like Jeff's the datasat is top immersive-soundfield-audiophile rank. I feel you about being apprehensive of their utilitarian looking cinema grade db24 connectors for the crucial xlr outputs....

Looks like a problem in ones head but in reality it ain't there; It works!
 
#35 · (Edited)
Going on a limb for mankind, trust that datasat will in future have some kind of trade towards a higher count proc.., they must have been sensitive to your collective wallets; So in order to avoid a Taras Bulba ending with your new home atmos soundfield for starts: DO Exactly like herein shown with your 16 channel allotment and keep your overheads close to you "by all means MAN!"




You will collectively thank me profusely in earnest one day. Trust my word from a sufficiently cultivated psychoacoustic memory angle. I don't have all the answers just more than most...

 

Attachments

#38 · (Edited)
Peter, we are not really disagreeing as we are talking about 2 different situations. I am referring to a common smallish high end setup in this ultra forum (small room with 1-2 rows, large tower speakers out in the middle of room), you are showing million dollar installation with 200 rows of seats. ;) I do agree that for multi-row theater, more speakers, not necessarily more channels, such as an array of side speakers so that row 1 to 10 all hear the same thing, is needed. For a small room, no.

Yes it would be interesting to have a study to find out at which point the diminishing return point for "more channels" kicks in: in a *small* room, using movie material and NOT test tone, at which point could trained listeners a. no longer detect a difference, b. no longer hear an improvement. And I am referring to tripple blinded :p setup with proper control, not person x saying so and so.

I am all for increasing resolution of the front sound field, for example adding front wide speakers, as our ears are most discerning towards front and movies are still FRONT-screen-centric with 85% of movie sound comes from LCR. I am all for adding ceiling and rear speakers to expand sound into these hemispheres. But to add a gazzillion channels/speakers "all around" you in a small room to produce the other 15% of sound, no. This is what I referred to as common sense, but as mentioned, it's just an opinion that no one has to agree to :).
 
#39 ·
And I am referring to tripple (sic) blinded :p setup with proper control, not person x saying so and so.
Were your DAC comparisons cited above done in a properly conducted double blind setup? If not......;)

FWIW, I agree with the concept of diminishing returns for increased speaker count in a given room, and there's some evidence for this, though I'm not sure it's public.
 
#46 · (Edited)
That is the most defeatist post ever..... Why not kill oneself because of Processor change? Once immersive audio is implemented it's Video's turn to change, so a new Datasat will keep you up to date for 5 years.

I have gone that route and back in 2006 in Helene, 9 years later I still wake up remorseful for it in the middle of the night; I did not serve the client well by following precisely your logic denon pre with mark levinson and dynaudio confidence.


It is not an extra 1% difference it is at least 15%, that is the difference between real kit and tin can crap.

You too may wake up remorseful one day about that post, Drumming Dude.:D


Brad sorry I have been swamped those sketches look good ill begin to study your case later tonight.
 
#47 ·
@cannga there has been at least a little research into the diminishing return of immersive sound. Comparison of 1D, 2D and 3D sound, by German Engineering Büro PINQUIN.

Going from 1D sound to 3D sound almost 90% of people say that's better,from 1D to 2D almost the same at 84%, but going from 2D sound to 3D sound that percentage drops below 60% of the people.
 

Attachments

#48 · (Edited)
Thanks Donald; very interesting and we should look forward to more of these types of tests in the future. For example, one to find the point of diminishing return as far as, say, the overhead channels. (In a home I believe 4 is more than good enough.)

60% is nothing to snicker at - it is significant. Still, I think once the 3D audio "heat" ("changed my life!!!" :p) abates, 3D over 2D improvement will prove to be good, but not as revolutionary as the move from lossy to lossless codec (Dolby True HD, etc.) a few years ago. I believe a very well respected member of this forum, one whom I like to quote :), has hinted as much based on his own experience.

Part of the reasons for the above IMHO is that foleys/sound effects that are overhead and behind listener, if not done judiciously, could be adversely distracting to the story telling of the movie itself. Directors and film mixers both are of course well aware of this; they will limit the gimmicky sound effects in any *good* movie, IOW not Transformer-type American action movies :), and therefore you will not need 10 Magico's on the ceiling to produce 5% of the sound experience. Interstellar is a good example; very little front-to-back or side-to-side effects - just overwhelming dynamics on front 3 channels LCR; and we know Christopher Nolan is a director who pays close attention to sound. The point of movies being front-screen centric cannot be emphasized enough, IMHO.
 
#50 ·
Indeed Peter, Mark's knowledge of AV technology especially in Opera goes back till the nineteenth century, and beyond, and he regularly tells the story of people unable to distinguish between a phonograph recording and a live opera singer both veiled by a curtain.Though the singer had trained herself to sound more like the phonograph, this is still very telling. The same goes for the (spatial) visual resolution perception growing as people are exposed to higher resolutions. In this recent SMPTE talk (and other recent talks) he is a great proponent of HDR, as it presents the greatest improvement
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top