Any one see the Lexicon MC-12HD replacement at CES?

I did. It will be an incredible box when it ships. Not sure what else I can share .

Based on what I heard, it is this year's product. The first showing was at CEDIA last year so it is hard to imagine it needing 1.5+ years to ship from showing.

That said, the reason I hate managing hardware projects is that they are pain in the neck to manage as far as external dependencies . Even a single part can hold you up and regulatory testing is always a wild card, often requiring redesigns that take weeks to accomplish.

I also have a MC-12B non-HD being used as ordinary DAC by my son so would likewise love a trade in program. Don't have an insight on any upgrade offer though (did not ask). I will pass on the feedback as we get closer.

On pricing, it is not set but I expect to be along the lines of Lexicon than Mark Levinson.

I am also the owner of 12B and currently using analog from BD to Lex for HD decoding. cannto wait to see the next version

Why not?? Was this not given at a trade show?

Share! Ain't going to change anything... Or did you sign something?

My understanding that all the "Lexicon" engineers are no longer with the company (and for some time). Does that mean anything? Maybe. I have serious doubts about it's replacement. The MV-5 and RV-5 came out after the exodus and they left a sour taste regarding quality, whereas the MC12 series seemed solid.

We will see.

Wow I am shocked that they're still making Lexicons. Didn't they changed ownership a few times?...

"Didn't they changed ownership a few times?..."

Harman owns Lexicon but that purchase was around 15 years ago. Anything else has just been shuffling around within Harman.

Shawn

One tidbit that was given on the Lexicon forum a month or two ago by Lexicon...

The replacement for the MC12HD is still coming, but was not far enough along to show at CEDIA. It would be very poor of me to talk in specifics since there are still quite a few options and possible final decisions to be made but here is what I can confirm: It will be a PLATFORM that other products will be based on, and we expect it to last close to 10 years, in the same way that the MC12 did. To that end it will be overbuilt, with many ways to upgrade both hardware and software as technology changes. It will have more DSP in one single channel then all the products before it put together. It will have the successor to Logic7, which will do everything Logic7 did, plus everything DolbyIIz or any of the other current offerings can do and more, but better in the way Lexicon has been known for. Beyond that, I can only say that with a little luck and lots of hard work there will be something more official at CES.

Other hints elsewhere is that the replacement will be including JBLs work in room EQ.

Shawn

It was in a private suite, not in the open area (at CEDIA and CES).


I didn't sign anything but didn't need too. It simply is not professional to share information without their permission when shown things in private, especially given the deep persona relationship I have with many at Harman group.

The harm is that their competitors see their plans and attempt to counter.

To the extent I can share data though, I will as time progresses and product gets near release.

I understand a professional relationship, so no problems there.

That said, I wonder what the next gen of SSPs will add that we don't have today?

Yes, new DACs, engineering, multiple HDMI ins and outs... but what else?

Room processing is the last bastion of differentiation. Given the fact that no two acousticians seem to agree on the same set of ideas , and implementations can be hidden from sight (filter resolution, sampling rate, etc.), we are liable to get different solutions. This is also an area where spending more on parts, does get more capability (again, in areas such as filter type and resolution). So high-end products in theory, can try to justify their cost.

The above is what I am excited about regarding Lexicon's new processor.

+1 on that. without it, SSPs are essentially all alike after a given threshold of quality. Room processing allows you to take one's individual living space, plug it into the SSP, and get as close to ideal sound as possible. It is simply not good enough to buy a great SSP and hope the room has no impact... (Can't mention that in the Theta threads)!

Sure you can just most know that your system and tastes tend to get in the way of your words and ideas.

EQ is great for those who know what to do with it. However, unlike nearly all here on this forum that wants or uses it, it should be used at the very end of ALL OTHER measures NOT the first thing.

It goes like this ( highly simplified for those sonically challenged)...

1)Choose the right room dimensions and place the money seat and speakers in the best places for them.

2) Measure the room and tweak the 2 channel sound stage depth and width and focus. Then move on to multi channel.

3)Treat the room sparingly with proper acoustic treatments and test again with Knowledgeable ears.

If anything else needs to be done then and ONLY then apply as little as possible EQing to the system.

Working with a perfed screen with speakers nailed to the front walls? Forget about all of the above since it mostly cannot be done. Go straight to EQ and learn to live with less.

Hear hear.

Correct, at least for the ones that came up with their previous surround processing (Dave Griesinger) and room correction (James Muller). However, the new brain trust (Floyd Toole, Todd Welti, Sean Olive, Alan Devantier) ain't too shabby. On top of that, they can draw from engineers at Lexicon's professional/studio division in Utah for build quality and engineers at Mark Levinson for things like D/A conversion and analogue stage.

The main differentiator for Lexicon processors has never been what they are but instead what they do. Keep in mind they were selling consumer 7.1 pre-pros over two decades ago (1988) when everyone else was just getting into 5.1. And they were converting discrete 5.1 DD & DTS to 7.1 eight years before everyone else could do it with PLIIx. To that end, the main reason for me to buy their next pre-pro is if their proprietary surround processing and room correction go beyond off-the-shelf technologies that everyone else licenses from Dolby, DTS, THX and Audyssey.

Sure you can. It won't matter. Auto-room eq is a shard of glass disguised as a band aid. What you say?

There is NO substitute for physical room characteristics. You can try to interpret all you like, but at the end of the day it will never get it perfect by itself. So if go through the effort of putting in proper treatments, then the use of auto-eq is less relevant.

I agree having an EQ available would be beneficial instead of adding on a separate EQ device, as long as it was a quality one where it can be bypassed if desired.

Give me an EQ device that tells me what size, what type, what shape, and exact placement of acoustic treatments (and be accurate), then I would jump on the ship. And know that if a doorway, window(s), etc... were right where a panel needed it would offer accurate alternatives. I don't see us that close to a complete solution.

Alright for newbs that have no education in Acoustics then it would be better than nothing, but what is that really saying? Seems marketing buzz will drive the product vs. technology in my opinion (at this time).

L7 is the only thing I thought Lexicon had over the competition. Still is. Other than that it could use better DACS, like the ones in the CB3HD Oh wait, The Bland would BBQ it if it had such "old" but top of the line DACS. lol

That was my initial reason for getting into Lexicon: I buy surround processors for the surround processing. Their room correction, which is still quite effective despite being 5 years old, cemented the relationship. Compared to the "competition", I heard less of my room and more of what was actually on the disc.
It has the same DACs in dual-differential configuration that Proceed used for the front L/R channels of their AVP2 (except the MC-12 has it for all 12 channels). What makes the CB3 DACs "better" than that?

Perhaps the sampling rate? I had both side by side. The Extreme DACs on CB3 were a notable improvement with CD music in 2CH over MC12HD. If you wanted L7 pseudo surround then the Lex would be a better fit. That being said the CB3 with Extreme DACs are not the best in 2CH. But then again you're not being charged 60K for a dCS 2CH system.

I had the choice to sell a client one or the other. Because the MC12HD-BAL had HDMI it was the only option at the time. It is still a respectable piece and is not considered bad in any way.

My concern would be how do they make an improvement enough to get current/new customers to purchase? DACs for one but they can't make it better than the ML502. So do they limit it, so that it doesn't compete against the ML502? HDMI 1.4a is a no brainer. Perhaps a new improvement to the L7 algorithm? Does it need improvement? Not sure.

I would love to see a better menu system as well as better on-screen display. Would love to have separate configs independent of each other similar to how Theta does it.

USB or Ethernet for updating firmware and saving configs. Having to get behind to remove the remote RS-232 and hook up service RS-232 is a pain (general complaint for RS-232 connections on back of products)

I wish there would be a new universal remote protocol over TCP/IP that all manufacturers would adopt and move away from RS-232. Imagine using a WEB interface to setup, or remote troubleshoot.

You're using intangibles such as "better" and "improvement" without quantifying what you mean. Are you talking about better signal to noise ratio or an improvement in dynamic range?
Those customers will be buying based on brand name (faceplate) and audiophile street-cred, irrespective of actual differences. Besides, Harman probably knows to keep the price-points different enough to maintain the distinction between their ML and Lex lines.
As someone who uses L7 every day, I think there's always room for improvement. Modern DSP engines have so much horsepower compared to what was available a decade ago (the MC-12 was released in 2001), that surround processing can now have greater channel separation (less leakage) and quicker reaction times (faster logic steering) to sound even more like discrete multi-channel.

And more output channels (wides, heights, overhead, etc) for better wrap-around envelopment, more precise directionality and greater soundstage stability (less reliance on phantom imaging). Basically go from a ring around the listener that current surround processing provides to more of a three dimensional bubble.

Fair enough!!

The most basic test. The sound was more enjoyable to listen to. It's been quite a while since we did the comparison. I understand different people enjoy different things, have hearing problems, etc. In our case, the CB3 won on sound quality in 2CH mode. Just like taste testing 2 cheesecakes. If you like one over the other, do you send it to a lab to figure out why? Because at the end of the day, it won't change how you felt. That one was better than the other. That doesn't mean the other one was bad. Just that one was better. Or could have been, "I can't taste a difference." Or you might like one, and I might like another. It depends on your tastes. It is subjective, but a real test nonetheless.

Had you asked me when the test was done, I could have articulated what about the sound was better. IE: instrument reproduction, soundstage, etc. I just don't recall specifics. As I said, L7 sounded nice for pseudo surround from 2CH. Better than Dolby PLII(...).

Could the improvement been because of something other than the DACS? I guess I would want to know if it was something in the analog parts or some other part of the chain before assuming it was the DACS.