or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Any one see the Lexicon MC-12HD replacement at CES?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Any one see the Lexicon MC-12HD replacement at CES? - Page 37

post #1081 of 1296
Any whispers on what they might announce at the 2103 CES show? If that shows ends w/o any concrete info on a MC-12HD replacement I will say farewell to you good folks and start hanging out in the Bryston SP-3 chats as that will be my new pre/pro..
post #1082 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHat View Post

Any whispers on what they might announce at the 2103 CES show? If that shows ends w/o any concrete info on a MC-12HD replacement I will say farewell to you good folks and start hanging out in the Bryston SP-3 chats as that will be my new pre/pro..

I expect JBL to announce the SDP-45HD, which is a customized Bryston SP-3.
post #1083 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Nielsen View Post

I expect JBL to announce the SDP-45HD, which is a customized Bryston SP-3.
They mentioned it at CEDIA but I guess that wasn't an official announcement. I'm more curious if they will say anything about being able to port QuantumLogic (even a 7-channel version) to the SP-3. If they're having trouble building a physical box (pre-pro) to hold their technology, I wish they would at least use someone else's box in the mean time to deliver their new tech to consumers.
post #1084 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

They mentioned it at CEDIA but I guess that wasn't an official announcement. I'm more curious if they will say anything about being able to port QuantumLogic (even a 7-channel version) to the SP-3. If they're having trouble building a physical box (pre-pro) to hold their technology, I wish they would at least use someone else's box in the mean time to deliver their new tech to consumers.

Well, at least in their press release about QuantumLogic, Harman High Performance AV stated that they will introduce it in future Lexicon and JBL Synthesis products:
Quote:
“We are excited to introduce an entirely new surround sound enhancement technology that is the result of intensive signal processing and psychoacoustic research by HARMAN, and that we feel significantly advances the state of the art,” said Jim Garrett, Market Manager, HARMAN High Performance A/V. “We look forward to introducing QuantumLogic Surround in a number of future Lexicon, JBL® Synthesis® and other products and providing our customers with a better and more enjoyable surround sound listening experience.”

The question is, whether a "customized" Bryston SP-3 will incorporate QuantumLogic and it case it does, whether it is the 7.1 or the 9.1 version. The latter would have to make use of the two AUX outputs of the SP-3. The question if this is technically feasible at all, also depends on whether the digital board from Momentum Data Systems and the TI Aureus chip that Bryston is using in the SP-3 will support the number of channels and if the chip has enough headroom for the QuantumLogic processing.

In the same press release from September 2011, they mentioned the "upcoming" 12.2 Channel Lexicon MP-20 incorporating all the 5 possible height channels of QuantumLogic...

Anyway, in a few days we might be wiser regarding the feature set of the SDP-45HD. :-)

Cheers!

Markus
post #1085 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by mv038856 View Post

The question is, whether a "customized" Bryston SP-3 will incorporate QuantumLogic and it case it does, whether it is the 7.1 or the 9.1 version. The latter would have to make use of the two AUX outputs of the SP-3.
From what was hinted at CEDIA a few months ago, IF they do port QLS to the Bryston, then it will be the 7-channel version (would be nice if they took advantage of the AUX outputs for Height channel extraction). But the only thing somewhat certain is that they'll be using the SP-3 in Synthesis systems for basic pre-pro needs; porting QLS is a rumor at this point. Room correction will be done outboard on SDEC units, as they've always done.
post #1086 of 1296
Hope they port QLS to something soon. Heard the demo at Cedia '11, and it's the only thing that's gotten me excited about getting a new processor. Everything else seems a very small step forward at best. Hard to believe they won't do anything w/QLS after developing it, but we're more than two years out now from that Cedia show and still nothing. Throughout their lines, Harman doesn't seem to know what it wants to do in the home audio space. Some interesting things here and there but no apparent corporate commitment.
post #1087 of 1296
Thread Starter 
QLS is interesting in how it adds heights and not a combination of wides and heights. What would be a concern of porting the full blown version into a non Lexicon product would be the conflict of support for DSX, Neo X and maybe even PLIIz layouts. Audyssey is the well know brand to the masses and seeing an Audyssey DSX badge on a product would sell more units then the unknown QLS, the same goes for Neo X so we would either see a scaled back version of QLS to work within the confines of a DSX, Neo X, PLIIZ system or it simply wouldn't be seen anywhere at all.

The reverse of this was my concern if the MP-20 had come to be in that I don't think we would see DSX in a Lexicon product, we could see PLIIz and Neo X would be iffy at beast. Lets take PLIIz first, this only supports 2 heights and most likely in a different recommended position then the L/R heights in QLS so once you mount your speakers you have chosen to compromise either PLIIz or QLS' L/R height placement. Now for Neo X, that makes use of wides which QLS doesn't support, with back panel real estate being limited I highly doubt we would have seen separate optional wide outputs for a Neo X setup, that would make 18 outs (7 main, 5 height, 4 subs and 2 wides) and if it did the same issue with the heights would arise, you setup for either QLS or Neo X.
post #1088 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod#S View Post

What would be a concern of porting the full blown version into a non Lexicon product would be the conflict of support for DSX, Neo X and maybe even PLIIz layouts. Audyssey is the well know brand to the masses and seeing an Audyssey DSX badge on a product would sell more units then the unknown QLS, the same goes for Neo X

Seems to me that 1) All reports are that QLS is head and shoulders above DSX and Neo X, so the latter could be dispensed with 2) Lexicon and JBL are not products for the masses
post #1089 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod#S View Post

QLS is interesting in how it adds heights and not a combination of wides and heights.
The inventor of Neo:X (James Johnston) wanted to do something similar for his 11-speaker layout (7.1 plus 4 heights). DTS decided instead to do 11 speakers similar to the Audyssey DSX layout (7.1 plus 2 heights and 2 wides). Maybe they thought that, for better or worse, the DSX layout would become some sort of de facto standard, what with Audyssey being so ubiquitous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod#S View Post

What would be a concern of porting the full blown version into a non Lexicon product would be the conflict of support for DSX, Neo X and maybe even PLIIz layouts.
Even more of a concern now that there are Blu-ray titles with Neo:X encoded heights and wides, like the recent 'Expendables 2' and upcoming 'Dredd'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod#S View Post

Audyssey is the well know brand to the masses and seeing an Audyssey DSX badge on a product would sell more units then the unknown QLS, the same goes for Neo X so we would either see a scaled back version of QLS to work within the confines of a DSX, Neo X, PLIIZ system or it simply wouldn't be seen anywhere at all.
Right, which is why it would only be on pre-pros that were rebadged for JBL Synthesis systems (not Bryston branded products). Synthesis pre-pros won't be licensing any Audyssey technologies, since they've already been using Harman's new ARCOS room correction for the last couple years. Like Noah said, if you're buying a JBL Synthesis pre-pro, then you're probably not looking for Audyssey room correction nor Audyssey surround processing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod#S View Post

The reverse of this was my concern if the MP-20 had come to be in that I don't think we would see DSX in a Lexicon product, we could see PLIIz and Neo X would be iffy at beast.
IF the MP-20 had come to be, they wouldn't have licensed any Audyssey technologies, for the reason mentioned above (would already have ARCOS). Keep in mind that room correction is the primary reason to license Audyssey. Their other technologies, like loudness compensation (Dynamic EQ) are available from other companies (Dolby Volume, THX Loudness Plus).

However, I do think that the MP-20 would have a full suite of Dolby and DTS (and probably THX) licensed processing modes, if at least for a marketing checklist. Who knows, maybe we would have seen an option to do the version of Neo:X that JJ originally wanted (4 heights). If someone wanted to do the current Neo:X layout, then it shouldn't be a problem to repurpose QLS's rear heights as front wides. Plenty of 7.1 receivers give you the option to use the 6th and 7th output as either surround-backs or heights or wides.
post #1090 of 1296
Thread Starter 
Thanks guys

In the back of my head I'm always thinking it would be cool if we had a processor with all of the current tech at our disposal like in our MC-12's today of the technology of old, i.e. L7, dts, Dolby and THX all live happily together biggrin.gif and we can choose which to use. The whole height and width thing changed that though as the different players choose to go different routes and now there is Audyssey who also does room EQ which is a direct competitor to Lexicon's own EQ so like mentioned that will never show up in a Lexicon product. I guess in the old 7.1 universe THX did sort of choose to play things a bit differently in suggesting the rear speakers be placed close together but at least there was a setting in the MC-12 to specify speaker placement for that.

Has Audyssey ever licensed just their DSX tech and not their EQ, i.e. is there a reciever out there that just offeres the DSX but no Audyssey EQ?

It would be nice to know the recommended speaker type and placement for QLS. With Dolby PLIIz it looks like an inwall or mounted bookshelf is the choice because all diagrams I have seen show the heights on the wall and not the ceiling. I think Neo:X and DSX are the same, the heights come from the wall and not the ceiling with sound projecting more outward then truely down. Now I think it's probably safe to assume QLS surround/side heights are ceiling speakers but what of the front 3, are they designed to be in-ceiling or mounted/installed on the front wall?
post #1091 of 1296
So how many CES's is this thread still going to be relevant? Think this is the 3rd CES since the thread was created and we are really no closer to getting a Lexicon pre\pro.

Also what good does all the time money and research of QLS do if it is not used in anything? At this pace we will see QLS in Harmon's lower end receivers then an actual Lexicon Pre\Pro.
post #1092 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod#S View Post

It would be nice to know the recommended speaker type and placement for QLS. With Dolby PLIIz it looks like an inwall or mounted bookshelf is the choice because all diagrams I have seen show the heights on the wall and not the ceiling. I think Neo:X and DSX are the same, the heights come from the wall and not the ceiling with sound projecting more outward then truely down. Now I think it's probably safe to assume QLS surround/side heights are ceiling speakers but what of the front 3, are they designed to be in-ceiling or mounted/installed on the front wall?

AFAIK everyone's recommended speaker locations are based on angles, not which room surface they're supposed to be on.
post #1093 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod#S View Post

Has Audyssey ever licensed just their DSX tech and not their EQ, i.e. is there a reciever out there that just offeres the DSX but no Audyssey EQ?
No, if anything it's the other way 'round: some low end receivers had Audyssey room correction but none of the peripherals (DSX, Dynamic EQ, Dynamic Volume).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod#S View Post

Now I think it's probably safe to assume QLS surround/side heights are ceiling speakers but what of the front 3, are they designed to be in-ceiling or mounted/installed on the front wall?
To underscore what Noah said, it's all about the angles, not the speaker type nor the surface it's mounted on. For QLS, one pair of height speakers splits the angles between the fronts and sides while a second pair of height splits the angles between the sides and rears, similar to this:



Elevation can be higher than 45 degrees. Speaker angles don't have to be exact, since there are no standards for height speakers, just as long as you get the impression of sound above. Also, there's no reason why this speaker configuration wouldn't be compatible with Neo:X or PLIIz if you turned off the rear heights or ran them in parallel with the front heights.
post #1094 of 1296
Thread Starter 
Thanks guys that's very helpful becasue I had always been caught up in the actual height and place where the speakers would be mounted/installed and not the angles themselves.

I have another question, when we went from 5.1 to 7.1 the rears were always treated as two additional full frequency channels even if 99.9% of the time bass magagement is used in reality to route low frequences to the subwoofer. Should we be thinking of heights in the same way i.e. full frequency channels? My mental image of heights is always smaller frequency limited speakers and this is probably just from the fact that smaller speakers are the most obvious choice as you're not going to be hanging a tower speaker from the ceiling or wall biggrin.gif so this always leaves me wondering if there is ever low frequencies present in the height channels. For wides I can see full freququency channels being used because wides are floor based speakers even if they do suffer from the same reality as the rears and all low frequencies are passed onto the subwoofer.
post #1095 of 1296
Just saw that JBL Synthesis has put the SDP-45 on their web site: http://www.jblsynthesis.com/Products/Details/232

There is no mention about any functionality beyond that, what the original Bryston design offers, as far as I could see...

Cheers!

Markus
post #1096 of 1296
Why did JBL even bother then since there's no additional features beyond those in the Bryston unit or the QLS we were all hoping for.

Oh well! Maybe Lexicon will produce a unit one day.
post #1097 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimg1453 View Post

Why did JBL even bother then since there's no additional features beyond those in the Bryston unit
For the things that the 11 year old SPD-45HD (Lex MC-12HD) doesn't have: format decoding for HD audio codecs like TrueHD & DTS-HD MA, USB input, Ethernet control, Deep Colour and 3D pass through, etc.
post #1098 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

For the things that the 11 year old SPD-45HD (Lex MC-12HD) doesn't have: format decoding for HD audio codecs like TrueHD & DTS-HD MA, USB input, Ethernet control, Deep Colour and 3D pass through, etc.
One also has to wonder how many more MC-12HD's (and the JBL equivalent) can be built. Given that the MP-20 was canceled before it even got to production because some parts weren't available, it should stand to reason that parts to build the much older platform might become scarce sooner or later. JBL needes a SSP in order to keep selling their Synthesis systems so it makes sense to outsource it at this point given the lack of alternatives available to them in-house. It would also seem to suggest that it's still going to be a while yet before Lexicon gets around to releasing anything new. Let's hope for their sake that the car audio business doesn't dry up in the meantime.
post #1099 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod#S View Post

I have another question, when we went from 5.1 to 7.1 the rears were always treated as two additional full frequency channels even if 99.9% of the time bass magagement is used in reality to route low frequences to the subwoofer. Should we be thinking of heights in the same way i.e. full frequency channels?
Bass management has to do with the capabilities of your speakers, not source channels. Except for old Pro Logic (which had a bandwidth limited mono surround channel), most surround processing/decoding and lossy/lossless codecs have full frequency channels. How much bass various mixing engineers put into those full range channels is a different story. But let's not confuse channels with speakers.

If someone's height speakers go down to 35Hz, then they can cross the heights over at 35Hz. If someone else's L/R main speakers roll off at 120Hz, then they'll have to cross the mains over at 120Hz. So it's not a question of full range channels, just what your speakers are capable of reproducing. If the surround processing is extracting an additional output from a pair of discrete channels, then that matrixed channel is as full range as the discrete channels it came from. For example: when you extract a centre output from stereo music, that extracted centre is not badwidth limited. Same with extracted rears or heights or wides.
post #1100 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

No, if anything it's the other way 'round: some low end receivers had Audyssey room correction but none of the peripherals (DSX, Dynamic EQ, Dynamic Volume). To underscore what Noah said, it's all about the angles, not the speaker type nor the surface it's mounted on. For QLS, one pair of height speakers splits the angles between the fronts and sides while a second pair of height splits the angles between the sides and rears, similar to this:

Elevation can be higher than 45 degrees. Speaker angles don't have to be exact, since there are no standards for height speakers, just as long as you get the impression of sound above. Also, there's no reason why this speaker configuration wouldn't be compatible with Neo:X or PLIIz if you turned off the rear heights or ran them in parallel with the front heights.

That's something else DaVinci messed up. Of course, there were no loudspeakers at the time, but here's a page from his thesis on the future placement of front and rear heights, as illustrated by his assistant. It's unclear if his assistant was poorly paid or just dressed to please the old man. In any case, I hope Sanjay is not offended by this historically accurate rendering showing the compass points for the location of the four height channel speakers. Maybe the assistant just couldn't spread his legs far enough apart. I suspect it also was quite cold on that marble floor, if you know what I mean.

post #1101 of 1296
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Bass management has to do with the capabilities of your speakers, not source channels. Except for old Pro Logic (which had a bandwidth limited mono surround channel), most surround processing/decoding and lossy/lossless codecs have full frequency channels. How much bass various mixing engineers put into those full range channels is a different story. But let's not confuse channels with speakers.
If someone's height speakers go down to 35Hz, then they can cross the heights over at 35Hz. If someone else's L/R main speakers roll off at 120Hz, then they'll have to cross the mains over at 120Hz. So it's not a question of full range channels, just what your speakers are capable of reproducing. If the surround processing is extracting an additional output from a pair of discrete channels, then that matrixed channel is as full range as the discrete channels it came from. For example: when you extract a centre output from stereo music, that extracted centre is not badwidth limited. Same with extracted rears or heights or wides.

Thanks again. Knowing that the wide and height channels themselves are designed for full range signals is what I have been curious about for a while. I always try and get speakers that can match as best as possible anyways the frequency range of the channel and this applies more for wides really rather than heights I guess because if I ever get to that point in my speaker setup I would be adding towers rather than stand mount speakers for wides which would then be able to deliever frequencies down to say 50Hz then I would just do what I do with my mains and surrounds and roll off to the subwoofer. The heights would just be rolled off higher. Cool.
post #1102 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by mv038856 View Post

Just saw that JBL Synthesis has put the SDP-45 on their web site: http://www.jblsynthesis.com/Products/Details/232
There is no mention about any functionality beyond that, what the original Bryston design offers, as far as I could see...
Cheers!
Markus

Looks like the only "custom' is the faceplate and a shorter warranty. The didn't list a price.

Steve
post #1103 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod#S View Post

I always try and get speakers that can match as best as possible anyways the frequency range of the channel

Why?

Unless you otherwise can localize the sub(s), that just results in satellite speakers that are bigger and more expensive then they need to be, and/or less headroom and higher distortion from driving them at frequencies better handles by subs.

Also less smooth bass response that varies with program material, as the bass content of each speaker may vary from others and sum differently because each speaker location excites of room modes differently.
post #1104 of 1296
Thread Starter 
Well one simple answer for me personally is I like the look of towers more than stand mounted speakers and always try for towers first when possible.

If always crossing over a tower at 80hz then you may have been better off with a stand mount.

I find that my towers always perform better and sound better when they are allowed to play down closer to their low level limits. I have yet to hear a tower speaker crossed over to 1, 2,, etc. subs at say 80hz sound better then crossing over lower if of course said speaker is capable of handling the lower frequencies below 80hz. This has been true of my Paradigm Reference Studio 60v2, 100v2 and my current B&W 802 Diamonds.

I could see the desire for that with home theater, i.e. always cross over at 80 but for music I find crossing over lower is much better. I typically set the crossover between 10 to 20 Hz higher than the speaker's low level limits. If home theater was my main thing then I would probably not use towers at all but music is really important to me and I listen to a lot of music be it stereo, true multi-channel or matrix multi-channel via L7.

You are right about cost though, an all stand mounted speaker system would be a lot cheaper than a system with 2 or more towers (given the same manufacturer and model range) and it can be harder to arrange for towers in a room as well as can trying to place 2 or more subs in a lot of rooms can be tricky too..
Edited by Rod#S - 1/9/13 at 4:11am
post #1105 of 1296
okay guys here's the first picture direct from CES

SDP-45

RayJr
post #1106 of 1296
according to the Harman representative I spoke to they are still working on a lexicon replacement.

RayJr
post #1107 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayjr View Post

according to the Harman representative I spoke to they are still working on a lexicon replacement.
RayJr

Great news but they need to hurry up and get the word out.
post #1108 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayjr View Post

okay guys here's the first picture direct from CES
SDP-45
RayJr

$1000 more than the SP3 with an inferior warranty. Is there any added value or is it a stock Bryston?
post #1109 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by 501transpo View Post

$1000 more than the SP3 with an inferior warranty. Is there any added value or is it a stock Bryston?

It most definitely has custom software (because otherwise the display would say "Bryston" on power-up). Like the MC-12HD/SDP-40HD, the differences may possibly include default settings that are preset for Synthesis systems. Apart from that, my best guess is that the units are identical. Correct me if I'm wrong!

I very much prefer the looks of the JBL, but I'm guessing one disadvantage may be that the JBL software updates will be delayed a bit and not as quickly available as from Bryston. Just an educated guess. I may be wrong... cool.gif
post #1110 of 1296
I don't see the point. Get a black SP3 and save $1k. I'm guessing Harman was desperate to have something since the Lexicon is far from ready. The Bryson is supposed to sound killer as a multichannel preamp but it's basically featureless.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Any one see the Lexicon MC-12HD replacement at CES?