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 2

post #31 of 1296
"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)."

Didn't the AVP2 claim its L/R DACs were the same as the #40s? If so then the MC-12 has the same DACs as the #40.

Shawn
post #32 of 1296
"Correct, at least for the ones that came up with their previous surround processing (Dave Griesinger) and room correction (James Muller). "

Pretty sure the VP of engineering is still around and at least one or two other engineers from Team Squid. This is the group that added 8 channel input support to the MC-12HD after engineering moved to Indiana.

" and engineers at Mark Levinson for things like D/A conversion and analogue stage. "

Pretty sure it was Team Squid (when at HSG) that designed the #502.

Shawn
post #33 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger View Post

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.

That is a more open minded thought/question.

Many feel it is just one item and often it is easier to say it is this or that. However,in the real world, many things can contribute to the overall better or worse sonic presentation. Power supplies and it's filtering, shielding and grounding schemes, quality of individual parts, and overall design, even the cabinet can have an impact. Closeness of noisy digital items and analog items( think small thin cabinets instead of large spacious boxes).

In the end how it sounds will depend on budget and personal needs/wants. it also depends on the other gear in the system that are being used. Less revealing gear may mask the subtle differences so that they cannot be heard. Compromised installation choices can also mask sonic details( think perfed screens with speakers against the walls and odd shaped rooms with walls of glass and uncarpeted tile or wood floors).

Your sonics will only be as good as your weakest link. More often than not it is wrong speaker/ listener postions followed by the untreated room.
post #34 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim HTPC View Post

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.

Subjectively liking one cheesecake over another doesn't make it objectively superior. If you had said you preferred the CB3 to the MC-12, then I wouldn't have questioned it further. But if you're going to claim that one of them is "better" or an "improvement", then it's not unreasonable to ask you to support it with something tangible (I mean besides "how you felt").
Quote:


Or you might like one, and I might like another. It depends on your tastes.

In which case, the CB3 DACs aren't better than the MC-12 DACs; you just happen to prefer the sound of one pre-pro to the other, which could have been a result of D/A converters, analogue stage, etc (or likely a combination of "many things" as Allen points out). In any case, thanks for putting it in context.
post #35 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfogg View Post

Didn't the AVP2 claim its L/R DACs were the same as the #40s? If so then the MC-12 has the same DACs as the #40.

Yup: same DACs, same configuration. No surprise, considering all three (Levinson, Madrigal, Lexicon) shared the same parent company.
Quote:


Pretty sure the VP of engineering is still around and at least one or two other engineers from Team Squid.

I thought that he was HSG, not Lexicon specifically (a la Griesinger and Muller)?
post #36 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Subjectively liking one cheesecake over another doesn't make it objectively superior. If you had said you preferred the CB3 to the MC-12, then I wouldn't have questioned it further. But if you're going to claim that one of them is "better" or an "improvement", then it's not unreasonable to ask you to support it with something tangible (I mean besides "how you felt"). In which case, the CB3 DACs aren't better than the MC-12 DACs; you just happen to prefer the sound of one pre-pro to the other, which could have been a result of D/A converters, analogue stage, etc (or likely a combination of "many things" as Allen points out). In any case, thanks for putting it in context.


Who eats cheesecake anyways (are we back in the 80s)?? Wine would've been abetter analogy (and less calories)...

Besides, the better question on preferences, is which do you sell or profit from...
post #37 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfogg View Post
"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)."

Didn't the AVP2 claim its L/R DACs were the same as the #40s? If so then the MC-12 has the same DACs as the #40.

Shawn
I had the Proceed unit and it did not sound as good as my Meridian 861 V6, or my new ADA Mach IV, or my brother's MC-12 HD. I don't know how the 40 sounded.
Ken
post #38 of 1296
And I just upgraded to an MC8 from a DC1!
post #39 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen Fleener View Post

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

Room dimensions can cause a disaster (eg. cubical, concrete room), but they will never solve acoustic problems, because a room will always have modes. The real question is what you do with those modes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim HTPC View Post

There is NO substitute for physical room characteristics.

So if I have a mode at 40 Hz, which has a wavelength of 28 feet, what kind of physical room treatment will fix that?

--Andre
post #40 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod#S View Post

At this price point we should not be forced into any such choice seeing as how some cheap receivers all ready allow the use of both. Hopefully the design has changed since then.

Yep, it better have STP (Spinal Tap Processing) - goes to 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreYew View Post

So if I have a mode at 40 Hz, which has a wavelength of 28 feet, what kind of physical room treatment will fix that?

A tuned absorber - either diaphragm or Helmholtz resonator
post #41 of 1296
"So if I have a mode at 40 Hz, which has a wavelength of 28 feet, what kind of physical room treatment will fix that?"

Without mucking up the material outside of the mode.....

Shawn
post #42 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreYew View Post

Room dimensions can cause a disaster (eg. cubical, concrete room), but they will never solve acoustic problems, because a room will always have modes. The real question is what you do with those modes.



So if I have a mode at 40 Hz, which has a wavelength of 28 feet, what kind of physical room treatment will fix that?

--Andre

Depends. Need the whole picture. How many rows of seating? Need room plans/dimensions both inside and out. Are you at a peak or null for your listening position? There are 4 ways. Move the seating, move the sub, add resonator, or fork out for construction. You think Auto-EQ will fix it? I would first look into a resonator (looks like Noah posted before I could finish typing). Next question is it aesthetically pleasing? Not sure. You could possibly add a sub to help cancel the effects. There isn't a one answer fixes all problems. Every room is different. It takes trial and error while thinking outside the box. Witnessed one installation with subs in the ceiling. Not sure that is the safest method, but it worked. Just don't sit underneath one.

And sometimes you can't eradicate it. If you have a single row of seating, then you have a better chance of removing the effect at your listening position. That would not "remove" it from the room, but it would improve your listening position. I've not seen where you can buy off the shelf "products" tackling room modes. Custom solutions would most likely be required.

Maybe stop building rectangular or square rooms. Try different shapes. Who wrote a rulebook that all rooms have to be only be 4 walls?

From what I've seen with AUTO-EQ methods, if you are dealing with a peak it will lower the mic area neutering the next row. If you are at a null, then the next row gets lots of bass. If you use multi-mics for averaging, then you get a compromise with neither position being perfect in most "average household rooms".

Question: Did you try to fit a home theater into an existing room, or did you design a custom room with the assistance of an acoustic engineer, architect, interior designer, along with your custom cinema designer? Most don't want (or have) the money to do it right. Usually it's- Lets fit a theater into an existing room. I for one am not afraid point out the good and bad. And propose solutions to do it right. Sometimes it means moving walls, or changing the shape of the room.
post #43 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Who eats cheesecake anyways (are we back in the 80s)?? Wine would've been abetter analogy (and less calories)...

Besides, the better question on preferences, is which do you sell or profit from...

I beg to differ. I bake a gourmet pumpkin cheesecake every year for the holidays. Sure beats the, "hmmm this wine tastes like barn". And you know you've had at least a few of those. Especially at wine tastings. You want me to pay $40 for that? As you move on to the next wine to taste. I'll stick to Frog's Leap, Markham, Sterling Vineyards, and Firestone for my table wines Thank you very much.
post #44 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

A tuned absorber - either diaphragm or Helmholtz resonator

Size? And what do you do about the other modes in a room since resonators are narrow-band?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim HTPC View Post

Depends. Need the whole picture. How many rows of seating? Need room plans/dimensions both inside and out. Are you at a peak or null for your listening position? There are 4 ways. Move the seating, move the sub, add resonator, or fork out for construction. You think Auto-EQ will fix it?

Yes, EQ can fix it, but it needs to be done intelligently. Moving the seating may improve it for one person, but won't work for other people. The reverb time of the bass at the modes will also stick out. Construction won't do anything except move the modes around unless you're building with really flexible walls to provide some loss. Resonators can work, but it depends on how much space you have and what modes you have.

Peak or null at the listening position is kind of irrelevant since bass issues are a global room issue, and shouldn't be fixed with some kind of local patch. Bass EQ is not a local patch, unless you're using a crappy auto EQ.

Quote:


Maybe stop building rectangular or square rooms. Try different shapes. Who wrote a rulebook that all rooms have to be only be 4 walls?

All enclosed spaces have modes, no matter what shape they are. Non-rectangular ones are just harder to analyze, but the modes are still there and just as strong, if not stronger (eg. a spherical room).

--Andre
post #45 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim HTPC View Post

Depends. Need the whole picture..............................There isn't a one answer fixes all problems. Every room is different. It takes trial and error while thinking outside the box.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreYew View Post

Yes, EQ can fix it, but it needs to be done intelligently. Moving the seating may improve it for one person, but won't work for other people.

All enclosed spaces have modes, no matter what shape they are. Non-rectangular ones are just harder to analyze, but the modes are still there and just as strong, if not stronger (eg. a spherical room).

Right and right. Anyone who abjures EQ or, on the other hand, relies on it exclusively is fighting the fight with one hand (and maybe a foot) tied behind his back.

Acoustical solutions should always be the first line of attack whether the situation calls for new construction or for fitting the system into an existing and/or non-dedicated space. The primary advantages of the acoustical approach is that it can effect global improvements for all seats and that there are no major side effects.

After that, it may be necessary to use EQ, especially since it can work efficiently at the low frequencies where physical treatments become very bulky and obtrusive. I have heard A/B demos of electronic EQ in hotel rooms where the improvement was indisputable but still sounded, imho, unacceptably crappy. What was that about a sow's ear?
post #46 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim HTPC View Post

...did you design a custom room with the assistance of an acoustic engineer, architect, interior designer, along with your custom cinema designer?

This is why room correction has caught on: describing the alternative practially sells it.
Quote:


I bake a gourmet pumpkin cheesecake every year for the holidays.

OK, I know where I'm spending the holidays.
post #47 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

The primary advantages of the acoustical approach is that it can effect global improvements for all seats and that there are no major side effects.

This is true for bass EQ as well.

--Andre
post #48 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreYew View Post

This is true for bass EQ as well.

--Andre

Agreed. I was not restricting my comments to only part of the spectrum. The only issue for bass is the increasing size of the appliances.
post #49 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreYew View Post

Size? And what do you do about the other modes in a room since resonators are narrow-band?

Different ones for different freq, or check out the broadband (down to 40 Hz) Modex absorbers under Bass Management Tools

http://www.rpginc.com/residential/ci...c-products.htm
post #50 of 1296
Personally I don't like digital gain control of audio - in my HT. And EQ is just that, but at specific frequency bands. Since the amplification and speakers are analog, you have to convert it at some point anyway. One of the things I like most about the Lexicon processors is the gain controls are in the analog signal path. The EQ is not so I keep that flat and use outboard analog EQs.

TECHNICAL REASON:
Any gain change in a digital system requires multiplication. That generates a data word wider than the data path. So now you have to round down. And unless internal DSP buss is wider, you have to do this rounding several times with digital EQ involved.

Does this result in compromised sonics? Does the increased noise of analog EQ and gain control equally compromise sonics? Which is worse?

Well, that's the fun of this hobby isn't it? And since I use tube amplification on my LCR, background noise like slight hum and tube hiss is a fact of life in my system/.
post #51 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post

Personally I don't like digital gain control of audio - in my HT. And EQ is just that, but at specific frequency bands. Since the amplification and speakers are analog, you have to convert it at some point anyway. One of the things I like most about the Lexicon processors is the gain controls are in the analog signal path. The EQ is not so I keep that flat and use outboard analog EQs.

I agree with your statement. However I would be more inclined to use an EQ in the low bass frequency spectrum than in mid-high frequencies where dialogue and other discerning sounds are heard. Especially if it's just for one trouble frequency, and all tools have been exhausted within the budget.

The trick is to not neuter that 12K sub, or overload the audience inducing fatigue.
post #52 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post

TECHNICAL REASON:
Any gain change in a digital system requires multiplication. That generates a data word wider than the data path. So now you have to round down. And unless internal DSP buss is wider, you have to do this rounding several times with digital EQ involved.

Pipeline can be maintained in floating point or wider fixed point for the entire chain and then dithered+converted to target resolution of the DAC at the end. In this day and age, at least in high-end equipment, we don't worry about the fixed point DSPs of the past with narrow word width.

Now there can be arguments about the right dither (noise shaped or not) but the pipeline issue is not the concern it used to be.
post #53 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Different ones for different freq, or check out the broadband (down to 40 Hz) Modex absorbers under Bass Management Tools

http://www.rpginc.com/residential/ci...c-products.htm

Thanks. I didn't know they could be made that small, but tuning to specific frequency without overdamping nearby frequencies is still a problem.

--Andre
post #54 of 1296
"I don't like digital gain control of audio - in my HT. And EQ is just that, but at specific frequency bands."

I doubt you will find a digital processor that doesn't do some form of gain control in the digital domain at some point for some function or another. Bass management for example.

Shawn
post #55 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreYew View Post

... tuning to specific frequency without overdamping nearby frequencies is still a problem.

Actually by definition it's not - they're only effective around tuning.

In a mass/spring/damper system, damping (unless very high) has little effect other than at resonance.
post #56 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreYew View Post

(eg. a spherical room).

--Andre

I've never seen a spherical room. Where would you place the seats?
post #57 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Pipeline can be maintained in floating point or wider fixed point for the entire chain and then dithered+converted to target resolution of the DAC at the end. In this day and age, at least in high-end equipment, we don't worry about the fixed point DSPs of the past with narrow word width.

Now there can be arguments about the right dither (noise shaped or not) but the pipeline issue is not the concern it used to be.

True but sooner or later you will have to truncate / round down. And there is always a pipe limit as well, 32, 64, 128 bits wide? However these are more than wide enough today for all practical purposes.
post #58 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfogg View Post

"I don't like digital gain control of audio - in my HT. And EQ is just that, but at specific frequency bands."

I doubt you will find a digital processor that doesn't do some form of gain control in the digital domain at some point for some function or another. Bass management for example.

Shawn

That's very true! But consider in my situation using BluRay direct analog output. I have no more digital conversion in the down stream path. But then if I had an HDMI equipped processor, I would get the same results anyway.
post #59 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampfox View Post

I've never seen a spherical room. Where would you place the seats?


Not to keep bringing up the same exact circular $6,000,000 home theater but....

http://gizmodo.com/353963/6-million-...orth-the-money


Plenty of stuff about it here on AVS.
post #60 of 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Actually by definition it's not - they're only effective around tuning.

In a mass/spring/damper system, damping (unless very high) has little effect other than at resonance.

In theory, yes, but the charts from RPG indicate a wider spread than theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampfox View Post

I've never seen a spherical room. Where would you place the seats?

Depends. Where did the dealer-expert tell me to sit?

--Andre
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?