or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Lexicon MC12 & other high end processors Vs Onkyo with Audessy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lexicon MC12 & other high end processors Vs Onkyo with Audessy - Page 3

post #61 of 121
There you go..
smile.gif
post #62 of 121
I long ago reached the conclusion that just as we all have different visual acuity we also all have different aural acuity, not to mention different tastes in what we like to hear musically or even on soundtracks. Which I think explains why some like or are satisfied with products others do not. I like to use 2 channel music for not only listening pleasure but beyond that as a touchstone in judging how "real" surround processing is for me. I too started with a receiver (and a pretty good one) the old Harman Kardon AV20II. From there I moved on to many separates, including Bryston SP-1, Lexicon MC-8, Audio Refinement SDP, Cary Audio Cinema 11, Aragon, and Proceed AVPII. I also briefly owned analog-only preamps from Innersound, Plinius, and the mulichannel preamp from Bel Canto, the Pre6 I think it was called. For several years I used a Citation 7.0 in conjunction with a H/K receiver and was quite happy with it. None of the above completely satisfied me however, although the Bryston SP-1 was outstanding it lacked DPLII which was important to me and I hated the fact it had no OSD especially since it's front display was so tiny I couldn't see it from my chair. The Bryston upgrade models were too expensive for my taste and still lacked video or OSD. Then I happened upon the JBL Synthesis AV-1, which is the JBL version of the Lexicon MC-4 affordable processor, and immediately it sounded "right" to me in every way. I even found it's 2 ch analog bypass to be the best of any of the above preamps and processors and very close to the essentially perfect analog output of the Benchmark DAC-1. For a long time I hoped that Lexicon would simply update their MC line to include HD processing and HDMI switching and produce an affordable upgrade model comparable to the MC-4, but alas it was not to be. With their mind-boggling screwup of the MD-20 Lexicon has dropped the ball badly and now is stuck with the MC-12HD as their only consumer product for years to come apparently. JBL gave up on their brethren and abandoned ship to go with Bryston. IMO somebody at Harman International needs to kick Lexicon leadership in the ass and set them back on the path of producing the best HT pre/pro in the business.
post #63 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsmith901 View Post

I long ago reached the conclusion that just as we all have different visual acuity we also all have different aural acuity, not to mention different tastes in what we like to hear musically or even on soundtracks. Which I think explains why some like or are satisfied with products others do not. I like to use 2 channel music for not only listening pleasure but beyond that as a touchstone in judging how "real" surround processing is for me. I too started with a receiver (and a pretty good one) the old Harman Kardon AV20II. From there I moved on to many separates, including Bryston SP-1, Lexicon MC-8, Audio Refinement SDP, Cary Audio Cinema 11, Aragon, and Proceed AVPII. I also briefly owned analog-only preamps from Innersound, Plinius, and the mulichannel preamp from Bel Canto, the Pre6 I think it was called. For several years I used a Citation 7.0 in conjunction with a H/K receiver and was quite happy with it. None of the above completely satisfied me however, although the Bryston SP-1 was outstanding it lacked DPLII which was important to me and I hated the fact it had no OSD especially since it's front display was so tiny I couldn't see it from my chair. The Bryston upgrade models were too expensive for my taste and still lacked video or OSD. Then I happened upon the JBL Synthesis AV-1, which is the JBL version of the Lexicon MC-4 affordable processor, and immediately it sounded "right" to me in every way. I even found it's 2 ch analog bypass to be the best of any of the above preamps and processors and very close to the essentially perfect analog output of the Benchmark DAC-1. For a long time I hoped that Lexicon would simply update their MC line to include HD processing and HDMI switching and produce an affordable upgrade model comparable to the MC-4, but alas it was not to be. With their mind-boggling screwup of the MD-20 Lexicon has dropped the ball badly and now is stuck with the MC-12HD as their only consumer product for years to come apparently. JBL gave up on their brethren and abandoned ship to go with Bryston. IMO somebody at Harman International needs to kick Lexicon leadership in the ass and set them back on the path of producing the best HT pre/pro in the business.

All of the processors you are describing are 10 - 20 years old. Dinosaurs. Things have improved vastly from the very old MC-4. You can't even process Blu Rays in the digital domain. Try a newer processor and you'll be very pleasantly surprised. Forget Lexicon. There's many more, better options. They're obviously done.
post #64 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Things have improved vastly from the very old MC-4. You can't even process Blu Rays in the digital domain.

I believe you can; it will just be the slightly lossy version, and I've read many times and placesthat it's indistinguishable from the uncompressed versions.
post #65 of 121
That's just Dolby Digital (lossy) that can be decoded. It is far and away inferior sounding in my system and other systems I've heard. The lossless codecs are awesome... You can't tell on your end?
post #66 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

That's just Dolby Digital (lossy) that can be decoded.

There are two lossy ones, the one that's been around forever, and the newer higher bitrate ones that come with the lossless tracks.

I haven't done the test, bu since about the best sound I've heard on my system is the studio tracks on the extras for the Standing in the Shadows of Motown *DVD*, I doubt it.
post #67 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

All of the processors you are describing are 10 - 20 years old. Dinosaurs. Things have improved vastly from the very old MC-4. You can't even process Blu Rays in the digital domain. Try a newer processor and you'll be very pleasantly surprised. Forget Lexicon. There's many more, better options. They're obviously done.

I don't agree that "things have improved vastly" (sic). Yes, more channels can be (theoretically) processed but most (including me) are not really interested in more than 7.1 or maybe 7.2, and AFAIK all you get with BD HD audio tracks is 7.1 max, so big deal. The HD codecs are supposed to be a big imrovement, but there was a well-done listening test done several years ago by experience pros using SOTA equipment and they were unable to hear a significant difference between high bit-rate DD 5.1 and DDHD on movie soundtracks. It was clear that the vast majority of HT enthusiasts would be better served upgrading their speakers, amps and acoustics rather than expecting HD audio to improve their listening. Sure I want to hear the HD audio and the MC-12HD will process the signal delivered by HDMI from a BD player. It seems to me that the big "improvements" in newer processors are in the area of EQ, which is a band-aid approach at best, but it also allows sellers/installers to play all kinds of games to trick customers into thinking they are hearing an improvement that is unavailable otherwise, which is not necessarily the case. OTOH, I think most of the usable improvements have come from processing 2.0 stereo for multichannmel and IMO nobody surpasses Lexicon's Logic 7 in that regard.

As for Lexicon being "done" I hope you are wrong, but only time will tell.
post #68 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsmith901 View Post

I don't agree that "things have improved vastly" (sic). Yes, more channels can be (theoretically) processed but most (including me) are not really interested in more than 7.1 or maybe 7.2, and AFAIK all you get with BD HD audio tracks is 7.1 max, so big deal. The HD codecs are supposed to be a big imrovement, but there was a well-done listening test done several years ago by experience pros using SOTA equipment and they were unable to hear a significant difference between high bit-rate DD 5.1 and DDHD on movie soundtracks. It was clear that the vast majority of HT enthusiasts would be better served upgrading their speakers, amps and acoustics rather than expecting HD audio to improve their listening. Sure I want to hear the HD audio and the MC-12HD will process the signal delivered by HDMI from a BD player. It seems to me that the big "improvements" in newer processors are in the area of EQ, which is a band-aid approach at best, but it also allows sellers/installers to play all kinds of games to trick customers into thinking they are hearing an improvement that is unavailable otherwise, which is not necessarily the case. OTOH, I think most of the usable improvements have come from processing 2.0 stereo for multichannmel and IMO nobody surpasses Lexicon's Logic 7 in that regard.

As for Lexicon being "done" I hope you are wrong, but only time will tell.
Well put. Completely, I concur; except that I have not heard DD HD and DTS HD in my system. I have the older, non HD, mc12. I have heard many "typical japanese receivers", the Anthem line and my Lexicon line. In my opinion, the Anthem and Lexicon are about equal - not sure if one is better than the other or not. But the receivers simply don't sound "high end". I hear excellent quality from a $400 sony receiver but the $2000 Denon receiver or the Onkyo processor did not "seem to sound" much superior. Certainly, the more expensive versions had more "bells and whistles" but I am not sure that they sounded as high end as do Lexicon and Anthem. Other high end might be equally good. I used the term "japanese receiver", certainly not intented in a derogatory way but to refer to the typical son/yonkyo/denon et al. In fact, I like the Sony receivers very much - for their value. Other brands might be equally good.. My intent is not to make a derogatory comment about any manufacturer.

My intent is to try and identify and share with like minded people, who seem to appreciate the superiority of the high end processors from Lexicon, Meridian, Anthem, Krel etc.. and to re-iterate, I am not particularly impressed with Audyssey and such room equalization.. I prefer the "purity" of the signal and actually do seem to notice the absence of equalization processing..

BTW, on a completely different subject - I enjoy the "video processing" of Darbee.. purity given up for visual impact - mentioned it only because I am not just a "purity nut".. lol.
post #69 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsmith901 View Post

I don't agree that "things have improved vastly" (sic). Yes, more channels can be (theoretically) processed but most (including me) are not really interested in more than 7.1 or maybe 7.2, and AFAIK all you get with BD HD audio tracks is 7.1 max, so big deal. The HD codecs are supposed to be a big imrovement, but there was a well-done listening test done several years ago by experience pros using SOTA equipment and they were unable to hear a significant difference between high bit-rate DD 5.1 and DDHD on movie soundtracks. It was clear that the vast majority of HT enthusiasts would be better served upgrading their speakers, amps and acoustics rather than expecting HD audio to improve their listening. Sure I want to hear the HD audio and the MC-12HD will process the signal delivered by HDMI from a BD player. It seems to me that the big "improvements" in newer processors are in the area of EQ, which is a band-aid approach at best, but it also allows sellers/installers to play all kinds of games to trick customers into thinking they are hearing an improvement that is unavailable otherwise, which is not necessarily the case. OTOH, I think most of the usable improvements have come from processing 2.0 stereo for multichannmel and IMO nobody surpasses Lexicon's Logic 7 in that regard.

As for Lexicon being "done" I hope you are wrong, but only time will tell.

I can't speak to others' experiences but to me, and most here, the improvements in dynamics and processing are vastly superior to the 20 year old lossy technology. It is quite apparent unless your system lacks dynamics or poor.

It costs a few dollars for lossless audio tracks these days as all Blu Ray players have decoding on board.

I agree that upgrading speakers and amps is a great option as you'll benefit by best reproducing the lossless tracks but you have to have a processor capable of decoding the lossless tracks ro you limit your system to a dated sound track that lacks the dynamics, clarity and power of today's tracks. Lossy recordings in my system are obvious as they have a hard edge and lack the punch of the newer soundtracks.

Show me the link to your study... I'm sure it'd be easily debunked. The improvements in a good system are obvious.
post #70 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by audvid View Post


...I am not particularly impressed with Audyssey and such room equalization.. I prefer the "purity" of the signal and actually do seem to notice the absence of equalization processing..

Unfortunately, the room EQ's the signal whether we want it to or not.  

post #71 of 121
Thread Starter 
True about room induced reflections. How ever, such influence casuses time domain distortions, which are not corrected by audyssy et al.
I don't want to digress from the topic but my opinion is that the purity of the path and the high quaity digital to analog conversion by lexicon mc12 gives me asuperior sound. I must confess that I have used the room calibration of my mc12. Its been a long time and I don't recal whether it sounded better with or without its room calibration. I'm at a point that I just want to enjoy my system. Lol
post #72 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by audvid View Post

I must confess that I have used the room calibration of my mc12. Its been a long time and I don't recal whether it sounded better with or without its room calibration.

Probably best not to make general pronouncements about the efficacy of room correction then.

post #73 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

Probably best not to make general pronouncements about the efficacy of room correction then.
you are partly correct.. But, I believe that meridian's aversion to equalization is also reassurance to me and my opinion.
Also, another audio person reminded me, many years ago, about the distortions in the room being substantially due to time domain.
There was a company named TACT, which equalization in digital domain. It was before audyssy.
Years ago, i had tried "professional" digital equalizers by behringer and found it to be unacceptable but of course that involved d/a and a/d which makes it a bad idea.

I hope some one would post comments about time domain distortions
post #74 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by audvid View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

Probably best not to make general pronouncements about the efficacy of room correction then.
I believe that meridian's aversion to equalization is also reassurance to me and my opinion.
Meridian and Lexicon were two of the first surround processor manufacturers to have embraced automated digital equalization.

Here is Meridian's room correction white paper from a decade ago:
https://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Room_Correction_prt.pdf

Considering your continuing pronouncements, you really should have heeded RUR's suggestion above.
post #75 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Meridian and Lexicon were two of the first surround processor manufacturers to have embraced automated digital equalization.

Here is Meridian's room correction white paper from a decade ago:
https://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Room_Correction_prt.pdf

Considering your continuing pronouncements, you really should have heeded RUR's suggestion above.
As I wrote in the preceding, I am familiar with Lexicon Room correction - I have the MC12. I do admit that I am unable to offer a critical/definitive opinion about the improvement or lack thereof, while using my MC12 with and without the equalization.

It was always my understanding that Meridian does not do equalization above 300 Hz (250 Hz actually, according to their paper).

Below is the excerpt from the link you have kindly provided. Did you actually read the Meridian paper?

"Using Meridian Room
Correction
There have been some attempts at
room EQ in the consumer, as opposed
to the professional, audio industry, but
by and large they have attempted to
invert the loudspeaker–room response,
which as we have seen is not a satisfac-
tory approach. They have also often
attempted to control the entire audible
frequency range, which is, as we have
seen, unnecessary at very low frequen-
cies (below 15Hz) because there are no
resonances there; while above 250Hz or
so, attempts to modify the response can
cause more problems than they solve.


Such systems, in addition, have general-
ly provided only the filtering capability
and it has been left to the user or
installer to measure the room response
(a process that often requires expensive
equipment and some expertise), calcu-
late the equalisation required, and input
a set of complex parameters into the
equaliser."


Unless I am mistaken, Meridian does not correct above below 15 hz or above 250hz. Did I read the paper incorrectly?

My intent is not to berate those of you, who like your audyssy or what ever it is that you have. It is simply meant to be an open and informative exchange, adding my personal opinion.. and I would absolutely admit that I am certainly not an expert (technical or otherwise), at Audio. Just a very experienced user, who has lost hearing due to too many sub woofers! biggrin.gif (true, actually! A friend of mine, who is an ENT surgeon came to my house and told me to shut off the subs!).biggrin.gif

Anyway, the post being about high end processors Vs the integra et al.. I concur with dsmith901..
post #76 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by audvid View Post

Unless I am mistaken, Meridian does not correct above below 15 hz or above 250hz. Did I read the paper incorrectly?
Did you read the date on the paper? It's a decade later and there is no longer any need to limit room correction to any particular frequency range.

In 2004, Lexicon limited their correction to below 300Hz. By 2011, ARCOS room correction (which was to be in the next Lex) was full range.

In any case, fact remains that Meridian has no "aversion to equalization".
post #77 of 121
Thread Starter 
Well, it was you who posted the link suggesting it as evidence that merdian offersroom correction.
I was aware of the meridian's 250/300 hz limitation. Their paper, even if 10 years old, is quite clear about equalization and reaffirms my view and prior statement. I don't know for sure but I am guessing that their current processors also don't do full spectrum equalization
Edited by audvid - 9/28/13 at 7:31pm
post #78 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by audvid View Post

Just a very experienced user, who has lost hearing due to too many sub woofers!

Very unlikely that bass damaged your hearing; no doubt it was the higher freq accompanying them.
post #79 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by audvid View Post

Well, it was you who posted the link suggesting it as evidence that merdian offersroom correction.
Hence the title of the paper: The Gentle Art of Room Correction. Note those last two words. Demonstrates that Meridian has no "aversion to equalization" as you claimed.
post #80 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by audvid View Post

I am not particularly impressed with Audyssey and such room equalization.. I prefer the "purity" of the signal and actually do seem to notice the absence of equalization processing..
 

 

I don't quite follow you here - could you expand on this?  Do you perhaps have a really good room with extensive and properly utilised acoustic treatments?  If so, then Audyssey will not really need to do anything to the sound and its effects, if any, will be benign. If not, then how do you deal with all of the room-induced degradations to the sound - for example, the +/- 20-30dB swings in frequency response that are common in untreated rooms?  Or the problems caused by bad reflections?

 

What do you mean by "purity of the signal"?  Do you mean the signal exactly as it leaves the amp? You want that signal to be unchanged by anything?  

 

But what about the signal as it leaves the speakers? Do you want that signal 'unchanged' by anything too?   Because that signal will be massively changed by the room the speaker is in, if it has not been properly treated. Audyssey's objective is to attempt to remove malign room influences from the sound in the actual room. Why do you believe that is a bad idea, given the tremendously malign influences most rooms have on the sound?  You seem to prefer a "pure" signal even if that means massive, room-induced distortions - that's the bit I don't quite follow. 

post #81 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by audvid View Post

you are partly correct.. But, I believe that meridian's aversion to equalization is also reassurance to me and my opinion.
Also, another audio person reminded me, many years ago, about the distortions in the room being substantially due to time domain.
There was a company named TACT, which equalization in digital domain. It was before audyssy.
Years ago, i had tried "professional" digital equalizers by behringer and found it to be unacceptable but of course that involved d/a and a/d which makes it a bad idea.

I hope some one would post comments about time domain distortions

Get out your wallet and try Trinnov or even Dirac live installed by a good installer with a modern SSP and then report back. Forget the low-fi Behringer stuff.

In reading these posts, you seem to be spinning in a time warp with 10-15 year old equipment and pronouncing the dated ideas of the day.

Don't be a curmudgeon-o-phile. Get some new gear, a better sound and a new attitude!
post #82 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Get out your wallet and try Trinnov or even Dirac live installed by a good installer with a modern SSP and then report back. Forget the low-fi Behringer stuff.

In reading these posts, you seem to be spinning in a time warp with 10-15 year old equipment and pronouncing the dated ideas of the day.

Don't be a curmudgeon-o-phile. Get some new gear, a better sound and a ncthrePP's.: s ude!
good point biggrin.gif. You are correct.smile.gif
How ever, I was making the comments because this thread was about older high end processors VS current gen onkyo etc.
I would make no comments in a thread seeking advice on current gen high end processors, of course
smile.gif
Ps: As the originator of this thread, my intent was to hear from those people who own high end processors ($8000 +) and who have auditioned onkyo, denon etc. Paraphrasing you, from people who opened their wallets.
Edited by audvid - 9/29/13 at 4:58am
post #83 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by audvid View Post

good point:D. You are correct.smile.gif
How ever, I was making the comments because this thread was about older high end processors VS current gen onkyo etc.
I would make no comments in a thread seeking advice on current gen high end processors, of course
smile.gif

It's all good. smile.gif

My system is 8 years old (with the exception of a newer ADA SSP), but I'm getting rid of my speakers, subs, QSC DSP/EQs and am going to try Trinnov. It's time to refresh my audio and get back into the hobby. The soundtracks are so dynamic and with these new technologies, the experience is greatly enhanced. I'm going to add more speakers as well (9.1 - 13.1).

I've been listening to these room correction devices at CEDIAs over the years and they are very, very good.

I'm going to have two in college next year and I'll finally get some real time to spend in my theater... so, I'm preparing!biggrin.gif
post #84 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I don't quite follow you here - could you expand on this?  Do you perhaps have a really good room with extensive and properly utilised acoustic treatments?  If so, then Audyssey will not really need to do anything to the sound and its effects, if any, will be benign. If not, then how do you deal with all of the room-induced degradations to the sound - for example, the +/- 20-30dB swings in frequency response that are common in untreated rooms?  Or the problems caused by bad reflections?

What do you mean by "purity of the signal"?  Do you mean the signal exactly as it leaves the amp? You want that signal to be unchanged by anything?  

But what about the signal as it leaves the speakers? Do you want that signal 'unchanged' by anything too?   Because that signal will be massively changed by the room the speaker is in, if it has not been properly treated. Audyssey's objective is to attempt to remove malign room influences from the sound in the actual room. Why do you believe that is a bad idea, given the tremendously malign influences most rooms have on the sound?  You seem to prefer a "pure" signal even if that means massive, room-induced distortions - that's the bit I don't quite follow. 
I do have a reasonably well treated room. It was not "professionally" designed. All walls have large acoustic panels. Acoustic panels for a part of the ceiling.
What I mean by "purity of signal" is that I seem to notice degradation of audio, when the audio frequencies are equalized. I am particularly unhappy with the "auto equalization" offered in receivers but I do realize that they serve a purpose in their price point.

20 to 30 db swing would be huge, in a typical home theatre. I never measured it but am surprised with that number. hmm...

I am no expert but I believe that there are more complex and damaging issues, related to room reflections, than can be addressed by a simple frequency flattening. The meridian white paper in the preceding post is very informative and definitive on this subject. I found it very informative and completely agree with them.
Edited by audvid - 9/29/13 at 6:33am
post #85 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Hence the title of the paper: The Gentle Art of Room Correction. Note those last two words. Demonstrates that Meridian has no "aversion to equalization" as you claimed.
Well.. you should have read the whole paper rather than quote just the heading.. Do you not understand what they mean by: "while above 250Hz or so, attempts to modify the response can cause more problems than they solve."?

In fact, I must thank you for pointing out the paper. It really was informative. BTW, I have not heard the meridian 860 series. A friend of mine owns it. He is an expert and has a very fat wallet to back it up. It was he, who pointed out about meridian and who educated me about the equalization and its pitfalls.

By the way, I am not necessarily a fan of Meridan. I just recognize their name brand being in the league of Mark levinson. Incidentally, I have both brands.. but in my cars.. One has Meridian and the other has Mark Levinsion audio.. I think I like the Mark Levinson better (by not much - they are both pretty good). Not sure if they are "equalized for those cars".. biggrin.gif.. Hey just joking.. Don't take these seriously... smile.gif
Edited by audvid - 9/29/13 at 6:45am
post #86 of 121
Thread Starter 
post #87 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

It's all good. smile.gif

My system is 8 years old (with the exception of a newer ADA SSP), but I'm getting rid of my speakers, subs, QSC DSP/EQs and am going to try Trinnov. It's time to refresh my audio and get back into the hobby. The soundtracks are so dynamic and with these new technologies, the experience is greatly enhanced. I'm going to add more speakers as well (9.1 - 13.1).

I've been listening to these room correction devices at CEDIAs over the years and they are very, very good.

I'm going to have two in college next year and I'll finally get some real time to spend in my theater... so, I'm preparing!biggrin.gif
I know what you mean.. biggrin.gif
Frankly, I am and have been at a point, that I try to enjoy my theatre rather than keep up with the latest in technology. Do you think amps have changed a lot in 15 years? I am using 5 Bryston amps - three of which are 7bst mono blocks.. are they still good? Just a rhetorical question - because I don't intend to change them and spend $10,000 for new amps! smile.gif
A friend of mine, whose opinion I respect, suggested that I consider these speakers:
http://www.ispproaudio.com/portfolio/hdds-sm2110/
He would not say it lightly but he spoke very highly of them.
I would probably upgrade to a used mc12HD processor or an Anthem with HDMI. The intent of my starting this thread was to see if I should buy one of the new Onkyo units, which is well within my price range (it was tempting) and I now am of the opinion that I should not do so.. I suppose I could have bought a ONKYO processor to evaluate and return if unsatisfied but its not worth the trouble for me.. biggrin.gif
Edited by audvid - 9/29/13 at 7:03am
post #88 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by audvid View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I don't quite follow you here - could you expand on this?  Do you perhaps have a really good room with extensive and properly utilised acoustic treatments?  If so, then Audyssey will not really need to do anything to the sound and its effects, if any, will be benign. If not, then how do you deal with all of the room-induced degradations to the sound - for example, the +/- 20-30dB swings in frequency response that are common in untreated rooms?  Or the problems caused by bad reflections?

What do you mean by "purity of the signal"?  Do you mean the signal exactly as it leaves the amp? You want that signal to be unchanged by anything?  

But what about the signal as it leaves the speakers? Do you want that signal 'unchanged' by anything too?   Because that signal will be massively changed by the room the speaker is in, if it has not been properly treated. Audyssey's objective is to attempt to remove malign room influences from the sound in the actual room. Why do you believe that is a bad idea, given the tremendously malign influences most rooms have on the sound?  You seem to prefer a "pure" signal even if that means massive, room-induced distortions - that's the bit I don't quite follow. 
I do have a reasonably well treated room. It was not "professionally" designed. All walls have large acoustic panels. Acoustic panels for a part of the ceiling.
What I mean by "purity of signal" is that I seem to notice degradation of audio, when the audio frequencies are equalized. I am particularly unhappy with the "auto equalization" offered in receivers but I do realize that they serve a purpose in their price point.

20 to 30 db swing would be huge, in a typical home theatre. I never measured it but am surprised with that number. hmm...

I am no expert but I believe that there are more complex and damaging issues, related to room reflections, than can be addressed by a simple frequency flattening. The meridian white paper in the preceding post is very informative and definitive on this subject. I found it very informative and completely agree with them.

 

20 to 30 dB swings are typical in untreated rooms, not unusual, but you may have already taken care of the worst of it with the treatments you have. The way Audyssey works, if it encountered a 'perfect' room then it would do nothing anyway ('perfect' being defined as a room which naturally gives the Audyssey target frequency response). But no such domestic room exists of course, so Audyssey will always be shaping the FR somehow, I agree. The main point I am trying to make is that any 'degradation' introduced by EQ is likely to be far less 'degrading' than anything the room can do on its own.

 

Time domain issues are, indeed, hugely significant. But making corrections in the frequency domain usually gives concomitant benefits in the time domain, at least as far as bass is concerned. And if your acoustic treatments are well designed and well placed, then you have already dealt with the worst issues of reflections.

post #89 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by audvid View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Hence the title of the paper: The Gentle Art of Room Correction. Note those last two words. Demonstrates that Meridian has no "aversion to equalization" as you claimed.
Well.. you should have read the whole paper rather than quote just the heading.. Do you not understand what they mean by: "while above 250Hz or so, attempts to modify the response can cause more problems than they solve."?

 

 

That is true, which is why Audyssey's best RC version, XT32, does far less with the upper frequencies than, for example, its second cousin, XT.  Automated RC systems have evolved, and continue to evolve, over the past few years and if your experience is with the older incarnations, then you may not be up to date on what can be achieved. XT32's influence above Schroeder is much more benign than in lesser versions.

post #90 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

That is true, which is why Audyssey's best RC version, XT32, does far less with the upper frequencies than, for example, its second cousin, XT.  Automated RC systems have evolved, and continue to evolve, over the past few years and if your experience is with the older incarnations, then you may not be up to date on what can be achieved. XT32's influence above Schroeder is much more benign than in lesser versions.
You are correct. I am not up to date on latest Audyssey. The reason I started this thread is - to see if I should buy an Onkyo to replace my mc12. While the comments from some of the former owners of the very high end processors/ like MC12/Meridian units were suggesting the Onkyo, others have been dissuaded me. I see it as a 50 - 50 split. Therefore, I decided to add my personal bias and not go with the Onkyo.
Now, I continue to participate in this, just for informational purpose and am no longer in the market to replace my mc12 with an Onkyo. And if and when I do, I would probably buy the mc12hd or the Anthem HDMI version. It is very difficult to make critical analysis of processors. Therefore, I would probably stay with the brands I have good experience with - Lexicon and Anthem and avoid Onkyo, based on my one bad experience with it (i think the 9.1 which had gotten rave reviews).
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+) › Lexicon MC12 & other high end processors Vs Onkyo with Audessy