or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Best Surround Processor Currently Available?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best Surround Processor Currently Available? - Page 24

Poll Results: Best Multi-Channel processor currently on the market?

This is a multiple choice poll
  • 11% (23)
    Classe SSP800
  • 10% (21)
    Bryton SP3
  • 1% (3)
    ADA Mach IV
  • 13% (27)
    ADA Mach IV+Trinnov
  • 20% (42)
    Datasat RS20i
  • 15% (32)
    Theta CB3 HDMI + Extreme Dacs
  • 5% (12)
    Krell Evolution 707
  • 11% (24)
    Mcintosh MX151
  • 7% (15)
    JBL Synthesis with SDEC 4500
  • 14% (31)
    Other (comment on your answer)
207 Total Votes  
post #691 of 817
ah, now it makes sense
Quote:
Originally Posted by djnickuk View Post

I should have added its WIMP lossless music streaming. Shame it's only available in a handful of countries. But a spoof DNS server gets me in. The Nad M50 music streamer straight into the Datasat sounds better than my old Linn Akurate DS1 and Klimax Kontrol and Klimax amps with Naim DBL speakers.
post #692 of 817
It's funny that in all the processors nobody refer to Krell.
Their S-1200 didn't had any special comments, besides a 5/5 from Techradar, i think they were the only ones. However i would like to take a ride in one of those just for fun, as i never had a Krell processor.
As for the 707 is was also worth to give a try, but in the day somebody asks me less for it than for a Datasat, otherwise i will say to my wife "Pease take me to the hospital, i am not ok" biggrin.gif


Just also a quick note, is there any picture of the S-1200 and 707 Evo remote controls? If they are as the S-1000 it looks so cheap!
post #693 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by MV_Cinema View Post

Correct!

The Marantz is a nice toy, but not made for the ones who take this hobbie to the extreme. For those there is ADA, Datasat, JBL, Meridian...

Toy! some of the processors mentioned can't even comprehend what the 8801 does, price or not and is probably the most relevant when it comes to what it does and that's processing, add a good room ,speakers and those extreme details such as good cables and source material and the decision on what's best becomes more challenging. Now I'm not saying the 8801 is the best, as I'd have to spend some time with those mentioned and trades between each will be determined , but I can tell you what good sound sounds like. if your going to play the SQ card would you like to describe in what ways those you mentioned have a certain advantage?
post #694 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

Toy! some of the processors mentioned can't even comprehend what the 8801 does......
For example?
post #695 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

Toy! some of the processors mentioned can't even comprehend what the 8801 does, price or not and is probably the most relevant when it comes to what it does and that's processing, add a good room ,speakers and those extreme details such as good cables and source material and the decision on what's best becomes more challenging. Now I'm not saying the 8801 is the best, as I'd have to spend some time with those mentioned and trades between each will be determined , but I can tell you what good sound sounds like. if your going to play the SQ card would you like to describe in what ways those you mentioned have a certain advantage?

A $200 receiver can sound good to many if not most. It is all in your reference. If you own a piece, sure you'll think it sounds great. However, if you audition in your room more sophisticated pieces like the Datasat, you have to commit to many hours of set up, etc to really see what it can do... Or do as I do and travel to a few CEDIAs and listen to many systems in person to get a feel. But purely from a perspective of features, options, and DIRAC, the Datasat can do things the Marantz can't and likely all other parts of the Datasat are of higher quality as well better engineered... but at 6X the price, that would certainly be the expectation.
post #696 of 817
I've not even delved into the home automation side of my Datasat yet. It seems so long as what ever you want to control can be controlled via a relay from GPIO port then the world is your oyster.

Create a macro called play blu ray. And have your curtains open, your screen lower, your pj switch on, your lights dim, your input selected etc etc. super powerful.

Looking forward to watching World War Z tomorrow. Supposed to have a reference quality audio track so should be good.
post #697 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

For example?

I'll have to dig through more of the specs but for me the handling of DSD comes to mind right off the bat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

A $200 receiver can sound good to many if not most. It is all in your reference. If you own a piece, sure you'll think it sounds great. However, if you audition in your room more sophisticated pieces like the Datasat, you have to commit to many hours of set up, etc to really see what it can do... Or do as I do and travel to a few CEDIAs and listen to many systems in person to get a feel. But purely from a perspective of features, options, and DIRAC, the Datasat can do things the Marantz can't and likely all other parts of the Datasat are of higher quality as well better engineered... but at 6X the price, that would certainly be the expectation.


Agreed the Datasat is a processing beast and very flexible, but even a piece like the 8801 will take time to set up properly and match to the rest of the system. You can throw all the best parts you want into something and charge 6x the price, that won't necessarily equal good sound always. wink.gif
post #698 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

I'll have to dig through more of the specs but for me the handling of DSD comes to mind right off the bat.

Fair point. Absence of native DSD processing capability is a huge deficiency all high end processors. Many "mid-fi" processors (Denon, Onkyo, Marantz) do the trick and with great results.
post #699 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

I'll have to dig through more of the specs but for me the handling of DSD comes to mind right off the bat.
Only if one believes that DSD provides an audible advantage over Redbook.

If you want to dig, start by comparing Audyssey Pro to Dirac or Trinnov room correction (nevermind Trinnov re-mapping). The latter two provide real audible advantages.
post #700 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

Only if one believes that DSD provides an audible advantage over Redbook.

If you want to dig, start by comparing Audyssey Pro to Dirac or Trinnov room correction (nevermind Trinnov re-mapping). The latter two provide real audible advantages.

Indeed they do! I'm fairly new to DRC and have heard of the prowess of those you mention , I treated my the room the old fashion way first but will admit that Audyssey was able to further add improvement, but for two channel its all off and good placement and the treated room take over. Now the playback of fine recorded classical/jazz on multi/ch DSD w/DRC is worth its salt and can be a powerful listening experience.

As for the merits of DSD vs. Redbook and advantage, first and foremost well mastered music, is well mastered music! and I have a more than a few redbook disc that make a strong argument, even from the 80's, let's just say one must be careful in wording the differences here on the difference of the sound but more fluid, body and overall better sense of Fidelity when a head to head is available for comparison. I recently downloaded a sample from Channel Classics in various formats including a dff file and the results are easily discernible with the hires pcm being a strong rival to the DSD.
post #701 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

Indeed they do! I'm fairly new to DRC and have heard of the prowess of those you mention
I'd suggest you avoid saying things like this
Quote:
...if your going to play the SQ card would you like to describe in what ways those you mentioned have a certain advantage?
without actually hearing the products.

Quote:
I treated my the room the old fashion way first but will admit that Audyssey was able to further add improvement, but for two channel its all off and good placement and the treated room take over.
Why not good placement, a treated room and SoTA room correction? Multi-channel or 2 channel, the benefits are the same, though it pays to have the very best RC product, and it's not Audyssey.

Quote:
As for the merits of DSD vs. Redbook and advantage, first and foremost well mastered music, is well mastered music! and I have a more than a few redbook disc that make a strong argument, even from the 80's, let's just say one must be careful in wording the differences here on the difference of the sound but more fluid, body and overall better sense of Fidelity when a head to head is available for comparison. I recently downloaded a sample from Channel Classics in various formats including a dff file and the results are easily discernible with the hires pcm being a strong rival to the DSD.
I get the part about good masters being available in Hi-res. The inherent superiority of the DSD format? Not so much, personal anecdotes notwithstanding.
post #702 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post

Absence of native DSD processing capability is a huge deficiency all high end processors. Many "mid-fi" processors (Denon, Onkyo, Marantz) do the trick and with great results.
Why do you think all high end processors don't process DSD natively? Mid-fi processors do it by converting DSD to PCM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

Now the playback of fine recorded classical/jazz on multi/ch DSD w/DRC is worth its salt and can be a powerful listening experience.
DRC can't be applied to 1-bit audio (DSD).
post #703 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Why do you think all high end processors don't process DSD natively? Mid-fi processors do it by converting DSD to PCM.
DRC can't be applied to 1-bit audio (DSD).

Some can accept a native DSD stream over hdmi and will only convert to PCM if bass mgmnt or DRC is enabled.
post #704 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

I'd suggest you avoid saying things like this
without actually hearing the products.

Why not good placement, a treated room and SoTA room correction? Multi-channel or 2 channel, the benefits are the same, though it pays to have the very best RC product, and it's not Audyssey.
I get the part about good masters being available in Hi-res. The inherent superiority of the DSD format? Not so much, personal anecdotes notwithstanding.

Gotta save room for growth on my Knowledge of DRC but after a year of careful listening and many runs of Audyssey I respect it as a precision tool and only as good as the hand that guides it. While its no where near my experience with proper setup in other areas, I have no shame in admitting this!

I will agree that good placement, a treated room but add in+ Audyssey and yes it can sound good even for 2/ch and yes the benefits are the same. I do use it when I use a sub for 2/ch playback ( really depends on the mood) As for which is the better RC, none are perfect I'm sure and there remains room for improvement for all, but for now I have a hard time faulting a good Audyssey run in my room.

As for DSD being superior let's just leave that as a matter of taste preference, like I have for 176/24 for PCM wink.gif
post #705 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

Some can accept a native DSD stream over hdmi and will only convert to PCM if bass mgmnt or DRC is enabled.

Correct. My Onkyo bypassed the DRC when DSD direct mode was engaged.
post #706 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

Some can accept a native DSD stream over hdmi and will only convert to PCM if bass mgmnt or DRC is enabled.
Then you're no longer applying DRC to DSD natively, you're applying it to PCM.
post #707 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Then you're no longer applying DRC to DSD natively, you're applying it to PCM.

Correct, in DSD direct mode, there is no DSP. If DRC / bass management is applied, the DSD has to be converted to PCM.
post #708 of 817
What is the reason as to why DSD can not have native dsp?
post #709 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by djnickuk View Post

What is the reason as to why DSD can not have native dsp?

Because there is no DSP engine that works in the DSD (1-bit) domain.
post #710 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post

Because there is no DSP engine that works in the DSD (1-bit) domain.
Yup, even professional DSD workstations/mixing consoles have to convert it to 8-bit audio to do anything. Of course, Sony refuses to admit that the 8-bit signal is PCM, referring to it as DSD-Wide (which the rest of the industry mockingly calls PCM-Narrow).
post #711 of 817
Thanks guys.
post #712 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Yup, even professional DSD workstations/mixing consoles have to convert it to 8-bit audio to do anything. Of course, Sony refuses to admit that the 8-bit signal is PCM, referring to it as DSD-Wide (which the rest of the industry mockingly calls PCM-Narrow).

Only 8-bit? I was under the impression that much better options existed such as the one below:

http://www.merging.com/products/pyramix/dsd-dxd

Some companies, Blue Coast Records for example, convert to analog to perform any changes, then back to DSD.

That's why many want to stay in DSD to avoid any PCM conversions. Doesn't really work for me since I don't sit equidistant from all my speakers and I require some bass management. I guess one could seek out an analog solution to delays and bass management. I think TMH and M&K had solutions before, but does anyone have any analog devices now that do such things?
post #713 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777BigAnt777 View Post

Some companies, Blue Coast Records for example, convert to analog to perform any changes, then back to DSD.

That's why many want to stay in DSD to avoid any PCM conversions.
Only in audiophilia would people prefer converting to analogue and back to digital over transcoding to PCM. Remarkable.
post #714 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777BigAnt777 View Post

I think TMH and M&K had solutions before, but does anyone have any analog devices now that do such things?
They did bass management, but not delays. Manufacturers included TMH, Outlaw, M&K, and the lone survivor still in production, the BMC MkIII from Blue Sky. It does not say if it handles delays or not.
post #715 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

They did bass management, but not delays. Manufacturers included TMH, Outlaw, M&K, and the lone survivor still in production, the BMC MkIII from Blue Sky. It does not say if it handles delays or not.

Wow, 'tis a thing of beauty! XLR ins and outs, wired remote...I gotta get me one biggrin.gif

Thanks for posting that link, Roger.
post #716 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777BigAnt777 View Post

Wow, 'tis a thing of beauty! XLR ins and outs, wired remote...I gotta get me one biggrin.gif

Thanks for posting that link, Roger.
Yes, it is the only studio grade model I am aware of. You might want to check with them to see if the signal path is all-analog or not. The absence of delays implies it is analog.

If you want a more integrated solution, I understand that Audio Design Associates has processors (Cinema Rhapsody Mach IV-B, Mach II, Mach III and IV) that have separate analog bass management options for analog sources.
post #717 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevekale View Post

Hmmm. Theta CB IV is out in 60 days. New processor, fully 192kHz capable, Dirac Live up to 96kHz etc. Still to be heard by many but I'm sure it will be climbing the ranks of this poll when it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

60 days?? Wanna bet?!biggrin.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevekale View Post

I'll take your money. You're pretty confident. What sort of odds are you offering?

I think if It could do more than 7.1 channels output, it would get up to the Datasat level and really in an excellent league. The Datasat seems far more readily upgradeable than anything on the market. They are adding Auro and I think they have DTS Neo X. Does the Theta plan on releasing such?

What's a loaded CBIV going for??

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

It's a suckers bet (for you). But I'll put up an '06 Ken Wright Cellars Pinot (Savoya) that is drinking nicely now. Just had a biottle and have a few left. I think I paid $70 five years ago.
The only deadlines Theta makes are missed ones.biggrin.gif

60 days from CEDIA until we see one here at AVS. I'm sure Steve or some other Theta sycophant will be number #1, first to receive!wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

It's a really good Pinot... and sold out.



[IMG]www.avsforum.com/t/1459947/lightbox/post/23825757/id/290741[/IMG]
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevekale View Post

A single bottle of '06 pinot? You're kidding, right?

I'm not sure if the bet was too steep for Steve, but that was his last correspondence after taking the bet. No Theta in anyone's hands today!!

Well, the day has come. 60 days today from Steve Kale's 'I'll take your bet'!

Time to pay up! Theta did not deliver and I'm still surprised you took the bet!

With shipping over to the USA, it's a ~$100 bet! You can pick a good vino!smile.gif
Edited by thebland - 12/2/13 at 8:40am
post #718 of 817
A little off topic - does anyone with good inner working knowledge of DTS know if they are now mandating dts-ma hd 5.1 be automatically expanded to 7.1 (in 7.1 systems of course), with no way to defeat? A vendor prepping new firmware for their processor is stating this is a new "requirement" for decoding.

One should have the option to expand, but shouldn't be forced to...

Any feedback would be appreciated...
post #719 of 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

A little off topic - does anyone with good inner working knowledge of DTS know if they are now mandating dts-ma hd 5.1 be automatically expanded to 7.1 (in 7.1 systems of course), with no way to defeat? A vendor prepping new firmware for their processor is stating this is a new "requirement" for decoding.

One should have the option to expand, but shouldn't be forced to...

Any feedback would be appreciated...

I can't think of a reason to run 5.1 if you have 7.1 in your room. Sounds like your source is simply implementing a new DTS default that any processor with a 7.1 configuration will automatically set the disc to play at 7.1. This is a good things as I always have to check the menus to make sure I engage the 7.1 track rather than the typical 5.1 default track. If you want 5.1 in the presence of a 7.1 set up, just use your processor's 'Source Direct' or 'Discrete' mode to get exactly what's on the disc and the processor won't over ride you.
post #720 of 817
Well this is the point - the vendor is stating you now cannot set 5.1 to 5.1 - expansion to 7.1 is not detestable, which makes no sense

I like 7.1 for. 7.1 mixes, and some 5.1 up mixes well, but not all

I'm trying to find out if their claim the this is a new DTS requirement is true

Thanks
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+) › Best Surround Processor Currently Available?