2. home-theater
  3. 168932-93954

a/v processor

Thinking of replacing Mcintosh 122 a/v processor.  Need some help on brands and models to meet my needs.  I live in Alaska so high end stuff non existent in the state, as is the tech advise.  I currently have basic 5.2 system with fronts driven Mcintosh 611s, to be replaced with Luxman m99us.  Center channel driven by Mcintosh 302 and rears driven by Mcintosh 452.  I have 2 subs.  Here is my criteria;
High quality 2 channel playback
Ability to decode all major formats, Imax DTS pro Dolby etc.
Superior DAC chip
Future HDMI 2.1 upgradability 
Anything other than Audisey room correction.  
More than 9 channels.
All advise suggestions welcome.
Thanks
guyt
Post removed 
soix
9,793 posts
 
If 2-channel is important I wouldn’t leave it to an AVP to handle it, even a good one.  I’d suggest getting something like the Yamaha CX-A5200 from accessories4less.com for $2200 and a good stereo preamp and standalone DAC as you’ll get much better 2-channel performance for the $ that way IME.  Hook the front L/R pre outs from the AVP into the stereo pre and you’re good to go — the AVP will be completely out of the signal path for critical 2-channel listening.  Just my $0.02 FWIW, and best of luck. 
holmz's avatar
holmz
2,328 posts
 
I have a Lyngdorf AV-Pre on the way.

So I’VE no concrete idea yet on its 2-channel performance, but I report in a couple of months if you have not gotten to a solution by then.
You are a bit limited in higher end gear choices.(I chose he Lyngdorf over a Mc solution on cost... but it is not exactly a budget AV.)
guyt OP
57 posts
 
no problem on the wait.  The longer the wait the more likely some of the better brands will be supporting HDMI 2.1.
auxinput
2,920 posts
 
The "Future HDMI 2.1 upgradability" is going to kill you.  There are only a few processors that would fall into this range:

NAD M17
Theta Casablanca
Bryston (maybe, but it is a very small maybe)

The NAD is the cheapest up-gradable processor in this list.  However, I don't know if you realize that HDMI 2.1 doesn't really give you much.  The main new features are only support for high frame rate 4K (120hz) and 8K video.  I am of the opinion that 4K is already overkill and 8K really doesn't give you much.  I actually still run a 1080p projector filling a 105" diagonal screen.  While I can easily see that 4K would be an improvement, 8K is just not needed (but it's the next marketing item for mass market consumer electronics).

There may be a small number of processors that support HDMI 2.1 already.  However, pretty much all new processors support HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 (which is what you really want anyways).

If you really want HDMI 2.1, you will likely wait at least 4-5 years for some of the higher end brands to support that.  8K is very new and I wonder if it will actually end up a dead-end (like 3D video did).  It really doesn't add to the videophile results.  It is mainly used as a filming and editing format for Hollywood where extreme resolution is important when you are doing complex editing and graphic effects.  Once it's mastered, the down-convert to 4K or 1080p will be just fine. 
More to discover