Good Processor


I know this has been discussed before and have read most of the posts. However, I haven't seen one that addressed this question. For good stereo what is a better option? Going with an older high end pro like a meridian 861 version 2.8/4 or Halcro 100 OR buying a newer unit such as the Integra 80.2/3. If I purchased the Integra it would be easy to setup with little in cables given the HD audio formats. With the older units I would be processing HT in my Oppo and using the 5.1 output into the processor.
jamesw20
you write

HD codecs can output from bluray so that's not an issue.

I don't understand your point.
So for a 7.1 system... you would need 7 high quality 1 meter interconnects.
That is not an issue?

And you won't have base management. (per Kr4) and that is not an issue?

If you don't care about the HD codecs...I could understand... For example... you want to run standard Dolby from your cable provider and rarely punch in a bluray.

I see these processors as computers (and just like PCs.. the life cycle is now closer to 5 years then new every 2) we are just now coming to the point where the technology improvements (room correction and high res formats) has slowed to the point where budget minded audiophiles > videophiles can enter and expect the value to last a bit.
I am into Blu-rays with the HD codecs. I use an oppo BDP-103; that has both digital and analog outs. The Oppo can also decode all latest Codecs.

Recently I purchased both a Marantz AV8801 and a pre-owned Lexicon MC12Bv5 with room EQ.

I compared the Marantz with HDMI from the Oppo (letting the Marantz decode HD audio) against the Lexicon using analog outs from the Oppo (letting the Oppo decode HD audio) into the Lexicon's 5.1 analog input.

To me the Lexicon is noticeably better. For what its worth; I was hoping that I would like the Marantz more due to it being newer with a warranty, and, the simplicity of single HDMI hook-ups. Also, the Marantz will display the audio format in nice big font.

The Lexicon sounds clearer than the Marantz and the musical notes (that exist all throughout movies) seem to float in the air. The Marantz sounds good, but, not near as good as the Lexicon. I am returning the Marantz. It is all about the sound. Amazing.. Considering the Lexicon is 10 years old.

David
Tcat
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I do want the ability to process the new codecs but not necessarily from the processor as I understand my oppo can do this fine. My real problem here as stated is my speakers are going to reveal anything that isn't good quality and I seriously doubt the lower end pros will make the cut. However, I also am not currently able to buy a $15K Casablanca III with extreme dacs so some compromise must be made. Now, if I'm really giving up a good deal by running 5 channel, will not be using 7 for now, into an older processor please educate me as to why.
Jdlynch can offer the best input here!

He evaluates the high quality multichannel analog stage of the lexicon as superior to the digital + analog of the marantz.

What he does not address is the value of room correction in his setup. The killer question is what is his room like acoustically and will bass management help or even be needed. Perhaps he has an ideal room and his bass management needs are trivial and so he really can't offer much. Perhaps, the Marrantz and full DSP never quite matched the Lexicon?

Finally, how does jdlynch (or anyone really) listen for optimal bass management... do you focus on your Two channel listening... OR do you evaluate the sound listening to multichannel blu ray sound.

For instance, if he is judging the marantz versus the lecicon on the basis of two channel music without a sub...
that might not be what you are looking for (opinion wise)
For example, your mains could desperately need the sub for that low base extension for music.

You make the point that your speakers are revealing... I read that as the speakers and your room are revealing.. what I don't know is what that actually means to you... (base extension, smoothness in the mids to highs, imaging, and all of those acoustic signatures) As you optimize the value in your upgrade choices... consider your gold standard.

IMO, the gold standard becomes a discrete two channel system with full range speakers in an acoustically treated room for the vast amount of music. Adding a video display changes the acoustics and so you start making compromises just by adding the flat panel. So, what tradeoffs make sense for your room and budget as you add in the other components given what you currently have and want to keep .... this is great fun!

I suggest you keep asking questions of others and yourself.
The great mystery to me is the value of room correction versus how your speakers perform and the nature of your room.

I am always looking for some wisdom here... Sadly, I don't have the budget to experiment for my self (sigh..... grin)!

What I follow is the advice that assuming you have good full range mains.. then you are best served with a discrete two channel system with HT bypass and then add an AV receiver or processor for the HT.

Then of course, you start looking at the other boxes you could add... (Analog Turntable), Music streamer, PC media server for high res music, Stand alone DAC cabled to your network, DAC wireless to your network. What about multihchannel content on your Media server...

My practice is... I tend to not punch in blue ray disks (hardly ever) .... and don't care enough about the video/sound to do more then watch the HD cable feed and plain vanilla 5.1 on movie content. I care a lot about the two channel music tho.
James-

I forgot to add that I also have very revealing speakers. I have three Aerial Acoustics LR5's for my left, right, center. I am only running a 5.1 system with a seaton submersive sub and inexpensive in-wall speakers for my surround channels. I intend to upgrade my rears to full range Aerial Acoustics.

David