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
@Dbphd, lol. I'm not promoting anything at all. I'm just saying the way it is. What I hear is what I hear. I live in Canada. Emotiva is in Tennessee. Makes no sense. It is very clear that the DAC's in the Oppo 105 to the processing in the Emotiva are different, a lot of Oppo users have mentioned the thin midbass as to the high-end range being extremely detailed. It seems to be a compromise to me. But just plugging the Emotiva in the same set-up I had with the 105, out of the box the Emotiva is the clear winner in the analogue audio department. Hence the 5 star ratings...
10 years ago I always had big 2-channel highend systems without a sub. We sold the more expensive Rel sub's. But for me they were too slow and I did not like the focus wenn it was used. XT-32 was the first system I found 2 channel with a sub good enough to use for myself. Before roomcorrection I was never interested in a sub for stereo use. I heard the best Velodyne sub's with roomacoustic sytems. I like the controle of the low freq. in the room. But.......integration witht the frontspeakers was still not exaptable. Now by using my Monitor Audio closed PLW-15 sub ( set to 120hz, it even can get to 160hz)and Audyssey Pro I have the stealth low freq I always dreamed for. By using it to 120hz, integration is superior. This sub is very quick in respons. You get low freq witch become touchable. Instruments and voices are better focussed and still have the right ( small) proportions.
I am a person who is always looking for the best options. Wenn there is a new system and better system this will be the next brand to focus at. I am interested in excelent quality. Every tool ( cable, source, speaker etc) I use I want to be sure to use all it's properties/talents. That is why I do many different tests to see what will give the best results. The way Audyssey people measure I found to be ok, but not more. Then I want to get a higher result what normally is possible.
Tcatman wrote: "Kr4 seems to
minimize the advantages of the Pro treatment... (or at least
how Bo1972 writes about it)
He writes a
lot but don't take his word for my position. It is a fact
that Pro does not change or improve the resolution of the
version of MultiEQ built into a prepro or AVR. What it does
add is a superior measurement and calculation method that
optimizes what the original MultEQ can do. It will not make
MultEQ XT into MultEQ XT32.

How important Pro is depends on which version of MultEQ you
have (it is more important for XT than for XT32) and what
your acoustical issues are (a perfect room needs none of
this, of course).

So, I will say again that I am a fan of Audyssey, MultEQ
XT32 and of MultEQ Pro, use them in my personal system and
recommend them but I do not subscribe to Bo1972's wild
hyperbole for any of them.
I know all the different Audyssey levels. But Audyssey Pro is the one which sets it to a level what impress many people. We use Onkyo for Surround. because brands like Marantz, Denon, Cambridge, Nad ( which I sold for a long period) are all 2 dimensional brands. I am not interested in 2-dimensional sound anymore. I call this standard audio. There are a few Onkyo surround amps and pre amps with XT-32 which can be used for Audessey Pro. There is no Onkyo amp with XT what can be used for Audessey Pro. We sell the Onkyo PR-SC5509 to people who use stereo and surround. Not only surround. Last week we were at an old farm. 8m high, 8m wide and about 8,5 m long. With a lot of glass. I thought it would be impossible to get a good result. We only tested with XT and the results were stunning. Speakers were more than 7.5m from eachtoher. The focus was extreemly sharp and instruments were focussed at the right dimensions. Even at high volums the sound was still very musical. In the past I had a few rooms like these as well. To be unnest the results were not so good in the past without roomacoustic systems. I had some clients in the past with room acoustic pannels. It cost them a lot of money. They still had a lot of acoustic problems. Audessey have a good back up and they are nice people. But they have not a lot knowledge about highend. And about dimensions of instruments and voices at recordings. They way they say you have to measure still has problem of loosing too much dynamics. This is why I did try many different ways of measuring. I wanted to get a better result, and at the end I found. The level we have found is very easy to sell. Quality sell it self.