Good Processor

You may want to rethink your question. There really is nothing wrong with what you are asking, but the examples you give in your post are so far away from each other price wise, it makes any type of recommendation almost impossible. I think the Integra goes for somewhere around $2000 and I know the 861 is about $20000. If you are willing to spend 18k more for better 2 channel sound you'd be nuts to buy a HT processor in the first place. I know the sound of the 861 well because my best friend has one. You can buy a whole system for a lot less than the cost of just 861 that will easily sound better. I think you will get a much better answer if you can give more details as to what you want your system to be.

For good stereo the older pre/pro will certainly win. I have seen older 861s go for much less than new, but you could do a 565 or 568 for about $400-800. In stereo the processor is not being used, so the pre-amp stage means everything.

Bear in mind that, despite its excellent performance. the 861 is a digital-only device without any analog bypass or passthrough.

Zd542, sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not comparing a new meridian to a new integra but instead a new integra with the older versions, as stated 2.8 or 4, which can be purchased for similar price points. Also, considering lexicon mc12 and other s that are suggested.

You need to determine if the old receiver digitizes the 5.1 analog and apply room correction, bass management etc. The Oppo can do the bass management, but I do not think it does the room correction. Most receivers do not do room correction on the analog inputs. Because the Meridian is all digital, maybe it does. Also, does the Meridian have 5.1 or 7.1 RCAs or does it use a proprietary connection?

Meridian also has, at least to me, a characteristic sound that is much more digital than analog. You need to decide if you like that sound or not, especially for 2 channel music.

1. Few (but some) old receivers will redigitize the 5.1 analog but that is not optimum. If you want it to process digital (RC, Bass management, etc.), feed it digital
2. Oppos do not do room correction.
3. Meridian does RC below 300Hz which is where you really need it.
4. It is not standard but the Meridian 861s can be configured with a 5.1 RCA analog input.
5. IMHO, the Meridian sound is surprisingly analog and liquid.

I'm thinking the integra 80.3 is the way to go for me. Suggestions for 5 channel amp? Will be driving Merlin TSM for L,C,R and sonance in ceiling for surrounds.

If stereo is very important, going with an AVP can be very limiting in terms of viable options as you well know. And it may also be more expensive relative to using a quality stereo pre for the front L/R speakers and a decent AVP for surround processing and channels. Then again if surround processing and quality of those signals are just as important as stereo (or you're space constrained) I guess it could be worth the additional expense and limited choices for a good AVP. Just in case you hadn't considered the possibility of using a stereo pre in your setup. Best of luck.

I am totally pleased with my NAD T175HD pre/pro for HT, multichannel music, and 2-channel music. It really does do all three very well, IMO.

Bill

I use the Onkyo PR-SC5509 ( same as Integra 80.3) with Audessey pro ( we sell this) with Pass labs X250.5 ( other channels Primare Poweramp) and the results are stunning. It is extreemly holographic. I owned the Meridian 800DAXV4 and sold Meridian as well. The problem is that old technique is bettered by new technique. Meridian can play 3d, but it is not his strongest property. Integra has depth like the better highend has. Marantz, Denon, NAD, Cambridge are all 2 dimensional products. This means that there is almost no depth image. 2 dimensional audio I call STANDARD AUDIO. Integra uses new 32 bit burr brown dacs. And the video section is 12 bit and very nice. I would never go for old technique. Surround without professional roomcorrection is always asking for problems and acoustic flaws. With Audessey pro yo become a very balanced sound. A few years ago I owned the Pass XA100.5 and XP20. Now I have a better focussed image. in recordings voices are better separated than with the XP-20. I never heard surround this good.

I tested many hdmi cables with eachother. Audioquest Diamond is by far the best I ever heard. With a source in stereo it is even stunning. These days high quality cables are more important than ever. Depth will increase a lot wenn you use a processor what can give this like the Integra does. Difference between Audessey XT32 and Audessey Pro is huge. Dynamics are superior, focus is a lot sharper. I play 4 metres behind the speakers, more than 1 metre beside the speakers. And many recordings some instruments play even in front of the speaker. Audessey pro gives you also the tightest and best ballanced sound for your subwoofer. Without you never get this level. These days you even can use a very fast subwoofer to 120hz. This makes voices and instruments better focussed, even in stereo.

My only issue is that I am using some very revealing speakers, Merlin VSM which I intend to keep, and fear lesser quality electronics will stick out. From reviews I have read comparing cary, integra, lexicon even the older higher end units sound better than newer mass processors. HD codecs can output from bluray so that's not an issue. Video will go directly to projector so I don't necessarily need video processing. Considered cary 11a until read the negative reviews on avs forums. So lexicon 12? What series? Older theta Casablanca? Bryston? Budget ~2000 used. Thx.

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

Thx guys. I have Merlin VSM MXRs and will be adding the tsm center and tsm for surround. When I mean they are revealing, I am trying to say they show the weak link in the audio chain.

OK-I can clarify with more information on my system.

I do not have a dedicated HT. I have a section of my open and very large basement I use with a projector, screen and my audio equipment. I have no sound treatment what-so-ever.

As far as the room correction goes; I compared the Lexicon against the Marantz with the room correction turned off. I much preferred the clearer and more natural "analog sound" of the Lexicon.

A good feature of the Lexicon EQ is that it only EQ's bass frequencies (I believe below 200hz). The Marantz uses Audyssey XT32 which EQ's the entire spectrum. I prefer the Lexicon's approach; at least with the acoustics of my room. Just EQ'ing the bass really improves the clarity of the mid and higher frequencies.

I do need the EQ for my subwoofer as I have some pretty significant bass peaks in my listening area. The Lexicon EQ does an excellent job of correcting those.

David,

A better comparison would have been analog output from the Oppo to the Marantz as well as the Lexicon. It may have been the analog processing of the Oppo that you preferred to that of the Marantz.

The comments at AVS re the Cary 11a had to do with bugs. I output analog from my 105 to my 11a, and the 11a inputs are set to bypass, so I am no longer bothered by the bugs. The critics at AVS agreed the sound from the 11a was excellent.

db

db-

Yes, I agree that it probably is the analog sound of the Oppo/Lexicon that I prefer compared to the all digital path.

I see where you have an Oppo 105. Do you think, considering that I am mainly using my system for HT, that the 105 would provide a noticeable improvement over my 103? The difference in cost is around $700.

David,

I have 93, 95, and 105 Oppos -- I plan to give the 93 to my mother. If you want to use analog from the Oppo, then the 95 or 105 are superior to the 93 and 103, and the improvement is noticeable. It seems to me that the 105 is the best sounding of the three, but I bought it (to replace the 95) for its HDMI and asynchronous USB ports to accommodate a DirecTV HD-DVR and Mac Mini. The 95 will replace the 93 in the living room setup.

The sound of high-quality SACD played on the 105 is remarkable similar to that of high-qualty vinyl played on the Thorens TD 124 with SME Series III arm with SME 30H cartridge. Both sound superb to me, with excellent timbre and soundstage detail.

db

I replaced my Oppo 105 with an Oppo 103 due to the analogue in the 105 lacking midbass and dynamics. The 103 now feeds hdmi video and my Emotiva UMC-200 replaced the 105. Wow did it replace it. Immediate dynamics and midbass were noticed just out of the box without calibration and with manual settings of speakers, trim, levels. Emotiva UMC-200 is a clear winner with a small price tag to boot. Absolutely high-end...

Bacardi-

Just so I am clear; You prefer the 103 over the 105?

I am a Audyssey Pro instaler. Audyssey Pro is superior to XT32. It is another world. Audyssey also works for the most part in the low freq. But it is a lot more than only ajusting the room acoustic. It improves the focus, dynamics and the sound as well. With Audyssey Pro I can adjust the stage as well. We develop our own way of doing measurements. This way is even superior to the way Audyssey discirbes. It is much more dynamic than XT32. There is so much more authority. Resolution is a lot higher compared to XT32. I got the best integration wiht my subwoofer and speakers. Which I set to 120 hz. It is even better than room acoustic systems sub brands own. Like Velodyne. The control is very good, but the integration is not of the level I would want. With Audyssey Pro you get fully 'stealth'integrartion. With the Velodyne own roomacoustic system it is not stealth. Because instruments and voices are much better focussed wenn you use Audyssey Pro compared to there own system.

@Jdlynch, I chose the 103 only for HDMI video. I then 2.1/5.1 multichannel in to the Emotiva UMC-200. I though the analogue of the 105 was too thin and lacking male mavodo/mid bass. The Hdmi input switching was qwercky too. The UMC-200 is definitely more dynamic, detailed, not excessively bright sounding in the highend as the 105 right out of the box. I have roughly 25-50 hours only on the Umc-200 and it only gets better.....

I am a big fan of Audyssey but I think Bol972 is a bit over
the top in his descriptions of what Pro can accomplish, even
in his hands. His statement that "Resolution is a lot
higher compared to XT32" is patently false since Pro
can only utilize the DSP resolution already built into the
processor. Therefore, it cannot exceed it.

Basically, Pro offers a superior microphone, more microphone
positions, more sophisticated computation and greater
tweakability/control compared with non-Pro implementations.
However, the processor's inherent constraints remain and
that means that Pro is a significant enhancement but not a
different animal.

We did a Pro measurement last Thursday. Before the measurement we listen to some cd's. After the measurement we listened to the same music again. Audyssey Volume and EQ do a lot in resolution. We measure at a different height and different place what Audyssey says. This is superior to the results Audyssey normally can get. We will never say how we measure. Onkyo wants to arrange a meeting for me witht the people of Audyssey. I never will share this, I am not stuppid! In a few weeks I wil give a presentation with XT32 and Audyssey Pro for Onkyo. The end results with pro is superior. Clients have such a big smile on there faces after the measurments. I did test a lot at many different ways of doing measurements. I am a perfectionist. Good it never good enough. I am only interested in the best. I want to invite Pass Labs to bring in a XP-20 ( which I owned for 2 years) and compare it with Onkyo PR-SC5509 with my pro measurement. I use a Pass Labs X250.5 ( this year I wil update to 600.5 or XA100.5 again) The results in stereo are better. Stage is wider and deeper compared to XP-20. individual focus is a lot better. 2nd and 3th voices are more clear compared to what I had with the XP-20. I have email contact about this with Pass labs.

Kr4, I agree. I get the impression both Bol1972 and Bacardi are promoting, both a bit over the top in their praise for the products they espouse.

db

I drink seldom alcohol by the way. Here the differences between Pro and XT32

- sound of Pro is a lot more natural
- low freq are more tight, go deeper and are more defined.
- instruments and voices are better focussed and more 3d.
- there is more depth, you can hear more decay of recordings.
- they way we measure we can make the stage wider and deeper. There are recordings were I did hear new instruments. because I made the stage wider. I even did not hear these instruments with my Pass Labs XP-20.

"Audyssey Volume and EQ do a lot in resolution."

So, you are speaking of SUBJECTIVE resolution. That was not clear from your original post and, especially with regard to DV and DEQ, quite debatable.

Back to the issue for Jdlynch and James20. (and to get some clarity in this discussion.)

Do JD and James take the room correction software approach... some flavor of Audessy (which is beside the point... IF)
Or...
do they choose to stay old school and get high quality but technologically dated analog system gear. (They lean this way now)

These two individuals seem to think that their highly resolving speakers minimize the need for DSP processing in the signal chain. Is this opinion widely shared???

What should they listen for as they evaluate the two approaches... (that they might be overlooking right now)

What is the advice for
say you for two channel music... no sub... full range speakers.

what say audiogon for 5.1 (Or more) music with the high resolution codecs.

What do you listen for to evaluate the DSP treatment or not?

Bo1972 is completely in the Audessy Pro camp.... He would argue that ANY high res system is improved by his measurement based approach to the room. Kr4 seems to minimize the advantages of the Pro treatment... (or at least how Bo1972 writes about it)

It is just about what I can hear. Wenn voices and instruments are better focussed and more separated it is more easy to follow. Let's go back to the XP-20. What it does compared to less expensive pre-amps is making a bigger and wider stage. This let you hear better separation of instruments and voices. The biggest flaw I encounterd with Audyssey is the loss of dynamics. So I wanted to see how I can limited this flaw. Wenn you can measure more dynamics you will win in quality. Better sound, beter focus and better separation. This has nothing to do with the EQ and Volume of Audyssey. It is just about collecting more information. Like Audyssey pro gives you more information compared to XT32. You hear the improvement easilly. Maybe it is not perfect, nothing is perfect. Either are we! I spoke a few weeks ago with the people of Trinnov. On paper it goes further than Audyssey Pro. I need to hear it with good stuff before I know what it is capable of. I hope to hear it in Munic next month.

Kr4,

I use analog from an Oppo 105 and Sony 5400ES to a Cary 11a. The inputs of the 11a are set to bypass. A DirecTV HD-DVR uses the HDMI port of the Oppo, a Mac Mini the asynchronous USB port. Video from the Oppo goes directly to a projector.

I've been reading the reviews of the Parasound Halo P7, and it seems a perfect match for my setup. It also has a phono stage for my Ortofon SME 30H. The preamp would output to Proceed HPA 2 and 3 amps and a Velodyne SMS-1 via balanced lines,

Does replacing the Cary 11a with a Halo P7 seem as though it is unlikely to result in sonic degradation? The system is used for both music and HT.

db

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.

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.

@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...

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.

The issue raised was... what processor for two channel listening given full range, "highly revealing speakers"

The OP asks..
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.

So... working through the Audyssey site... It turns out that only MultEQ XT32 will process the main LR channels along with the sub. Every other Audyssey product processes the surrounds and sub only. (I did not recognize this limitation... no wonder I was never impressed by the RC treatment listening to two channel music)

Now I understand bo's post
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. ......

This recommendation fits my current setup where my classic Kef 104's need a bit of low frequency extension but integrating the sub is problematic and never as good as full range modern speakers. XT-32 is the Audessy soln to my needs of integrating the sub with my mains for 2.1 and managing my room acoustics in a WAF manner.... (the 5.1 listening improvement is just gravy)

The old advice of using a sub with your two channel listening so that your mains were easier to drive (but of course the limits of how well you could integrate the sub with monitors remained) can now be upgraded. DSP processing of the Main LR and sub using Audessy XT-32 is a big jump in technology and can improve your two channel plus.1 listening in the room that you have... (Not to mention your mulitchannel listening experience)

Are many people using XT-32 for critical listening of 2.1 music? Probably a separate thread!

'Tcatman'good story, you understand it very well. Keep one thing in mind. Subwoofers which are sealed and have only the speakerunit at the front side will get the best results by far. The last few months many people were surprised by the stealth quality of my subwoofer with Audessey Pro. They aks me; can you arange it for me as well. Next few months I will do some audio presentations with Audessey pro. I also will talk about the difference between 2 and 3-dimensional sound. I have already professional camera for full hd recording for recording my presentations. So more people can see and hear were I am talking about.

Tcatman wrote: So... working through the Audyssey site... It turns out that only MultEQ XT32 will process the main LR channels along with the sub. Every other Audyssey product processes the surrounds and sub only.

You are mistaken. All implementations of Audyssey (other than 2EQ) will process the main LR channels and the sub.

what does this mean from Audessy's web site

MultEQ
Our standard resolution room correction solution that uses mid-level resolution filters for satellites and subwoofers.

MultEQ XT
Our advanced resolution room correction solution with high resolution equalization filters for satellites and subwoofers.

I may be wrong... but that is not what the web site implies.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?bhome&1358429802&openflup&41&4#41

Audessey has different levels in room correction. You read the differences on there website.

I am still confused... I reread the following in the Audessy web site. (see below) What am I missing Kr4?

They claim that xt32

The ultra high resolution filters are applied to all channels including the subwoofers

while the processing for their entry product

that uses basic resolution filters for the satellites, but does not apply a filter to the subwoofers

See below for the complete text from their web page....

The mortal reader would conclude . ..only xt32 will digitally process the LR mains and subwoofer. I infer that xt32 has some macro that applies the settings for 2.1 redbook listening...
So.. What should I look at on their website..
(Inquiring minds would also like to know what kind of chip would process high resolution blu ray audio for all of the channels at the resolution they are claiming...IN REAL TIME..)

MultEQ XT32
Our newest and most accurate room correction solution with more than ten thousand individual control points allowing finer details of the room’s problems to be captured and corrected. The ultra high resolution filters are applied to all channels including the subwoofers, with the most obvious benefit being heard in the low frequency range where correction is needed the most.
MultEQ XT
Our advanced resolution room correction solution with high resolution equalization filters for satellites and subwoofers. Most products with MultEQ XT are installer-ready and can be calibrated by an Audyssey Registered Installer to provide even higher performance for even the most demanding large or odd-shaped rooms.

MultEQ
Our standard resolution room correction solution that uses mid-level resolution filters for satellites and subwoofers.
2EQ
Our basic resolution room correction solution that uses basic resolution filters for the satellites, but does not apply a filter to the subwoofers.

I assume all the room correction technologies require a digital signal, whether presented to the processor as digital or digitized by the processor. Is that correct? It causes me wonder if the Velodyne SMS-1 digitizes the signal from the sub output of the Cinema 11a.

db

Tcatman, only 2EQ fails to EQ the subwoofers. For all the others, every speaker is EQ-ed but the descriptions are misleading in that they refer to all the non-subwoofers as satellites. So, you are right that one might be misled by the wording.

Dbphd, yes, the SMS-1 does digitize the subwoofer signal.

I did a test with 2 Velodyne DD18 with Revel speakers in stereo mode. The control in low freq are exeptional good. But it did not gave the stealth quality I want. I am affraid they are too slow. Maybe Audessey pro can solve this problem. Instruments and voices were not focussed in the right proportion. It was not simultaneously with the frontspeakers. My subwoofer with Audessey pro is superior in speed and fully one with the frontspeakers.

As with all things 2/ch good placement comes first, I've tested XT32 in stereo with my Boston acoustic E100's and KK DXD12012 crossed at 60hz and also 80hz and everything was indeed in proportion and the bass was tight, fast, powerful and stealthy this was a big surprise as I never expected Audyssey to be worth its salt for 2/ch, but this configuration improved imaging as well a nice feature with the Marantz 8801 is an Audyssey setting that allows you to bypass the FR/FL and Audyssey all else (the sub only for 2.1 playback)but was better defined with the Audyssey house curve engaged!