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
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.
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.