Good Processor

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.

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)

@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.