Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Preamp, srround, SACD bass management

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 6:39:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Can anyone discuss possible choices for a multi-channel
preamp/processor, or receiver, capable of decoding Dolby 5.1 audio on
DVD discs, etc., that would also have good response on multi-channel
SACD's and stereo CD's? My present system doesn't have bass management
provisions for SACD multi-channel or provisions for varying the
crossover points between the sub and the front, center, and rear
speakers, and my speakers include the Magneplanar MG-3.6 and several
other Maggies, several of which have limited bass response. - So, it
seems to me that I need something that will provide some sort of bass
management for playing the multi-channel SACDs. I don't think that
using full-range speakers on all channels would be practical with the
Maggies. - Although the response of the 3.6's is incredible IMO, they
are six feet tall.

One possible option may be the Rotel RSP-1098, in which crossover points
of all the speakers can be individually adjusted. I recognize that this
isn't bass management in the same sense as it is practiced in the Dolby
5.1 decoders, but at least it would protect my center and surround
speakers. However, $3,000 is more than I want to pay. I also understand
that Pioneer has at least two models in which bass management of SACD
signals is possible while the signals are still in digital form.
Recommended?

For what it's worth, I have also tried the Outlaw ICBM for SACD bass
management. - My impression was that it could provide impressive,
dynamic surround sound, but it seemed to subtract something from the
accuracy of the mains. - I didn't get the same clean Maggie sound that I
get when playing CDs or stereo SACDs through my old (Carver) preamp.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Jim Cate
Anonymous
September 13, 2004 12:51:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 9/12/04 10:39 AM, in article ci1n3t0lht@news1.newsguy.com, "Jim Cate"
<jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:

> Can anyone discuss possible choices for a multi-channel
> preamp/processor, or receiver, capable of decoding Dolby 5.1 audio on
> DVD discs, etc., that would also have good response on multi-channel
> SACD's and stereo CD's? My present system doesn't have bass management
> provisions for SACD multi-channel or provisions for varying the
> crossover points between the sub and the front, center, and rear
> speakers, and my speakers include the Magneplanar MG-3.6 and several
> other Maggies, several of which have limited bass response. - So, it
> seems to me that I need something that will provide some sort of bass
> management for playing the multi-channel SACDs. I don't think that
> using full-range speakers on all channels would be practical with the
> Maggies. - Although the response of the 3.6's is incredible IMO, they
> are six feet tall.
>
> One possible option may be the Rotel RSP-1098, in which crossover points
> of all the speakers can be individually adjusted. I recognize that this
> isn't bass management in the same sense as it is practiced in the Dolby
> 5.1 decoders, but at least it would protect my center and surround
> speakers. However, $3,000 is more than I want to pay. I also understand
> that Pioneer has at least two models in which bass management of SACD
> signals is possible while the signals are still in digital form.
> Recommended?
>
> For what it's worth, I have also tried the Outlaw ICBM for SACD bass
> management. - My impression was that it could provide impressive,
> dynamic surround sound, but it seemed to subtract something from the
> accuracy of the mains. - I didn't get the same clean Maggie sound that I
> get when playing CDs or stereo SACDs through my old (Carver) preamp.

Qutlaw Audio (on the Web) sells a External bass management box that takes
your 5.1 analog outputs and does the bass amangement on them - this could
save you a whole new processor if you are otherwise happy with it. I do not
have one, but have heard good things about them.
Anonymous
September 13, 2004 12:51:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 9/12/04 10:39 AM, in article ci1n3t0lht@news1.newsguy.com, "Jim Cate"
<jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:

> For what it's worth, I have also tried the Outlaw ICBM for SACD bass
> management. - My impression was that it could provide impressive,
> dynamic surround sound, but it seemed to subtract something from the
> accuracy of the mains. - I didn't get the same clean Maggie sound that I
> get when playing CDs or stereo SACDs through my old (Carver) preamp.

Oops - posted before reading to this point - sorry!

I think just about anything that processes a signal may detract from the
sound somewhat....
Related resources
Anonymous
September 14, 2004 3:21:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
> Can anyone discuss possible choices for a multi-channel
> preamp/processor, or receiver, capable of decoding Dolby 5.1 audio on
> DVD discs, etc., that would also have good response on multi-channel
> SACD's and stereo CD's? My present system doesn't have bass management
> provisions for SACD multi-channel or provisions for varying the
> crossover points between the sub and the front, center, and rear
> speakers, and my speakers include the Magneplanar MG-3.6 and several
> other Maggies, several of which have limited bass response. - So, it
> seems to me that I need something that will provide some sort of bass
> management for playing the multi-channel SACDs. I don't think that
> using full-range speakers on all channels would be practical with the
> Maggies. - Although the response of the 3.6's is incredible IMO, they
> are six feet tall.


I think the top end of Pioneer's, Denon's and Yamaha's receiver
lines these days can handle a digital (firewire) input of hi-rez sources
(assuyming you have a player with that output) and thus can do
bass management and time alignment internally. Some also have
variable crossovers for each channel. I would look into those
brands -- you can often download the user's manuals from the
mfrs sites..

> One possible option may be the Rotel RSP-1098, in which crossover points
> of all the speakers can be individually adjusted. I recognize that this
> isn't bass management in the same sense as it is practiced in the Dolby
> 5.1 decoders, but at least it would protect my center and surround
> speakers. However, $3,000 is more than I want to pay. I also understand
> that Pioneer has at least two models in which bass management of SACD
> signals is possible while the signals are still in digital form.
> Recommended?

> For what it's worth, I have also tried the Outlaw ICBM for SACD bass
> management. - My impression was that it could provide impressive,
> dynamic surround sound, but it seemed to subtract something from the
> accuracy of the mains. - I didn't get the same clean Maggie sound that I
> get when playing CDs or stereo SACDs through my old (Carver) preamp.

I don't know why that would be the case...the Outlaw box
provides separate crossover adjustement for mains vs center vs surround.
Were you comparing apples to apples (e.g. a CD played with and without the
Outlaw box in the circuit)?




--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.
Anonymous
September 14, 2004 3:24:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Jim Cate" <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:ci1n3t0lht@news1.newsguy.com...
> Can anyone discuss possible choices for a multi-channel
> preamp/processor, or receiver, capable of decoding Dolby 5.1 audio on
> DVD discs, etc., that would also have good response on multi-channel
> SACD's and stereo CD's? My present system doesn't have bass management
> provisions for SACD multi-channel or provisions for varying the
> crossover points between the sub and the front, center, and rear
> speakers, and my speakers include the Magneplanar MG-3.6 and several
> other Maggies, several of which have limited bass response. - So, it
> seems to me that I need something that will provide some sort of bass
> management for playing the multi-channel SACDs. I don't think that
> using full-range speakers on all channels would be practical with the
> Maggies. - Although the response of the 3.6's is incredible IMO, they
> are six feet tall.
>
> One possible option may be the Rotel RSP-1098, in which crossover points
> of all the speakers can be individually adjusted. I recognize that this
> isn't bass management in the same sense as it is practiced in the Dolby
> 5.1 decoders, but at least it would protect my center and surround
> speakers. However, $3,000 is more than I want to pay. I also understand
> that Pioneer has at least two models in which bass management of SACD
> signals is possible while the signals are still in digital form.
> Recommended?
>
> For what it's worth, I have also tried the Outlaw ICBM for SACD bass
> management. - My impression was that it could provide impressive,
> dynamic surround sound, but it seemed to subtract something from the
> accuracy of the mains. - I didn't get the same clean Maggie sound that I
> get when playing CDs or stereo SACDs through my old (Carver) preamp.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions.

Jim -

I believe (but check first) that the new Denon 3805 receiver has individual
bass management on SACD and DVD-A as well as the video modes. I believe a
new receiver from Onkyo does as well. I believe both also have preamp outs
so you can use them as a preamp-processor with existing power amps. The
Denon has a MSRSP of $1200 and is considered a bargain at that price. I'm
not sure of the Onkyo's price, but remember it as being under $2000.

Hope this helps.

Harry
Anonymous
September 14, 2004 7:10:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
>
>>Can anyone discuss possible choices for a multi-channel
>>preamp/processor, or receiver, capable of decoding Dolby 5.1 audio on
>>DVD discs, etc., that would also have good response on multi-channel
>>SACD's and stereo CD's? My present system doesn't have bass management
>>provisions for SACD multi-channel or provisions for varying the
>>crossover points between the sub and the front, center, and rear
>>speakers, and my speakers include the Magneplanar MG-3.6 and several
>>other Maggies, several of which have limited bass response. - So, it
>>seems to me that I need something that will provide some sort of bass
>>management for playing the multi-channel SACDs. I don't think that
>>using full-range speakers on all channels would be practical with the
>>Maggies. - Although the response of the 3.6's is incredible IMO, they
>>are six feet tall.
>
>
>
> I think the top end of Pioneer's, Denon's and Yamaha's receiver
> lines these days can handle a digital (firewire) input of hi-rez sources
> (assuyming you have a player with that output) and thus can do
> bass management and time alignment internally. Some also have
> variable crossovers for each channel. I would look into those
> brands -- you can often download the user's manuals from the
> mfrs sites..
>
>
>>One possible option may be the Rotel RSP-1098, in which crossover points
>>of all the speakers can be individually adjusted. I recognize that this
>>isn't bass management in the same sense as it is practiced in the Dolby
>>5.1 decoders, but at least it would protect my center and surround
>>speakers. However, $3,000 is more than I want to pay. I also understand
>>that Pioneer has at least two models in which bass management of SACD
>>signals is possible while the signals are still in digital form.
>>Recommended?
>
>
>>For what it's worth, I have also tried the Outlaw ICBM for SACD bass
>>management. - My impression was that it could provide impressive,
>>dynamic surround sound, but it seemed to subtract something from the
>>accuracy of the mains. - I didn't get the same clean Maggie sound that I
>>get when playing CDs or stereo SACDs through my old (Carver) preamp.
>
>
> I don't know why that would be the case...the Outlaw box
> provides separate crossover adjustement for mains vs center vs surround.
> Were you comparing apples to apples (e.g. a CD played with and without the
> Outlaw box in the circuit)?
>

When you say: "I don't know why that would be the case..." are you
actually saying that it wouldn't be the case, and that I wasn't actually
hearing the distortion I thought I was hearing? In answer to your
question regarding the connections, I was comparing what I heard through
the Maggie MG-3.6 mains when the (stereo) signal from the preamp was
sent to the amps through the Carver preamp with what I heard when the
signal was played through an Onkyo receiver with line level outputs also
connected to the same power amp, with the same stereo CD, with the
receiver switched to stereo mode. - Could be the fault of the receiver,
but I don't think that was the problem.

The Outlaw ICBM adds an extra set of input interconnects, outputs,
crossover networks, potentiometers, etc., to each channel, all of which
may add some slight degree of distortion. Perhaps that's why the sound
seems more "veiled" to me when using the ICBM (as also reported in the
October issue of Sterephile, page 75). Obviously, a preamp-processor
with the same type of bass management and blending circuitry built into
a preamp-processor may also introduce a deleterious effect on the
response, but it may be better thn what I have now, which is why I asked
for suggestions.

Jim

and ther>
>
>
Anonymous
September 14, 2004 7:10:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Is there a reason that you suggest looking into top end receivers rather
than preamp-decoders? (I have six channels of power amps and a woofer
and don't really need the additional power amp sections.)

It is interesting that most of the preamps are priced higher than most
of the receivers, which include multiple power amps. It would seem that
if you want a preamp with the same quality as a high end Yamaha or
Dennon receiver, they should reduce the price accordingly. Or are all
preamps of higher quality and price than most receivers?

Jim




Steven Sullivan wrote:

> Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
>
>>Can anyone discuss possible choices for a multi-channel
>>preamp/processor, or receiver, capable of decoding Dolby 5.1 audio on
>>DVD discs, etc., that would also have good response on multi-channel
>>SACD's and stereo CD's? My present system doesn't have bass management
>>provisions for SACD multi-channel or provisions for varying the
>>crossover points between the sub and the front, center, and rear
>>speakers, and my speakers include the Magneplanar MG-3.6 and several
>>other Maggies, several of which have limited bass response. - So, it
>>seems to me that I need something that will provide some sort of bass
>>management for playing the multi-channel SACDs. I don't think that
>>using full-range speakers on all channels would be practical with the
>>Maggies. - Although the response of the 3.6's is incredible IMO, they
>>are six feet tall.
>
>
>
> I think the top end of Pioneer's, Denon's and Yamaha's receiver
> lines these days can handle a digital (firewire) input of hi-rez sources
> (assuyming you have a player with that output) and thus can do
> bass management and time alignment internally. Some also have
> variable crossovers for each channel. I would look into those
> brands -- you can often download the user's manuals from the
> mfrs sites..
>
>
>>One possible option may be the Rotel RSP-1098, in which crossover points
>>of all the speakers can be individually adjusted. I recognize that this
>>isn't bass management in the same sense as it is practiced in the Dolby
>>5.1 decoders, but at least it would protect my center and surround
>>speakers. However, $3,000 is more than I want to pay. I also understand
>>that Pioneer has at least two models in which bass management of SACD
>>signals is possible while the signals are still in digital form.
>>Recommended?
>
>
>>For what it's worth, I have also tried the Outlaw ICBM for SACD bass
>>management. - My impression was that it could provide impressive,
>>dynamic surround sound, but it seemed to subtract something from the
>>accuracy of the mains. - I didn't get the same clean Maggie sound that I
>>get when playing CDs or stereo SACDs through my old (Carver) preamp.
>
>
> I don't know why that would be the case...the Outlaw box
> provides separate crossover adjustement for mains vs center vs surround.
> Were you comparing apples to apples (e.g. a CD played with and without the
> Outlaw box in the circuit)?
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
September 15, 2004 3:20:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Can anyone discuss possible choices for a multi-channel
> >>preamp/processor, or receiver, capable of decoding Dolby 5.1 audio on
> >>DVD discs, etc., that would also have good response on multi-channel
> >>SACD's and stereo CD's? My present system doesn't have bass management
> >>provisions for SACD multi-channel or provisions for varying the
> >>crossover points between the sub and the front, center, and rear
> >>speakers, and my speakers include the Magneplanar MG-3.6 and several
> >>other Maggies, several of which have limited bass response. - So, it
> >>seems to me that I need something that will provide some sort of bass
> >>management for playing the multi-channel SACDs. I don't think that
> >>using full-range speakers on all channels would be practical with the
> >>Maggies. - Although the response of the 3.6's is incredible IMO, they
> >>are six feet tall.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think the top end of Pioneer's, Denon's and Yamaha's receiver
> > lines these days can handle a digital (firewire) input of hi-rez sources
> > (assuyming you have a player with that output) and thus can do
> > bass management and time alignment internally. Some also have
> > variable crossovers for each channel. I would look into those
> > brands -- you can often download the user's manuals from the
> > mfrs sites..
> >
> >
> >>One possible option may be the Rotel RSP-1098, in which crossover points
> >>of all the speakers can be individually adjusted. I recognize that this
> >>isn't bass management in the same sense as it is practiced in the Dolby
> >>5.1 decoders, but at least it would protect my center and surround
> >>speakers. However, $3,000 is more than I want to pay. I also understand
> >>that Pioneer has at least two models in which bass management of SACD
> >>signals is possible while the signals are still in digital form.
> >>Recommended?
> >
> >
> >>For what it's worth, I have also tried the Outlaw ICBM for SACD bass
> >>management. - My impression was that it could provide impressive,
> >>dynamic surround sound, but it seemed to subtract something from the
> >>accuracy of the mains. - I didn't get the same clean Maggie sound that I
> >>get when playing CDs or stereo SACDs through my old (Carver) preamp.
> >
> >
> > I don't know why that would be the case...the Outlaw box
> > provides separate crossover adjustement for mains vs center vs surround.
> > Were you comparing apples to apples (e.g. a CD played with and without the
> > Outlaw box in the circuit)?
> >

> When you say: "I don't know why that would be the case..." are you
> actually saying that it wouldn't be the case, and that I wasn't actually
> hearing the distortion I thought I was hearing?

Possibly that, or possibly it wasn't due to anything intrinsic about the
Outlaw, but simply due to the configuration.

> In answer to your
> question regarding the connections, I was comparing what I heard through
> the Maggie MG-3.6 mains when the (stereo) signal from the preamp was
> sent to the amps through the Carver preamp with what I heard when the
> signal was played through an Onkyo receiver with line level outputs also
> connected to the same power amp, with the same stereo CD, with the
> receiver switched to stereo mode. - Could be the fault of the receiver,
> but I don't think that was the problem.

Given the variables involved, it could be something as simple as the levels
not being matched.

> The Outlaw ICBM adds an extra set of input interconnects, outputs,
> crossover networks, potentiometers, etc., to each channel, all of which
> may add some slight degree of distortion.

May, but Outlaw does strive for transparency.

> Perhaps that's why the sound
> seems more "veiled" to me when using the ICBM (as also reported in the
> October issue of Sterephile, page 75).

Well, but it could also certainly bias your perception (and Stereophile's).
Btw, did you read the Stereophile review before, or after, you bought the
ICBM?

> Obviously, a preamp-processor
> with the same type of bass management and blending circuitry built into
> a preamp-processor may also introduce a deleterious effect on the
> response, but it may be better thn what I have now, which is why I asked
> for suggestions.

If you were to compare the Outlaw in and out of the circuit in a more
controlled fashion, you might find that what you've got is fine.

(One thing the Outlaw ICBM can't do exactly right, though, is allow
time delay adjustment of center and surround speakers -- Outlaw even
mentions this in their user's manual. But IIRC you are concerned here
with two-channel reproduction + sub.)



--
-S
September 15, 2004 3:21:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Jim Cate wrote:
> Is there a reason that you suggest looking into top end receivers
> rather than preamp-decoders? (I have six channels of power amps and a
> woofer and don't really need the additional power amp sections.)
>
> It is interesting that most of the preamps are priced higher than most
> of the receivers, which include multiple power amps. It would seem
> that if you want a preamp with the same quality as a high end Yamaha
> or Dennon receiver, they should reduce the price accordingly. Or are
> all preamps of higher quality and price than most receivers?
>

Probably not, maybe there are a few more controls. I think, the gadget is
priced to comparative units, not to manufacturing costs. The mass market has
more competition, so the price is lower. It is similar to tube amps and so
on. Of course the sales volume is also low, so the development costs have to
be distributed over less units, which partly explaines the higher price.
It is also the case that separate units will have additional A/D and D/A
converters, to be universally usable together with receptacles, control
knobs etc. the electronic circuits comprise only a small fraction of the
price, most is eaten up by the case, knobs and receptacles. It's like a car,
you do not buy it because of the engine but because of the color, my wife at
least.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Anonymous
September 15, 2004 3:21:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
> Is there a reason that you suggest looking into top end receivers rather
> than preamp-decoders? (I have six channels of power amps and a woofer
> and don't really need the additional power amp sections.)

Simplicity. I like the idea of two boxes, one cable, and consistency
in DSP from there on. Right now, for hi-rez, you can only get that
with certain combinations of players and receivers. Or almost
only: here's a more-or-less current list of i-link (firewire)
compatible receivers/players/prepros that I copied from
AVSforum.com. SOrry if the formatting is screwy:
//

------------------------i.Link and A&M Compatible Products
Type ------ Company ------- Model -------- MSRP ------- When First Avail
Receiver----Pioneer Elite-----Vsx-49TXi------$4500-----------------Oct 02
Receiver----Pioneer Elite-----Vsx-55TXi------$1700------------------July 03
Receiver----Sony ES-------STR-DA9000ES-----$4500-------------------Oct 03
Receiver----Yamaha--------RX-Z9----------$4500------------------Dec 03
Receiver----Pioneer Elite---Vsx-59TXi-----$4500-----------------Jan 04
Receiver----Denon----------AVR-5805-----$6000---------------Oct 04
Receiver----Onkyo-------------TX-NR1000--$4000------------------Q4 04(?)
Receiver----Integra-------------DTR 10.5----$3500---------------Q4 04(?)
Receiver----Pioneer Elite----VSX-56TXi---$1700----------------already avail
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre/Pro-----Denon-----AVP-1x(prototype)--$expensive$-------------2005(?)
Pre/Pro-----Integra Research---RDC-7.1---$4000----------------Q4 04(?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DVD-A/SACD--Pioneer Elite----DV-47ai---------$1200------------Oct 02
DVD-A/SACD--MSB Tech--Super DVD Audio Player-$7995--------already avail
DVD-A/SACD--Denon-----------*DVD-5900*------$2000------------ Sept 03
DVD-A/SACD--Denon---DVD-1x(prototype)----$expensive$-----------2005
DVD-A/SACD--Pioneer Elite----DV-59AVi--------$1600--------------------Jan 04
DVD-A/SACD--Onkyo--------DV-SP1000-----$2000-------------------- Q4 04(?)
DVD-A/SACD--Integra------DPS 10.5------$2500-----------------Q4 04(?)
DVD-A/SACD--Integra Research---RDV-1.1----$4000------------------Q4 04(?)
DVD-A/SACD--Denon--------DVD-3910-----$1299-----------------Aug 04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SACD/CD-----Sony ES------SCD-XA9000ES----$3000-----------Oct 03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misc.
D/A converter--Esoteric------D-70-------------$6500-----------already avail

LEGEND
(?) - Info is not definite or unknown

* The 5900's i.Link port doesn't work properly and a fix has been provided by Denon see here for details
http://www.audioholics.com/firmware/. Players the last 5 digits of their serial#?s ending in more than 10000 do not
need the upgrade.

//

I have an ICBM/receiver/6-ch setup currently, and I'm rather looking
forward to reducing all the cable clutter and multiple speaker
configuration setups.

> It is interesting that most of the preamps are priced higher than
most > of the receivers, which include multiple power amps. It would
seem that > if you want a preamp with the same quality as a high end
Yamaha or > Dennon receiver, they should reduce the price accordingly.
Or are all > preamps of higher quality and price than most receivers?

I dont; think there's any hard and fast rule. Personally, I buy
solid-state stuff based on features and price rather than sound.
Anonymous
September 15, 2004 3:29:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote in message news:<ci5nfm0qo4@news2.newsguy.com>...

> It is interesting that most of the preamps are priced higher than most
> of the receivers, which include multiple power amps. It would seem that
> if you want a preamp with the same quality as a high end Yamaha or
> Dennon receiver, they should reduce the price accordingly. Or are all
> preamps of higher quality and price than most receivers?
>
They might be, but there are two other possible explanations for the
price disparity:

1) Volume: The market for receivers is much larger than that for
separates, so the manufacturer of the former enjoys huge economies of
scale.

2) Market Segmentation: Buyers of separates are generally willing to
pay more, so manufacturers willingly oblige them.

bob
Anonymous
September 15, 2004 3:31:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 14 Sep 2004 03:10:15 GMT, Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:

>The Outlaw ICBM adds an extra set of input interconnects, outputs,
>crossover networks, potentiometers, etc., to each channel, all of which
>may add some slight degree of distortion. Perhaps that's why the sound
>seems more "veiled" to me when using the ICBM (as also reported in the
>October issue of Sterephile, page 75). Obviously, a preamp-processor
>with the same type of bass management and blending circuitry built into
>a preamp-processor may also introduce a deleterious effect on the
>response, but it may be better thn what I have now, which is why I asked
>for suggestions.

Hey, don't put me in the middle of this. What I said there was
"...any very slight veiling that I might have heard with the Outlaw
was more than outweighed by the advantages gained by its use." Note
that there is a conditional, "might," in that sentence since the
listening conditions with the ICBM and without it are necessarily
different.

Aside from the additional cables required, there's no reason to think
that the ICBM is less transparent than additional A/D/A processing.

Kal
Anonymous
September 15, 2004 3:34:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:
> Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
>> Can anyone discuss possible choices for a multi-channel
>> preamp/processor, or receiver, capable of decoding Dolby 5.1 audio on
>> DVD discs, etc., that would also have good response on multi-channel
>> SACD's and stereo CD's?

>> My present system doesn't have bass management
>> provisions for SACD multi-channel

Possibly the cheapest way to solve that would be to buy a recent SACD
player. Most if not all have that.

>> or provisions for varying the
>> crossover points between the sub and the front, center, and rear
>> speakers,

Usually you can chose between "large" (full-range) and "small"
(limited bass) for each speaker. ( usually the fronts must be
larger or equal to the center which must be larger or equal than
the rears. That is, you can't chose "large" for the rears and
"small" for the fronts.)

In some receivers the crossover frequency can also be selected.
But making the crossover, for instance, at 60 Hz for one group of
speakers and 100 Hz for others, I suspect will be a rare feature.
But check the owner's manual.

For instance the manual of the Yamaha DSP-Z9 says:
"Cross Over (Cross over)"
Use this feature to select a cross-over (cut-off) frequency for
all low-frequency signals. All frequencies below the selected
frequency are sent to the subwoofer. Choices: 40Hz, 60Hz, 80Hz
(THX), 90Hz, 100Hz, 110Hz, 120Hz, 160Hz, 200Hz speaker. "

This is a setting separate from the choice of type of speakers,
so it applies to all of them.

> I think the top end of Pioneer's [have I-link],

Pioneers VSA-AX10Ai-S or VSX-AX5i-S

http://www.pioneer-eur.com/eur/product_detail.jsp?produ...
http://www.pioneer-eur.com/eur/product_detail.jsp?produ...

> Denon's

I am not familiar with the Denon range but I know they use "DENON
LINK", a non-standard technology, for the digital link. Only available
on the AVC-A1SRA A/V Surround Amplifier ?

http://www.web-quality.ch/WQ/DSB_Anbieter_03_Shw.asp?An...

> and Yamaha's receiver

Yamaha DSP-Z9
http://yamaha-hifi.de/index.php?lang=e&idcat1=1
http://www.yamaha-audio.co.uk/homecinema/amplifiers/dsp...
http://www.yamaha-audio.co.uk/pdfs/manuals/DSPZ9.pdf

I suspect (hope) that the future Yamahas RX-V1500 and RX-V2500 (or
whatever the replacements of the current RX-V1400 and RX-V2400 will
be called) might also have I-link (firewire), but that is just a guess.

> lines these days can handle a digital (firewire) input of hi-rez sources

> (assuyming you have a player with that output) and thus can do
> bass management and time alignment internally. Some also have
> variable crossovers for each channel. I would look into those
> brands --
> you can often download the user's manuals from the mfrs sites..

And if not, chose another manufacturer.

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Anonymous
September 15, 2004 3:35:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
> Is there a reason that you suggest looking into top end receivers rather
> than preamp-decoders? (I have six channels of power amps and a woofer
> and don't really need the additional power amp sections.)

For instance in the Yamaha range the only preamp-decoders are discontinued
(They were not exactly preamps, since only the front channels (and subwoofer)
were connected to a power amplifier. The other 3 channels had power amps
for direct connection to the center and surround speakers.)

When I was looking at catalogues some time ago, of the brands I checked IIRC,
only Marantz had a preamp-decoder, although I can't find it now. I found the
mono amplifier:

http://www.marantz.com/p_product.cfm?id=505&cont=e&line...

> It is interesting that most of the preamps are priced higher than most
> of the receivers, which include multiple power amps. It would seem that
> if you want a preamp with the same quality as a high end Yamaha or
> Dennon receiver, they should reduce the price accordingly.

If Yamaha or Denon removed the power amplifiers from their receivers
the resulting model would sell much less. The increase in price due
to that would probably be higher than the cost of the power amplifiers.

> Or are all preamps of higher quality and price than most receivers?

Probably just a case of a relatively mass-market product versus a
small-series product with all that this implies in the amortization
of R&D and marketing expenses and lack of large scale savings (I
can't remember the correct expression for this).

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Anonymous
September 15, 2004 7:14:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2004 03:10:15 GMT, Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The Outlaw ICBM adds an extra set of input interconnects, outputs,
>>crossover networks, potentiometers, etc., to each channel, all of which
>>may add some slight degree of distortion. Perhaps that's why the sound
>>seems more "veiled" to me when using the ICBM (as also reported in the
>>October issue of Sterephile, page 75). Obviously, a preamp-processor
>>with the same type of bass management and blending circuitry built into
>>a preamp-processor may also introduce a deleterious effect on the
>>response, but it may be better thn what I have now, which is why I asked
>>for suggestions.
>
>
> Hey, don't put me in the middle of this. What I said there was
> "...any very slight veiling that I might have heard with the Outlaw
> was more than outweighed by the advantages gained by its use." Note
> that there is a conditional, "might," in that sentence since the
> listening conditions with the ICBM and without it are necessarily
> different.
>
> Aside from the additional cables required, there's no reason to think
> that the ICBM is less transparent than additional A/D/A processing.
>
> Kal

Well, I suppose I should be impressed, or even intimidated, that the
Sterephile author himself is chiming in. - Sorry, I'm not.

Kal, it seems to me that when you offer conclusions to the effect that
there is "no reason to think that the ICBM is less transparent than
additional A/D/A processing," you are making a judgment relating to
interpretations of physics and electrical circuitry theory, as
distinguished from offering a subjective opinion as to how one component
sounds relative to another. (Your statement was that "there is no
reason....", not, "in my opinion," or "to my knowledge," there is no
reason....) For the record, what is your technical education? Do you
have training from a technical institution, or a BS or Ph.D. in physics,
EE, etc.? Please understand that I'm not at all questioning your
qualifications to review audio components, and I'm not saying that you
are wrong. I'm merely pointing out that you are posting conclusions that
in effect constitute interpretations of principles of physics rather
than subjective evaluations based on listening tests involving the
components of interest. Had you said: I have a hunch that..., or I have
a gut feeling that....., I would have no problem with your statement.

Second, if in fact there was no basis for suspecting that there was a
"veiling" of the sound, even if "slight," why did you bring it up in the
first place? Alternatively, if there WAS "veiling" of the sound, do you
have test results that confirm that it's only a "very slight" veiling no
matter what speaker is entailed? E.g., the Maggies seem to be quite
transparent and revealing of what's between them and the source. Some
other speakers have similar characteristics. - Do your conclusions apply
equally to all of them?

Jim
Anonymous
September 16, 2004 2:44:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Jim Cate wrote:

Check into the new Sony STR-DA-2000-ES or STR-DA-3000-ES. There is a review
out on the 2000. Both should have everything you want plus clean sound.
Best price will probably be from Etronics.com online. I'm using a new
Pioneer VSX-1014TX-K which sounds great and is a steal at the street price.
But its bass management uses a common crossover choice for all channels. I
preferred a unit with automatic setup.

> Can anyone discuss possible choices for a multi-channel
> preamp/processor, or receiver, capable of decoding Dolby 5.1 audio on
> DVD discs, etc., that would also have good response on multi-channel
> SACD's and stereo CD's? My present system doesn't have bass management
> provisions for SACD multi-channel or provisions for varying the
> crossover points between the sub and the front, center, and rear
> speakers, and my speakers include the Magneplanar MG-3.6 and several
> other Maggies, several of which have limited bass response. - So, it
> seems to me that I need something that will provide some sort of bass
> management for playing the multi-channel SACDs. I don't think that
> using full-range speakers on all channels would be practical with the
> Maggies. - Although the response of the 3.6's is incredible IMO, they
> are six feet tall.
>
> One possible option may be the Rotel RSP-1098, in which crossover points
> of all the speakers can be individually adjusted. I recognize that this
> isn't bass management in the same sense as it is practiced in the Dolby
> 5.1 decoders, but at least it would protect my center and surround
> speakers. However, $3,000 is more than I want to pay. I also understand
> that Pioneer has at least two models in which bass management of SACD
> signals is possible while the signals are still in digital form.
> Recommended?
>
> For what it's worth, I have also tried the Outlaw ICBM for SACD bass
> management. - My impression was that it could provide impressive,
> dynamic surround sound, but it seemed to subtract something from the
> accuracy of the mains. - I didn't get the same clean Maggie sound that I
> get when playing CDs or stereo SACDs through my old (Carver) preamp.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions.
>
> Jim Cate
Anonymous
September 16, 2004 2:54:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" <rps@rena.mat.uc.pt> wrote in message
news:ci7v6201223@news2.newsguy.com...
> Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:
> > Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
> >> Can anyone discuss possible choices for a multi-channel
> >> preamp/processor, or receiver, capable of decoding Dolby 5.1
audio on
> >> DVD discs, etc., that would also have good response on
multi-channel
> >> SACD's and stereo CD's?
>
> >> My present system doesn't have bass management
> >> provisions for SACD multi-channel
>
> Possibly the cheapest way to solve that would be to buy a recent
SACD
> player. Most if not all have that.

The question that pops into my mind is, how is bass management
accomplished when playing an SACD? The choices would be a) in the
analog realm like the Outlaw ICBM, b) conversion of the signal to PCM
and digital separation, or c) direct separation from the SACD signal.
I'm assuming here that bass management doesn't require use of the DD
5.1 tracks that may be included on the SACD.

Can anyone throw additional light on this question?

Norm Strong
Anonymous
September 16, 2004 2:54:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 15 Sep 2004 03:14:14 GMT, Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:

>Well, I suppose I should be impressed, or even intimidated, that the
>Sterephile author himself is chiming in. - Sorry, I'm not.

No reason you should be.

>Kal, it seems to me that when you offer conclusions to the effect that
>there is "no reason to think that the ICBM is less transparent than
>additional A/D/A processing," you are making a judgment relating to
>interpretations of physics and electrical circuitry theory, as
>distinguished from offering a subjective opinion as to how one component
>sounds relative to another. (Your statement was that "there is no
>reason....", not, "in my opinion," or "to my knowledge," there is no
>reason....) For the record, what is your technical education? Do you
>have training from a technical institution, or a BS or Ph.D. in physics,
>EE, etc.? Please understand that I'm not at all questioning your
>qualifications to review audio components, and I'm not saying that you
>are wrong. I'm merely pointing out that you are posting conclusions that
>in effect constitute interpretations of principles of physics rather
>than subjective evaluations based on listening tests involving the
>components of interest. Had you said: I have a hunch that..., or I have
>a gut feeling that....., I would have no problem with your statement.

Well, I did an undergrad major in Physics although I took my degree in
another science. I can read specifications and have designed and built
filters of many types. I've also built DACs.

That said, credentials are not the issue here but experience. I have
listened to a fairly large number of analog and digital devices and my
statement is based on that. Both an additional A/D/A and the
superimposition of an analog filter can be done fairly transparently
today and they can also be done poorly. The ICBM does it so well that
there's no reason to expect a mass-market A/V receiver will achieve
greater transparency. There may be specific examples to the contrary,
of course.

>Second, if in fact there was no basis for suspecting that there was a
>"veiling" of the sound, even if "slight," why did you bring it up in the
>first place? Alternatively, if there WAS "veiling" of the sound, do you
>have test results that confirm that it's only a "very slight" veiling no
>matter what speaker is entailed? E.g., the Maggies seem to be quite
>transparent and revealing of what's between them and the source. Some
>other speakers have similar characteristics. - Do your conclusions apply
>equally to all of them?

A/B comparison in two channels via the Magnepans with the ICBM to
bypass revealed only a slight increase in background noise with my ear
to the Maggie tweeter. That could be due to the additional cabling,
additional circuitry or a less than transparent transit through the
ICBM. In the system as it was then, there was no discernable
difference, again in 2 channels and bypass, from the listening
position with music. Consequently, I allowed for the possibility that
the use of the ICBM 'might' contribute some veiling but that it was
inconsequential.

With my present setup, I use the ICBM only for the rear and LFE
channels.

Measurements, of course, would be interesting.

Kal
Anonymous
September 16, 2004 5:05:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 15 Sep 2004 22:54:09 GMT, "normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net>
wrote:

>I'm assuming here that bass management doesn't require use of the DD
>5.1 tracks that may be included on the SACD.

Can you list any SACDs with DD 5.1 tracks on them?

Kal
Anonymous
September 16, 2004 5:05:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ciah6h0n9n@news3.newsguy.com...
> "Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" <rps@rena.mat.uc.pt> wrote in message
> news:ci7v6201223@news2.newsguy.com...
> > Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:
> > > Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
> > >> Can anyone discuss possible choices for a multi-channel
> > >> preamp/processor, or receiver, capable of decoding Dolby 5.1
> audio on
> > >> DVD discs, etc., that would also have good response on
> multi-channel
> > >> SACD's and stereo CD's?
> >
> > >> My present system doesn't have bass management
> > >> provisions for SACD multi-channel
> >
> > Possibly the cheapest way to solve that would be to buy a recent
> SACD
> > player. Most if not all have that.
>
> The question that pops into my mind is, how is bass management
> accomplished when playing an SACD? The choices would be a) in the
> analog realm like the Outlaw ICBM, b) conversion of the signal to PCM
> and digital separation, or c) direct separation from the SACD signal.
> I'm assuming here that bass management doesn't require use of the DD
> 5.1 tracks that may be included on the SACD.
>
> Can anyone throw additional light on this question?

My understanding is that the latest Sony SACD chips now becoming widely used
incorporate bass management within the DSD domain. But as I am not an
engineer I am only passing this along, not endorsing it as true.
Anonymous
September 17, 2004 3:07:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

normanstrong <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" <rps@rena.mat.uc.pt> wrote in message
> news:ci7v6201223@news2.newsguy.com...
> > Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:
> > > Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
> > >> Can anyone discuss possible choices for a multi-channel
> > >> preamp/processor, or receiver, capable of decoding Dolby 5.1
> audio on
> > >> DVD discs, etc., that would also have good response on
> multi-channel
> > >> SACD's and stereo CD's?
> >
> > >> My present system doesn't have bass management
> > >> provisions for SACD multi-channel
> >
> > Possibly the cheapest way to solve that would be to buy a recent
> SACD
> > player. Most if not all have that.

> The question that pops into my mind is, how is bass management
> accomplished when playing an SACD? The choices would be a) in the
> analog realm like the Outlaw ICBM, b) conversion of the signal to PCM
> and digital separation, or c) direct separation from the SACD signal.
> I'm assuming here that bass management doesn't require use of the DD
> 5.1 tracks that may be included on the SACD.


All bass management (and time alignment, if present), afaik, is
performed after a PCM conversion. That's definitely the case in the
high-end Denons, as indicated by their signal path schematics, and
from what I read on various AV forums, it's the case generally. THe
coversion is done at high sample rates and bitdepths, and i'm skeptical
that it causes any audible difference if done properly. That doesn't
stop purists from fretting endlessly over the matter, on said forums.

And SACD discs rarely if ever include Dolby Digital tracks,
AFAIK...that's the realm of DVD-Audio discs. None of my SACDs have DD
tracks, but many have CD tracks.



--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.
Anonymous
September 17, 2004 3:10:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2004 03:14:14 GMT, Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I suppose I should be impressed, or even intimidated, that the
>>Sterephile author himself is chiming in. - Sorry, I'm not.
>
>
> No reason you should be.
>
>
>
>
> Well, I did an undergrad major in Physics although I took my degree in
> another science. I can read specifications and have designed and built
> filters of many types. I've also built DACs.
>
> That said, credentials are not the issue here but experience. I have
> listened to a fairly large number of analog and digital devices and my
> statement is based on that. Both an additional A/D/A and the
> superimposition of an analog filter can be done fairly transparently
> today and they can also be done poorly. The ICBM does it so well that
> there's no reason to expect a mass-market A/V receiver will achieve
> greater transparency. There may be specific examples to the contrary,
> of course.
>

I still maintain that an understanding of the basic principles of
physics and circuitry are often important for evaluating most audio
equipment, although I agree that it may not have been critical in this
instance. IMO, if reviewers of cables, amplifiers, etc., were required
to have such a background, it would help counter some of the confusion
and rip-offs generated by the technical gobbledygook put out by some
manufacturers. Seems to me that Stereophile has an ethical duty to the
audio public to expose such quasi-technical jargon for what it is. (Does
it, or does it have to mollify its reviews so as not to offend the
manufacturers?)

In any event, as a Stereo subscriber, I'm gratified to learn that you
have such a technical background. - What's your ball-park estimate
regarding the percentage of other reviewers published in Stereophile who
have such technical training?

Regarding the Outlaw ICBM, your opinion seems to be that if I have a
problem, it's with my receiver. Since I already have the Outlaw unit
and six channels of amplification, can you (or anyone else) suggest a
multi-channel preamp/decoder for this application? My preference would
be to keep the price below around $1,500, since I don't need some of the
bells and whistles of the top end units. As an example, what about the
Rotel RSD-1068 (which does apparently include adjustable crossover
frequencies).


>
>>Second, if in fact there was no basis for suspecting that there was a
>>"veiling" of the sound, even if "slight," why did you bring it up in the
>>first place? Alternatively, if there WAS "veiling" of the sound, do you
>>have test results that confirm that it's only a "very slight" veiling no
>>matter what speaker is entailed? E.g., the Maggies seem to be quite
>>transparent and revealing of what's between them and the source. Some
>>other speakers have similar characteristics. - Do your conclusions apply
>>equally to all of them?
>
>
> A/B comparison in two channels via the Magnepans with the ICBM to
> bypass revealed only a slight increase in background noise with my ear
> to the Maggie tweeter. That could be due to the additional cabling,
> additional circuitry or a less than transparent transit through the
> ICBM. In the system as it was then, there was no discernable
> difference, again in 2 channels and bypass, from the listening
> position with music. Consequently, I allowed for the possibility that
> the use of the ICBM 'might' contribute some veiling but that it was
> inconsequential.
>
> With my present setup, I use the ICBM only for the rear and LFE
> channels.\


How did you connect the ICBM for this setup? Sounds like you are not
routing the bass from the surrounds and center to your mains, but
instead are driving your mains (Maggies?) directly through another
preamp. - Is that correct?
>


Jim

> Measurements, of course, would be interesting.
>
> Kal
Anonymous
September 17, 2004 7:11:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 16 Sep 2004 23:07:17 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

>And SACD discs rarely if ever include Dolby Digital tracks,
>AFAIK...that's the realm of DVD-Audio discs. None of my SACDs have DD
>tracks, but many have CD tracks.

AFAIK, no SACDs have DD tracks. Their plan is to provide backward
compatibility with CD players, not DVD players.

Kal
Anonymous
September 17, 2004 7:11:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 16 Sep 2004 23:10:13 GMT, Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:

>Regarding the Outlaw ICBM, your opinion seems to be that if I have a
>problem, it's with my receiver. Since I already have the Outlaw unit
>and six channels of amplification, can you (or anyone else) suggest a
>multi-channel preamp/decoder for this application? My preference would
>be to keep the price below around $1,500, since I don't need some of the
>bells and whistles of the top end units. As an example, what about the
>Rotel RSD-1068 (which does apparently include adjustable crossover
>frequencies).

I am afraid that I have no direct experience with any MCH pre/pros. I
have restricted my view, so far, to all analog MCH preamps, relying on
the processing in the players for DD/DTS/DPL.

>How did you connect the ICBM for this setup? Sounds like you are not
>routing the bass from the surrounds and center to your mains, but
>instead are driving your mains (Maggies?) directly through another
>preamp. - Is that correct?

At present, I have the Maggie MGMC1s in the rear channels and
full-range Paradigms in the front 3 channels. So, I route the preamp
L/C/R outputs directly to the power amp and the LS/RS/LFE through the
ICBM. The advantage may have as much to do with the elimination of
an additional interconnect and intervening junctions as any 'veiling'
in the ICBM but this arrangement is just a bit cleaner.

Kal
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 7:18:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Kalman Rubinson <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message news:<cidkle0qor@news4.newsguy.com>...
> On 16 Sep 2004 23:10:13 GMT, Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> >Regarding the Outlaw ICBM, your opinion seems to be that if I have a
> >problem, it's with my receiver. Since I already have the Outlaw unit
> >and six channels of amplification, can you (or anyone else) suggest a
> >multi-channel preamp/decoder for this application? My preference would
> >be to keep the price below around $1,500, since I don't need some of the
> >bells and whistles of the top end units. As an example, what about the
> >Rotel RSD-1068 (which does apparently include adjustable crossover
> >frequencies).
>
> I am afraid that I have no direct experience with any MCH pre/pros. I
> have restricted my view, so far, to all analog MCH preamps, relying on
> the processing in the players for DD/DTS/DPL.
>
>
This raises an issue I have sought clarification on. Someone was
trying to sell me on the merits of Yamaha's new receiver, the RX-Z9,
that he touts as a state of the art processor. I have never considered
a multi-channel DSP processor because I thought (perhaps wrongly) that
the multi-channelplayer that I purchased would handle every processing
duty I would need. It seems that such a processor coupled with these
decks would result in a lot of redundant or overlapping capabilities?
But a lot of audiophiles seemingly are putting the two together.
Question: What does a multi-channel DSP processor do for multi-channel
SACD or DVD-A play back (at this point movies playing will not be part
of my system)that, for example, a Esoteric DV50S, Sony SCDXA9000ES,
Mccormack udp-1, etc., coupled with a basic multi-channel line stage
could not do on its own?

Robert C. Lang
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 9:41:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Robert C. Lang" <langvid@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:cihjkh01uqt@news4.newsguy.com...
> Kalman Rubinson <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:<cidkle0qor@news4.newsguy.com>...
> > On 16 Sep 2004 23:10:13 GMT, Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Regarding the Outlaw ICBM, your opinion seems to be that if I have a
> > >problem, it's with my receiver. Since I already have the Outlaw unit
> > >and six channels of amplification, can you (or anyone else) suggest a
> > >multi-channel preamp/decoder for this application? My preference would
> > >be to keep the price below around $1,500, since I don't need some of
the
> > >bells and whistles of the top end units. As an example, what about the
> > >Rotel RSD-1068 (which does apparently include adjustable crossover
> > >frequencies).
> >
> > I am afraid that I have no direct experience with any MCH pre/pros. I
> > have restricted my view, so far, to all analog MCH preamps, relying on
> > the processing in the players for DD/DTS/DPL.
> >
> >
> This raises an issue I have sought clarification on. Someone was
> trying to sell me on the merits of Yamaha's new receiver, the RX-Z9,
> that he touts as a state of the art processor. I have never considered
> a multi-channel DSP processor because I thought (perhaps wrongly) that
> the multi-channelplayer that I purchased would handle every processing
> duty I would need. It seems that such a processor coupled with these
> decks would result in a lot of redundant or overlapping capabilities?
> But a lot of audiophiles seemingly are putting the two together.
> Question: What does a multi-channel DSP processor do for multi-channel
> SACD or DVD-A play back (at this point movies playing will not be part
> of my system)that, for example, a Esoteric DV50S, Sony SCDXA9000ES,
> Mccormack udp-1, etc., coupled with a basic multi-channel line stage
> could not do on its own?

For DVD-A and SACD, absolutely nothing. They must use multichannel analog
inputs to convey true high rez info, otherwise that high-rez is
automatically downconverted to 44 or 48khz (in a few cases, 96khz).

For Movies, the receivers handle a lot more surround options than most
players...the most significant is older Dolby Surround which can be used to
decode older movies and SQ records.

A very few have built in surround modes aimed at extracting a
pseudo-surround from stereo and mono records.

Better off staying with good preamps and amplifiers, and letting the players
do the decoding, IMO.
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 6:08:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Robert C. Lang" <langvid@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:cihjkh01uqt@news4.newsguy.com...
>
>>Kalman Rubinson <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:<cidkle0qor@news4.newsguy.com>...
>
>>>On 16 Sep 2004 23:10:13 GMT, Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Regarding the Outlaw ICBM, your opinion seems to be that if I have a
>>>>problem, it's with my receiver. Since I already have the Outlaw unit
>>>>and six channels of amplification, can you (or anyone else) suggest a
>>>>multi-channel preamp/decoder for this application? My preference would
>>>>be to keep the price below around $1,500, since I don't need some of
>
> the
>
>>>>bells and whistles of the top end units. As an example, what about the
>>>>Rotel RSD-1068 (which does apparently include adjustable crossover
>>>>frequencies).
>>>
>>>I am afraid that I have no direct experience with any MCH pre/pros. I
>>>have restricted my view, so far, to all analog MCH preamps, relying on
>>>the processing in the players for DD/DTS/DPL.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This raises an issue I have sought clarification on. Someone was
>>trying to sell me on the merits of Yamaha's new receiver, the RX-Z9,
>>that he touts as a state of the art processor. I have never considered
>>a multi-channel DSP processor because I thought (perhaps wrongly) that
>>the multi-channelplayer that I purchased would handle every processing
>>duty I would need. It seems that such a processor coupled with these
>>decks would result in a lot of redundant or overlapping capabilities?
>>But a lot of audiophiles seemingly are putting the two together.
>>Question: What does a multi-channel DSP processor do for multi-channel
>>SACD or DVD-A play back (at this point movies playing will not be part
>>of my system)that, for example, a Esoteric DV50S, Sony SCDXA9000ES,
>>Mccormack udp-1, etc., coupled with a basic multi-channel line stage
>>could not do on its own?
>
>
> For DVD-A and SACD, absolutely nothing. They must use multichannel analog
> inputs to convey true high rez info, otherwise that high-rez is
> automatically downconverted to 44 or 48khz (in a few cases, 96khz).
>
> For Movies, the receivers handle a lot more surround options than most
> players...the most significant is older Dolby Surround which can be used to
> decode older movies and SQ records.
>
> A very few have built in surround modes aimed at extracting a
> pseudo-surround from stereo and mono records.
>
> Better off staying with good preamps and amplifiers, and letting the players
> do the decoding, IMO.
>
I may not be on the right track, but it seems to me that, as you
suggest, if the SACD player has decoding capabilities, its analog
outputs could be fed directly to the power amps, providing that the
player has some sort of volume adjustments. - Am I missing something?
This setup would eliminate the receiver, the Outlaw ICBM, and the
associated interconnects from the circuit path between the player and
the power amp, and perhaps improve the sound. The downside is that I
would then have to provide another approach (switch box?) for switching
between the SACD player (when playing SACD surround) and the Receiver
(when playing Dolby DVDs, etc.). I'll do some experimenting on this
approach using the internal channel volume adjustments on my Sony
multi-channel player.

Jim
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 6:12:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Jim Cate" <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:ciipmh0vc8@news3.newsguy.com...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > "Robert C. Lang" <langvid@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:cihjkh01uqt@news4.newsguy.com...
> >
> >>Kalman Rubinson <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
> >
> > news:<cidkle0qor@news4.newsguy.com>...
> >
> >>>On 16 Sep 2004 23:10:13 GMT, Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Regarding the Outlaw ICBM, your opinion seems to be that if I have a
> >>>>problem, it's with my receiver. Since I already have the Outlaw unit
> >>>>and six channels of amplification, can you (or anyone else) suggest a
> >>>>multi-channel preamp/decoder for this application? My preference would
> >>>>be to keep the price below around $1,500, since I don't need some of
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>>bells and whistles of the top end units. As an example, what about the
> >>>>Rotel RSD-1068 (which does apparently include adjustable crossover
> >>>>frequencies).
> >>>
> >>>I am afraid that I have no direct experience with any MCH pre/pros. I
> >>>have restricted my view, so far, to all analog MCH preamps, relying on
> >>>the processing in the players for DD/DTS/DPL.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>This raises an issue I have sought clarification on. Someone was
> >>trying to sell me on the merits of Yamaha's new receiver, the RX-Z9,
> >>that he touts as a state of the art processor. I have never considered
> >>a multi-channel DSP processor because I thought (perhaps wrongly) that
> >>the multi-channelplayer that I purchased would handle every processing
> >>duty I would need. It seems that such a processor coupled with these
> >>decks would result in a lot of redundant or overlapping capabilities?
> >>But a lot of audiophiles seemingly are putting the two together.
> >>Question: What does a multi-channel DSP processor do for multi-channel
> >>SACD or DVD-A play back (at this point movies playing will not be part
> >>of my system)that, for example, a Esoteric DV50S, Sony SCDXA9000ES,
> >>Mccormack udp-1, etc., coupled with a basic multi-channel line stage
> >>could not do on its own?
> >
> >
> > For DVD-A and SACD, absolutely nothing. They must use multichannel
analog
> > inputs to convey true high rez info, otherwise that high-rez is
> > automatically downconverted to 44 or 48khz (in a few cases, 96khz).
> >
> > For Movies, the receivers handle a lot more surround options than most
> > players...the most significant is older Dolby Surround which can be used
to
> > decode older movies and SQ records.
> >
> > A very few have built in surround modes aimed at extracting a
> > pseudo-surround from stereo and mono records.
> >
> > Better off staying with good preamps and amplifiers, and letting the
players
> > do the decoding, IMO.
> >
> I may not be on the right track, but it seems to me that, as you
> suggest, if the SACD player has decoding capabilities, its analog
> outputs could be fed directly to the power amps, providing that the
> player has some sort of volume adjustments. - Am I missing something?
> This setup would eliminate the receiver, the Outlaw ICBM, and the
> associated interconnects from the circuit path between the player and
> the power amp, and perhaps improve the sound. The downside is that I
> would then have to provide another approach (switch box?) for switching
> between the SACD player (when playing SACD surround) and the Receiver
> (when playing Dolby DVDs, etc.). I'll do some experimenting on this
> approach using the internal channel volume adjustments on my Sony
> multi-channel player.


The only volume controls on most SACD players are internal speaker trim
controls intended for balancing the setup ....there is no master volume
control.
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 8:11:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 19 Sep 2004 02:08:17 GMT, Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:

>I may not be on the right track, but it seems to me that, as you
>suggest, if the SACD player has decoding capabilities, its analog
>outputs could be fed directly to the power amps, providing that the
>player has some sort of volume adjustments. - Am I missing something?

That assumes you can find a universal player with a volume control.

>This setup would eliminate the receiver, the Outlaw ICBM, and the
>associated interconnects from the circuit path between the player and
>the power amp, and perhaps improve the sound.

That assumes you can find a universal player with adequate bass
management.

>The downside is that I
>would then have to provide another approach (switch box?) for switching
>between the SACD player (when playing SACD surround) and the Receiver
>(when playing Dolby DVDs, etc.). I'll do some experimenting on this
>approach using the internal channel volume adjustments on my Sony
>multi-channel player.

Let us know.

Kal
Anonymous
September 21, 2004 4:32:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
> "Robert C. Lang" <langvid@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:cihjkh01uqt@news4.newsguy.com...

>> This raises an issue I have sought clarification on. Someone was
>> trying to sell me on the merits of Yamaha's new receiver, the RX-Z9,
>> that he touts as a state of the art processor.

At the moment, it is the only Yamaha model with a I-link connection.

Yamaha DSP-Z9 (european model)
http://yamaha-hifi.de/index.php?lang=e&idcat1=1
http://www.yamaha-audio.co.uk/homecinema/amplifiers/dsp...
http://www.yamaha-audio.co.uk/pdfs/manuals/DSPZ9.pdf

I suspect (hope) that the future Yamahas RX-V1500 and RX-V2500 (or
whatever the replacements of the current RX-V1400 and RX-V2400 will
be called) might also have I-link (firewire), but that is just a guess.

The Pioneers VSA-AX10Ai-S or VSX-AX5i-S also have I-link and the
VSX-AX5i-S is considerably cheaper (1500 euros) than the Yamaha
RX-Z9 (~5000 euros).

>> I have never considered
>> a multi-channel DSP processor because I thought (perhaps wrongly) that
>> the multi-channelplayer that I purchased would handle every processing
>> duty I would need.

The player usually has less features. I think all the modes that
create surround channels from a 2 channel input (even something so
trivial as "6-channel stereo") are absent.

Also, the newer modes which create 7 or 9 (!) channels from the 5
channels in a multichannel record don't exist in players either.

>> It seems that such a processor coupled with these
>> decks would result in a lot of redundant or overlapping capabilities?

Yes (bass management, distance compensation, for instance), but
- those capabilities are more complete on the receiver than on the player;
- probably the receiver is no more expensive than a 5 or more channels
power amplifier with volume control (if someone makes one).
If you already have the amplifier, this doesn't mean much to you.

>> But a lot of audiophiles seemingly are putting the two together.
>> Question: What does a multi-channel DSP processor do for multi-channel
>> SACD or DVD-A play back (at this point movies playing will not be part
>> of my system)that, for example, a Esoteric DV50S, Sony SCDXA9000ES,
>> Mccormack udp-1, etc., coupled with a basic multi-channel line stage
>> could not do on its own?

> For DVD-A and SACD, absolutely nothing. They must use multichannel analog
> inputs to convey true high rez info, otherwise that high-rez is
> automatically downconverted to 44 or 48khz (in a few cases, 96khz).

I _think_ that doesn't apply to I-link, only to optical/coaxial digital,
when mosts discs forbid the player from outputing anything digital, anyway.
With I-link the player sends digital to the receiver at whatever rate is
present on the disc.

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
!