Latest news on Lexicon MP-20 Processor
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Hi
If that warrants a thread in itself please feel fre to move this post or let me know..
I do not at the the time possess a Pre/Pro. THe last Pre/Pri I had was a Krell something (don't remember the exact model)... It replaced a NAD 741 or 761... It seemed to do a marginally better job of surround steering than the NAD... I have installed a few Integras for friends and frankly I am more than impressed by the wealth of options and the quality of the reproduction .. In what way the current Lexicon would be superior to the Integra? Even theirtop of the Line AVR which to me does as good a job in HT as anything I have heard , in an HT situation to repeat myself?
If that warrants a thread in itself please feel fre to move this post or let me know..
I do not at the the time possess a Pre/Pro. THe last Pre/Pri I had was a Krell something (don't remember the exact model)... It replaced a NAD 741 or 761... It seemed to do a marginally better job of surround steering than the NAD... I have installed a few Integras for friends and frankly I am more than impressed by the wealth of options and the quality of the reproduction .. In what way the current Lexicon would be superior to the Integra? Even theirtop of the Line AVR which to me does as good a job in HT as anything I have heard , in an HT situation to repeat myself?
It is a pleasure to have you here Adam
. Welcome to the forum.As you, I also take solace in having the SDEC-4500 at our disposal. We pair it up with a low-cost processor today (Marantz in our case) and get the job done.
Putting aside a few niceties such as dual HDMI output with independent routing so that it could drive two TVs at once, on the video front, probably not much there. On audio, we were going to get Arcos which is worlds better than the Audyssey in Inegra with regards to room EQ. And of course, the addition of QLS to get extra height channels, and full steering of streams, it was quite a unique offering.
As I just noted, we can still get the Room EQ from the JBL Synthesis side. The cost is higher but so are the capabilities as far as tuning.
It is a pleasure to have you here Adam
As you, I also take solace in having the SDEC-4500 at our disposal. We pair it up with a low-cost processor today (Marantz in our case) and get the job done.
Thanks for the welcome, Amir. I wish I had snagged this thread a week earlier, and then made arrangements to meet out at CES. I have caught your name here and there, and enjoy putting faces to them.
I concur with the idea of pairing. I often do the same on smaller budget projects using a QSC322ua, et. al. Let the pre-pro do the job of switching and decoding, and the black boxes do their thing. And do the same with video, letting a 3rd party device do the heavy lifting getting the best video signal possible to the display.
I suppose if I hang around here, I should get a sig worked up. Maybe I can get Jamin over here too, and stir things up?
Adam Pelz
Drat, I've been outted !
Indeed another master ARCOSian has surfaced. I've actually been around the forums but don't "talk" so much. I wanted to go to CES with Appelz and look at toys but got stuck on a, Uh, 'to be rescheduled" calibration instead.
Maybe Adam and I can both tackle you at CEDIA Amir, should be fun.
Ah, on topic --- I too am all for little specialized boxes -- Pre/pro for audio decoding , DSP for heavy lifting, and a Video box. Maybe LEX will get wise and remember their roots.
Indeed another master ARCOSian has surfaced. I've actually been around the forums but don't "talk" so much. I wanted to go to CES with Appelz and look at toys but got stuck on a, Uh, 'to be rescheduled" calibration instead.
Maybe Adam and I can both tackle you at CEDIA Amir, should be fun.
Ah, on topic --- I too am all for little specialized boxes -- Pre/pro for audio decoding , DSP for heavy lifting, and a Video box. Maybe LEX will get wise and remember their roots.
Frantz: Unlike Amir, I have had OUTSTANDING results with an Integra 80.2 and Audyssey Pro. (And with my previous Onkyo piece). By far the best results in totally eliminating any hint of room ringing of any processor that I have tried/demoed. By a long shot. If one follows TO THE LETTER the guidelines for running Audyssey, great results are 95% assured. ANY deviation from those guidelines and ALL BETS ARE OFF. And those guidelines have been fine tuned over time. As for the rest of it's capabilities, it could be improved by adding more capabilities in the Pro package AND running on a higher end platform.
But at an MSRP of about $2500, there is nothing close to compare to it (IMO) measured in price/perfromance. And that is why I was hopeful that the new Lexicon piece would at least equal the room correction of the 80.X (Amir says it would have but I have had much better results with Audyssey than he has) and then provide QLS. However, to have fully realized what QLS offered, you need 9 to 11 speakers!!
I am not suggesting there are not better "potential" solutions (e.g. AP20i for $17,000; The eventually (or never) to be released Theta piece at no telling how many bazillions; Trinnov; ??). But the costs of those is well north of the Integra. Once the AP20i is completed, I would love to hear it in my home!!
But at an MSRP of about $2500, there is nothing close to compare to it (IMO) measured in price/perfromance. And that is why I was hopeful that the new Lexicon piece would at least equal the room correction of the 80.X (Amir says it would have but I have had much better results with Audyssey than he has) and then provide QLS. However, to have fully realized what QLS offered, you need 9 to 11 speakers!!
I am not suggesting there are not better "potential" solutions (e.g. AP20i for $17,000; The eventually (or never) to be released Theta piece at no telling how many bazillions; Trinnov; ??). But the costs of those is well north of the Integra. Once the AP20i is completed, I would love to hear it in my home!!
Last edited:
Arcos is short for Adaptive Room Correction and Optimization System. It is the JBL software that runs on their DSP subsystem called SDEC. It comes in two versions, one for bi-amp and the other, for traditional configuration. Here is the bi-amp version called SDEC-4500:
The hardware is from a division of Harman that produces DSP products for the pro market. ARCOS is layered on top of that and provides automated and hand tuned room EQ. Here is a sample image:
The system is capable of correcting and optimizing up to 4-subs for smoothest response across multiple seating positions. It is substantially more sophisticated than consumer systems that ship in AVRs. For example the SFM subsystem uses multiple subs and optimizes the response of each as to get the smoothest response across all the seats. Consumer systems treat all the subs the same and hence, can't do that (not directly anyway). In addition, the system is real-time meaning you can play with the filter settings you see at the bottom of that graph and hear the effect immediately. Other system go through good bit of time recomputing things before you can hear it. Importantly, if you use Harman speakers (JBL, Revel, HK, etc), the system knows their natural response and it will optimize the room using that information. Systems that lack that knowledge may attempt to fix things that they should not (e.g. power response). Finally, the range of optimization for the filter is far higher than consumer products that try to be on the safe side.
The above is what we have in our reference theater at work.
The Lexicon MP-20 was going to have a version of ARCOS in it although likely without any of the hand tuning features.
You mean were here but not saying anything? I knew men could be shy but not this shy!
I suspect that is the direction they are going. Mini-version of SDEC in a consumer form factor would be nice.
Thank you Amir, again for a very clear explanation. :b
And ARCOS uses what type of digital filters Amir?
Are they the Parametric type?
Or are they the Finite Impulse Response (FIR) type, with both Frequency Response and Time Domain adjustments? [Audyssey uses that type.]
Or are they the Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) type, also taking into consideration room acoustic delays (reverbs)?
Or are they a combination of the last two above? [Anthem with ARC uses that combination.]
Or are they different?
And, are they similar to Audyssey filters in the bass for multiple subs EQ (or two separately calibrated ones)? ...FIR digital filters, with emphasis in the low Bass frequencies, down to 10 Hz ...
Also, you said before that ARCOS with QLS is much more advanced than Audyssey.
Is that including Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and Audyssey MultEQ PRO? ...With over 10,000 FIR digital filters.
[Lexicon with ARCOS & QLS is a no go now. So that leaves JBL Synthesis with the new upgraded ARCOS, Version 3.0, in this field; at least in the now.]
[[QLS stands for Quantum Logic Surround, and was supposed to add additional Height channels, correct?]]
And last, what is your take on TRINNOV?
Thank you sir.
P.S. I found this.
And ARCOS uses what type of digital filters Amir?
Are they the Parametric type?
Or are they the Finite Impulse Response (FIR) type, with both Frequency Response and Time Domain adjustments? [Audyssey uses that type.]
Or are they the Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) type, also taking into consideration room acoustic delays (reverbs)?
Or are they a combination of the last two above? [Anthem with ARC uses that combination.]
Or are they different?
And, are they similar to Audyssey filters in the bass for multiple subs EQ (or two separately calibrated ones)? ...FIR digital filters, with emphasis in the low Bass frequencies, down to 10 Hz ...
Also, you said before that ARCOS with QLS is much more advanced than Audyssey.
Is that including Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and Audyssey MultEQ PRO? ...With over 10,000 FIR digital filters.
[Lexicon with ARCOS & QLS is a no go now. So that leaves JBL Synthesis with the new upgraded ARCOS, Version 3.0, in this field; at least in the now.]
[[QLS stands for Quantum Logic Surround, and was supposed to add additional Height channels, correct?]]
And last, what is your take on TRINNOV?
Thank you sir.
P.S. I found this.
Last edited:
Last edited:
No sweat Amir, but it's cool that Roger shows up a month after. :b
And thanks Roger for that precision regarding filters vs taps.
- A TAP is a point, a precise frequency point from the audio spectrum.
- A digital FILTER can be applied at several points.
Right?
And thanks Roger for that precision regarding filters vs taps.
- A TAP is a point, a precise frequency point from the audio spectrum.
- A digital FILTER can be applied at several points.
Right?
Think of an old analog graphic EQ. Each slider (band) is one filter. The filter width is determined by how many resonators (poles/zeros) in the filter, and the resonator values also determine the center frequency.
A digital filter is the equivalent of that old EQ, albeit much more powerful/flexible/stable, with the number of taps determining the flexibility of the filter's parameters. A tap does not map straight to a frequency as you imply; it is more like tweaking the value of the RLC components in that old analog EQ. (For the purists: I know this is not an exact analogy, and I do know how both types of filters work, I got eddicated). If you are familiar with ladder filters, the taps are somewhat like the weights of each leg (tap) in the ladder network.
HTH - Don
A digital filter is the equivalent of that old EQ, albeit much more powerful/flexible/stable, with the number of taps determining the flexibility of the filter's parameters. A tap does not map straight to a frequency as you imply; it is more like tweaking the value of the RLC components in that old analog EQ. (For the purists: I know this is not an exact analogy, and I do know how both types of filters work, I got eddicated). If you are familiar with ladder filters, the taps are somewhat like the weights of each leg (tap) in the ladder network.
HTH - Don
Alright Don,
1. 10-band EQ per channel = 20 analog filters total (Graphic EQ), with 10 frequency points per channel, or bands.
2. How effective those filters are depends of the width which is determined by the number of resonators per each filter.
3. The center frequency point is determined by the resonators' value (precision).
4. 30-band EQ per channel = 60 digital filters total (Parametric EQ), with 30 bands per channel.
5. The number of 'taps' is equivalent to resonators.
6. A tap is much more elaborate/accurate (digital domain), and depending of the number of taps,
the overall EQ is much more sophisticated.
7. So far, everything above is sound?
8. RLC = ?
9. Ladder filters; could you please, perhaps, provide a link that explains well.
* Very much appreciate your input Don.
1. 10-band EQ per channel = 20 analog filters total (Graphic EQ), with 10 frequency points per channel, or bands.
2. How effective those filters are depends of the width which is determined by the number of resonators per each filter.
3. The center frequency point is determined by the resonators' value (precision).
4. 30-band EQ per channel = 60 digital filters total (Parametric EQ), with 30 bands per channel.
5. The number of 'taps' is equivalent to resonators.
6. A tap is much more elaborate/accurate (digital domain), and depending of the number of taps,
the overall EQ is much more sophisticated.
7. So far, everything above is sound?
8. RLC = ?
9. Ladder filters; could you please, perhaps, provide a link that explains well.
* Very much appreciate your input Don.
Similar threads
