Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems 568 and dsp6000 vs. 568 and analogue speakers?

I recently demoed the 568 with a 5.1 system composed of dsp6000 front/5000rears/?center.
The sound was incredible;everything was done right. Dialogue was clear,effects seamless,the sound was completely enveloping.

While the 568 is more than I had contemplated,like others,I'm hooked. This combo was so much better than an MC-1 although my auditions were not with similar speakers or sound levels.

What I'm wondering is how much of my preference was due to the DSP speakers in combo with the 561. Will I be as enthralled with the unit with my speakers? I don't have a local Meridian dealer for demo and since used is about the only way to afford this my chances of listening in my system are slim.
What are members thoughts on this question?

Thanks,
Dave

DC - it's SO easy to spend money on this stuff, isn't it ;-)

i can't speak directly to your question, since i've never used a 561. i basically have the setup you auditioned, and i can say i have no complaints.

before i had DSP speakers i had B&Ws all around. before i had a 568 i was just doing Meridian audio: 500 to 518 (as a digtial preamp) to a 566 to my amp to the B&Ws. i was stunned by it when i hooked it up. the 6000s came next, and it was all downhill for my wallet from there!

i think DSP speakers are just plain "right".

you really should take a critical comparative listen though. if you don't have a local dealer, contact Meridian america in georgia and ask their advice. they will sell direct in cases of no local dealer. you might be able to buy a pair of speakers, try them out and then return them if you hate 'em (yeah, right!).

good luck!

sab

I have a 561 feeding seven DSP5000s. All were purchased used, mostly thru Audiogon. IMHO, go with DSP speakers. they make a BIG difference.

I have 6000's front, 5000's rear and center with a velodyne sub controlled by a 568.

I auditioned the 568 first with b&w's. Specifically b&w 802's front with the larger b&w center (I was going to use my old b&w matrix 3's for rears so I didn't focus on them as much). Power came from a krell amp.

The 568 made a definate difference in sound with the b&w's and I could hear a smoother tail on reverbs using upsampling. After hearing the 568, there was no question that Merdian was pre-amp.

Have no doubts about going with a Meridian pre. I don't think the Casanova is as good and the Casablanca has quality issues. Lexicon is good but not as musical (I have not heard their new processor and the Lex fans - short for fanatic - on the av science board swear its as musical as the Meridian. I have my doubts).

What I was told was that the 561 didn't upsample so I decided to go with the 568. Also, I thought the 568 would be supported longer.

If Meridian will be upgrading the 561 DSP chips and if they will upsample, this might be the bargain way to go (I've seen lots of used 561's). The upgrade will be next year and run about 2 grand (at least that's what I heard it will cost to upgrade a 568).

In terms of the 568...unless you are buying used, wait until early next year when they will have the new DSP chips (this will make a big difference as you will be able to upsample rear channels). I have become a big PLII fan - it's very cool.

Speakers are a different issue (I'm not sure if you're shopping for these, but I'm a pretentious *** so let me try to sell you on the Meridians).

The nautalus tweeter is increably detailed and there are times I miss it. On the other hand, b&w's never really "happened" for me unless you pushed them with a lot of volume. After years of playing/recording in bands my ears can't take it. Moreover, even when pushed, the b&w's just lack a certain dynamic.

Meridian's have far more body and presence even at moderate listening levels (in the 50's). The 6000's bottom end can't be beat (I only use the Velodyne for LFE). The b&w's (even the 802's) can't touch the Meridians in this area.

As you probably heard, detailing with the 6000's is present. They are crisp and revealing, but you won't have as much of the nautalus "air" on the high end.

I don't regret going with the Meridians. There are times with the Meridian that I can lose myself in the moment and be in the room with the players. With most other set-ups (including the b&w's) I was always aware that I'm listening to a recording. For me that was the clincher.

Have fun buying!

Harbor53

You mean the 568 I assume, cause you jumped from the 568 to the 561 in your post ?

The speakers had almost everything to do with it. In that configuration the 568 is nothing than a pure digital processor. D/A stages of the speakers were used as well as their amplifiers and their DSP correction !

In order to give you an estimate of a "possible difference" in your system let us know more about your current setup and room ?

Ouch....
To be honest, here I'm A little harsh, never ever try to do comparisons that way. You end up with wrong ideas and impressions that simply cannot be considered as fact. Always use the same system and room for processor comparisons. I know this is difficult, if most often not impossible.

Cheers,
Andreas

[This message has been edited by Andreas (edited 11-20-2001).]

I've had the 561 and 568. I personally find upsampling useless (with analog speakers and 40 year old ears anyway). I have all B&W. For movies 568 and 561 are very similar. For music the 568 is quieter. The 561 had a tendancy to Hum. 568 is quieter on both balanced and non balanced outputs. 568 is just a tad smoother and crisper. If you can get the 561 cheap used you won't lose much money when you upgrade and you'll have something to look forward to.

The room and proper setup plays a huge part too.

P.S. The B&W N803's pass the wife acceptance factor. None of the Meridian DSP's would. Well that's a good excuse anyway :-).

I have changed from 561 to 568 both running with analogue speakers (ATC Active Studio Monitors) rather like George.

I agree with him that the 561 has more hum and noise than the 568 - particularly the balanced outputs.

I find the analogue speakers superb in every way and, of course, are compatible with other manufacturer's equipment should I decide to move away from Meridian in the future. When I have heard the DSP speakers at demos I felt that they were quite "forward" in their presentation. This is just personal preference which is particularly important with speakers.

With analogue, upsampling is a non-issue as George points out.

I've got a 568 connected to a Bryston 9B-THX power amp driving B&W Nautilus 805's, SCM's and an HTM 2 and I can definitely hear the difference with upsampling enabled.

I also preferred the CD sound I got when I set my 568 CD input to 16-bit resolution - I'm pretty sure that changes the dither pattern it uses when processing the signal. If you put your ear close to a tweeter when playing quiet passages you can hear different background high frequency noise when you change between 16 and 24 bit input resolution.

I guess it's just one of those things you have to try for yourself but I'll be buying the 568 DSP upgrade to get upsampling on the rears and with DD.

Ronnie

Andreas,
Yes I did goof;I listened to the 568 only. While I fully agree with your comments on proper auditioning,I had no choice. I have no local dealer and the NJ dealers I visited did not have a variety of equipment in one room.

I am planning on driving my system of custom Advanced Sound planar dipole speakers. They have 10 drivers/speaker at 4 ohms with 94dB effiency. These are manufactured locally and are really awesome.

Currently I use a B&K AVR 202 to drive 5 speakers with a Hafler XL600 driving dual SVS 25-31 passive subs. I have placed an Aragon 8008BB to drive the front L/R and noticed a distinct improvement by lightening the load on the B&K. I plan on an Aragon 8008x5 plus a new processor.

My short list is a used Meridian or Lexicon or possibly a Tag Mclaren AV32R. Buying used I won't have the opportunity for a home demo so I need to make the right choice the first time. I'm fishing for suggestions.

Dave

Hi Dave,

yes, it's really a pain to come to conclusive impressions on the various processors out there. But I see that you are deep into this matter, as you understand the importance of "correct comparisons".

Now, dipole, bipole or omnipole speakers are really a matter of taste. Honestly speaking my hearing demands have increased to an extent that I would never buy a single passive regular speaker anymore, not a dipole, bipole or omnipole (maybe a Geithain ME100, maybe...).

To give you some idea of what I mean I will try to give you some further details. It all comes down to understanding the basics. Once you have listened to a pair of well setup matched studio monitors you know what I mean.

When you talk to high end enthusiasts they describe sound, as some fellows in here do, with words like sparkle, liquidity, easiness or dry and punchy bass. They differentiate speakers more by their reproduction of voices in terms of "colors" and "smoothness".

When you talk to expert or professional listeners, those having advanced to an own room with accoustical treatment e.g., you realize that other terms are being used, like this speaker is more "transparent", doesn't "color" ("color" also here, but with a different meaning), has a more stable phantom image capability, will go louder without signs of distortion, etc.

These people have understood that in order to hear what is one the CD you need sophisticated approaches rather than marketing and good test results.

Comming back to the speakers and phantom image capability, I have so far not heard any passive speaker that can best a good fully active reference studio monitor.
I talk about the ability to fully separate voices in the 3D audio hemisphere, making it possible to instantly "not" only understand that this or that song is made up of 3 voices, but that also the one voice is on the left, the second is close to him and the 3 is almost to the right with a band in between made up of......, etc.

Now, how often have you heard "good music", but you also had to concentrate for locating the performers ? This is happening so, so, so often. The sound is great, awesome bass, nice treble, but absolutely no imaging, just "good sounding smear".

In order to reproduce an incomming signal correctly and in order to image as precise as possible certain aspect in a speaker are necessary, looks most often suffer in good speakers.

That correct speaker should have a linear frequency responce (like a straight line = no colorations), should have a nice impulse and phase responce, should have a defined "radiation pattern" (very important for non treated rooms, best for good focus and less "reflection-colorations") and should have stringent selected drivers to each other (for further optimized phantom image ability). Of course there are more aspects.

Since many people favor looks over room treatment and don't understand active analogue or digital active monitors and their benefits, I wonder where they get their big differences between processors from anyway. Honestly, I tend to believe that it is more an adjustment and a believe thing than pure hearable quality differences or sientific research.

A friend and I tried once to do a correct A/B test between my old 861 (20Bit version) and a TAG AVR32 on studio monitors. There were differences, but to what extent......

Giving you honest advice would be to suggest to you to sell off your current speakers (and to some others in here too) and get better active or digital active solutions. Do some or alot room treatment and you would have in total such a dramatic improvement no processor swap can ever bring you. Especially omnipoles or bipoles will polute the room with reflectios and produce unprecise focus.

Unfortunately, I can only give you this advice on speakers, the advice on processors I leave to people with untreated rooms and passive English made speakers (just kidding).

Have fun.

Andreas

[This message has been edited by Andreas (edited 11-24-2001).]

Anreas,

Ok you got my attention. So would you care to elaborate what speakers you would choose and why. What speakers do you run. I for one could use a little education.

Thanks.

Hi George,

unfortunately, I'm not rich . Why ? I don't understand it......

If I would have the cash, I might be owning the above mentioned setup. I used to own a complete digital setup on a cheaper level, but as talked about before in here I had my problems with the volume control on the 565 and the digital active speakers I used.

The point I was trying to make is that if you really take the time to setup an A/B test as good as possible, take a pink noise signal and calibrate with a SPL meter both processors to the same loudness level (although this is not satisfying some perfectionist who argue about a fraction of a db on the processor'S outputs) you might come to the conclusion that the difference among processors is there, but to what extent....... I'm not saying that there is no difference. I found the 861 to be more stable than the TAG, probably because of it's superior de-jittering system, but the TAG was therefore a little more punchy sounding in the treble and vocals (which was a taste factor).

When you take 2 different speakers the differences will come out much faster. You notice that the one speaker is imaging much more precise and the stage is more stable focused. The other might have a better extended bass ro might sound dull due to a poor treble responce.

What I found interesting is that some people rather decribe the diffrences between the processors as less hum and less noise. I thing this is sustaining that the difference between processors is not that big, once you touched a certain price point and set up the units well. Now, this is my impression, not more.

So when DC said he was thinking about all the processors, but also told us about his customized speakers, I was wondering whether he would have a greater benefit from different speakers, also because of his audition.

As I understood bi-poles or di-poles to work is that they radiate sound also into the back plane of the room. With a dipole however you wind up with sound in the back that is 180 degree phase shifted. It is a fact that by using such "sound patterns" you are using reflections to increase the image. However, any kind of reflections have nothing to do with the original signal, as they are produced by the reproduction chain and not in the studio. Acoustic treatment can help, and help "not so good speakers" as well, what ever that means.

Better designed speakers know of room problems and honestly probably 90% of us have some or more. I do.

Many professional monitors have oval shaped sound dispersion patterns. They will bundle the sound in the vertical plane, trying to avoid fist reflections with the ceiling and the floor and leave a good dispersion = coverage in the horizontal plane. They also have a defined linear bundling pattern.

Speakers I like will minimize such first reflections endangering the maximum phantom image localization ability. Phantom images are the images between two speakers. They use always active designs, meaning no passive x-over in the signal path, with active or digital active x-overs in front of their bi/tri/quad amplification build in. Many alss use the benefit, like Meridian does, of DSP correction or EQs/delays to further enhance the linearity of the responce.

I don't want to talk about brands now, since this is the Meridian forum. DC asked about whether what he heard was due to the processor or the sepakers. I simply said the speakers, which were also Meridian and this shows of their good quality.

Without an a/b comparison to some extent in quality always be aware of whether there are really the "huge differences" some people believe to have experienced. I simply doubt the word huge, because I expect something different from that word.

Regards,
Andreas

[This message has been edited by Andreas (edited 11-24-2001).]