Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems Apodising Firmware Update (Unofficial)

They are all exactly the same, otherwise it would not work. Please read introduction section of the Wiki page.

@Ian, the reason why apodizing does not work optimal in DSP speakers is just the location in the chain where the apodizing occurs. Meridian stated many times that apodizing should happen as early in the chain as possible, thus preferably in the source. I believe the people that upgraded their 800 reported improvement over using the 861v6 for apodizing ... this proves above point.

How much difference is there in processing power between the audio processors i.e. those that perform room correction ?

Given the potential to vary the filter design in code to create a certain audio character I wonder how M will use this to differentiate certain products ? The possibilities are endless.

It may be cynical to think this would be used as a marketing tool to justify much more expensive or new variants i.e. it's just different not better or worse but psychology in relation to more expensive etc has an affect on perception.

Avi

This was mentioned to me by Meridian at the Sevenoaks event in Bristol last Saturday.

Mat

Evdberg

Is the benefit of location related to generally up-sampling 44.1 to a higher sample rate or specifically the apodizing method ?

Avii

I find the issue of different apodizing implementations and "hardware capability" rather "interesting" (which might be a polite way of putting things).

I'm sure I'm not the one one wondering whether the information we have on "different apodizing implementation" was outright false, miscommunicated or misinterpreted. For instance, was a comment about the overall product's "hardware limitations" being applied to, or interpreted as being about, its apodizing in particular? Meridian does now seem to be a company that delivers new product rather than updating old ones, so I wouldn't be surprised that there are marketing forces at work to convince customers to upgrade.

We know that the 808.3 sounds better than the G08.2 because there is so much more care and engineering involved in the design and circuitry; and the "implementation" of the up-sampler (chip used, position on circuit board, colour of the case ) might be different, but do these products really have different upsampling FIR coefficients? I think that it's likely that once Meridian settled on its preferred apodizing algorithm after (presumably) a *lot* of listening tests, it implemented the same FIR filter in all products. Evdberg's results might suggest the same.

Surely he's talking about the original M filters (claimed to be different for each product) rather than yours (the same for each product)?

I think the point is that clearly the filter coefficients take up the same space in the firmware. The coefficients could be different, but unless you deliberately knobble lower tier products, why would they be?

I believe it has to do with the higher sample rate, since it has been argued that higher sample rate has lower jitter. That explains why people with a 800 and 861v6 preferred the upsampling in the 800 (thus earlier in the chain), even with the 800 having the non-apodizing linear upsample filter.

Yes,Yes,Yes

Robert

Erwin

I have put the 568_25b9 folder into the 500 series firmware folder as directed earlier.

A 568_25b9a mfu file has been generated as you said, but the existing 568_25b9 mfu file is there too. Should that be removed, leaving the new "a" file instead, or should it be left in place alongside the new file before starting WinFup to upload?

Thanks

George

Geroge,
For the G68 you just need to upload the modified mfu file. I expect it's the same with the 568.2

Cliff

It is, yes. Just upload the "a" file using the M programme. No need to upload any others.