Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems CES 2007 Hitchhiker's Q&A with Meridian

I know MRC is wiped between runs.

I also think that I get the best results by first applying DD-EQ and then MRC. But it's not as easy as that.

Velodyne assumes that their DD-EQ is the only EQ to be used, but before you run it you should do whatever you can to help it. This includes placement of speakers, volume level calibration, acoustic treatment of the room... Then DD-EQ puts in the "Final Touches". If you after running DD-EQ rearrange furniture, change material in walls, replace front speakers a.s.o. you won't get any (positive) effect from DD-EQ.

Both DD-EQ and MRC are "Poor Man's Acoustic Treatment", though with the "twist" being more expensive than "real" acoustic treatment of the room. "Poor man" is here referring to "a man not allowed by his wife to destroy the looks of the living room". So, for both it's "wrong" not to run them last - it will equal running either while the construction workers are still putting the finishing touches to the room.

It didn't take much testing for me to se that it was better for me to run DD-EQ first and then MRC. This seems to be the common point of view, though I'm not sure if it applies to every room/equipment combination. But DD-EQ will then anyway have to work with "that untreated room"...

So I tested "rough MRC" (without DD-12) --> DD-EQ --> MRC. This will "mimic" the following scenario:
* "Rough MRC": Speakers are placed where they sound the best, furniture/carpets are moved to get a good listening position, wall treatment & curtains shorten the reverberation time somewhat, level calibration of speakers is done.
* DD-EQ: The DD-12 is integrated into the system and by "adding bass where the rest of the system gives too little" the response for low frequencies is clearly a bit more correct.
* MRC: The speakers are once again placed where thay sound best, carpets/walls/furniture are taken care of... Being the same people doing the same work, the result will of course be similar to before. They have the DD-12 to take into account, and they are being given more time to optimize evrything. The end result is pretty decent.

This is the theory, and testing has shown that I get a slightly better end result this way. But the problem is that it's mostly for test signals/situations... This is because the D1500, while playing "real music", usually doesn't get sent to it the bass information it could use to improve the bass response in the room. That is why I want both subs to play the same (source) bass, otherwise they can't really complement each other.

OK, for this time...

That would indeed be acoustically unsound if the two subs where to be sent exactly the same sound information to be played after it was processed by DD-EQ and MRC. That's of course not what I want. They should be sent the same source material - level settings, DD-EQ and MRC will take care of the subs being different. Radio Shack will see to that volumes match even though the DD-12 is more powerful, DD-EQ will affect the DD-12 but not the D1500 - that's sound (if you pardon the pun...)

You would of course need to calibrate the system with both subs playing concurrently, otherwise you would get too much bass. Either you do that manually or get an extra function for it in the processor. With "manually" I mean that you (I) first calibrate each sub independently (with the other turned off, since both subs should simultaneously get the same source) so their volume levels match. You then use the old trusty RS again while both are playing, lowering the volume equally much on both subs to match the rest of the system.

For my ears, the horns on my Bc Acoustic ACT A3 has a significantly better sound than the tweeters on the "cheaper" DPSs as well as riboons on the passive speakers I've heard. Does the 8000 really have the same tweeters as for example the 5200's?

One solution many people independently have "invented" is a HDMAX-like external box, but with HDMI in and MHR out.

Regardless of if Meridian is going to make such a unit or not it would be interesting to know if it's even feasible, technically and economically?

And politically... Who owns HDMI? And even if the DVD forum agreed M could do this (transfer hi-res LPCM from HD DVD over HDMI to Meridian processors via MHR) would this violate Bluray copy protection?

This strays a bit off topic; but... VK says:

Overview

Comprised of Hitachi, Matsushita Electric (Panasonic), Royal Philips Electronics, Silicon Image, Sony Corporation, Thomson and Toshiba Corporation, the High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) Founders have joined together to define a next-generation digital interface specification for consumer electronics products.


Well there is "security by obscurity" which is to say that relatively speaking there isn't much M gear out there. It isn't high on hackers' list of target products. Since M hasn't published detailed info on MHR (and I don't blame them); I can't say how susceptible it is to a crack / decryption via brute force methods.

As far as violation of copy protection -- it's going form encrypted to encrypted and without being privy to the standards for content distribution I can't speak with any authority about whether it would be permitted or not.

Best,

http://www.hdmi.org/

What about an EQ same range than MRC (<250Hz), in the 861 and G68?

Three 861v4 product suggestions:

(1) Another vote to enable toggling on/off various surround modes. I only use a few, and having to cycle between all of them is annoying

(2) An Audyssey option. I've tried it and it works really well.

(3) USB audio input. I'm now using a PC based hard drive solution, and it'd be nice to bypass the USB to coax converter entirely.

VK,

To clarify the CS command request.

On the HDMax 421 there is a rs232 command "CS" that returnes the current status of the unit. In the case of the 421 it returns which input is currently selected.

It would be nice to have a similar command so that whatever is on the other end of the rs232 can query what status the unit is in. E.g. a G91 could return information on selected input/volume level/DSP settings etc. It would at least be nice to know if the unit is "on" or in "standby"

Cheers

Paul

Dedicated RC codes for the standard DSP modes plus 2-3 for user defined (ex. MRC's at different decay times for a given DSP) would be nice.

Thanks Curly. Makes sense.

Related to Curly's request - could that command be sendable by remote, and could it also have the effect of synchronising all DSPs to the same volume level. That would be useful for those of us who are now powering off our DSPs so as not to waste electricity in standby - but when they come back on they revert to volume 65, even though the controller might be at a much lower volume. I can see this kind of 'green' requirement growing.