Good Processor

"Audyssey Volume and EQ do a lot in resolution."

So, you are speaking of SUBJECTIVE resolution. That was not clear from your original post and, especially with regard to DV and DEQ, quite debatable.

Kr4,

I use analog from an Oppo 105 and Sony 5400ES to a Cary 11a. The inputs of the 11a are set to bypass. A DirecTV HD-DVR uses the HDMI port of the Oppo, a Mac Mini the asynchronous USB port. Video from the Oppo goes directly to a projector.

I've been reading the reviews of the Parasound Halo P7, and it seems a perfect match for my setup. It also has a phono stage for my Ortofon SME 30H. The preamp would output to Proceed HPA 2 and 3 amps and a Velodyne SMS-1 via balanced lines,

Does replacing the Cary 11a with a Halo P7 seem as though it is unlikely to result in sonic degradation? The system is used for both music and HT.

db

It is just about what I can hear. Wenn voices and instruments are better focussed and more separated it is more easy to follow. Let's go back to the XP-20. What it does compared to less expensive pre-amps is making a bigger and wider stage. This let you hear better separation of instruments and voices. The biggest flaw I encounterd with Audyssey is the loss of dynamics. So I wanted to see how I can limited this flaw. Wenn you can measure more dynamics you will win in quality. Better sound, beter focus and better separation. This has nothing to do with the EQ and Volume of Audyssey. It is just about collecting more information. Like Audyssey pro gives you more information compared to XT32. You hear the improvement easilly. Maybe it is not perfect, nothing is perfect. Either are we! I spoke a few weeks ago with the people of Trinnov. On paper it goes further than Audyssey Pro. I need to hear it with good stuff before I know what it is capable of. I hope to hear it in Munic next month.

Back to the issue for Jdlynch and James20. (and to get some clarity in this discussion.)

Do JD and James take the room correction software approach... some flavor of Audessy (which is beside the point... IF)
Or...
do they choose to stay old school and get high quality but technologically dated analog system gear. (They lean this way now)

These two individuals seem to think that their highly resolving speakers minimize the need for DSP processing in the signal chain. Is this opinion widely shared???

What should they listen for as they evaluate the two approaches... (that they might be overlooking right now)

What is the advice for
say you for two channel music... no sub... full range speakers.

what say audiogon for 5.1 (Or more) music with the high resolution codecs.

What do you listen for to evaluate the DSP treatment or not?

Bo1972 is completely in the Audessy Pro camp.... He would argue that ANY high res system is improved by his measurement based approach to the room. Kr4 seems to minimize the advantages of the Pro treatment... (or at least how Bo1972 writes about it)

@Dbphd, lol. I'm not promoting anything at all. I'm just saying the way it is. What I hear is what I hear. I live in Canada. Emotiva is in Tennessee. Makes no sense. It is very clear that the DAC's in the Oppo 105 to the processing in the Emotiva are different, a lot of Oppo users have mentioned the thin midbass as to the high-end range being extremely detailed. It seems to be a compromise to me. But just plugging the Emotiva in the same set-up I had with the 105, out of the box the Emotiva is the clear winner in the analogue audio department. Hence the 5 star ratings...