Why did Mc choose Lyngdorf Room Perfect instead of...

[MikeSp]

I am curious as to why Mc chose to use Lyngdorf Room Perfect instead of Audyssey MultEQ XT32 with the "Pro Kit." I am not in any way suggesting that Room Perfect is inferior -- I do not know, but do know that Mc would make a wise and informed decision in such matters and the following question is just my quest for information.

Why did Mc choose Room Perfect instead of Audyssey MultEQ XT32 with the Pro Kit -- why was or is Room Perfect considered superior?

Thoughts/opinions??

Thanks,

MikeSp

[schaefer11]

While Audyssey had their "Sound Equalizer" technology, it was designed for professional installation by the dealer, although many seem to have purchased the install kit and have installed it themselves.

MultEQ XT was available, but could be had in products, even with the Pro version, that cost substantially less than the Mc. Would have been difficult to justify the premium for the Mc, IMO. The recently upgraded XT32 was not even available, but again, will be in products at much lower price points. And these lower price points were multi-channel room correction, not just 2 channel.

And naturally, McIntosh would be expected to claim, and they may be correct, that the Lyndorf method of room correction is "better". I cannot speak to that.

[wakkz]

I asked the difference back in the time while I actually owned a Lyngdorf amplifier and couldnt decide to install the Room Perfect module into it or not.

I asked the same question to my dealer at that time about Audyssey vs RP and he explained something about that lyngdorf room perfect works with alot more parameters, like much much more. Simply said, more advanced correctionsystem.

Don't know if its true, but sounds resonable :P

[MikeSp]

Originally Posted by wakkz

I asked the difference back in the time while I actually owned a Lyngdorf amplifier and couldnt decide to install the Room Perfect module into it or not.

I asked the same question to my dealer at that time about Audyssey vs RP and he explained something about that lyngdorf room perfect works with alot more parameters, like much much more. Simply said, more advanced correctionsystem.

Don't know if its true, but sounds resonable :P

From what I have been researching, it appears that using the Audyssey Pro Kit as many do -- the room can be EQ'd from 32 locations and the resolution of MultEQ XT32 (just now coming out in low to medium-end AVR's) is higher than that of Room Perfect as Audyssey continues to upgrade their software.

Still -- no matter how powerful, it is the implementation that matters... There are tons of postings about Audyssey but next to none on the implementation of Room Perfect in the MX150. My research continues... (BTW -- it matters to me because when I make substantial purchase like an $11-12,000 pre-pro), it will be with me for many years -- I am not the kind to swap things out on a regular basis and while brands are important as is appearance, the dependability and quality results are tops on my list).

MikeSp

[TommyC]

Doesn't Audyssey attempt to flatten frequency response curve of the room whereas RoomPerfect doesn't.

So after an Audyssey calibration, speakers of different brand will sound more or less the same due to a flattened curve. On the other hand, PR leaves the natural response curve of the speakers alone and attempts to remove room anomalies.

This is my understanding of these technologies.

[wakkz]

Lyngdorf

RP explanation from the company itself.

[jdandy]

Room Perfect product description.

http://www.lyngdorf.com/downloads/pr...on_english.pdf

[Face]

It appears the circuitry McIntosh needs is already out there.

[MC352]

I thought we determined that the Lyngdorf had the same balanced connection issue?

I'll be honest, I don't want to read through that long thread to find out the answer.

[Face]

Originally Posted by MC352

I thought we determined that the Lyngdorf had the same balanced connection issue?

I'll be honest, I don't want to read through that long thread to find out the answer.

The RP1 has the same issue, the DPA-1(preamp/processor) appears that it may not.