• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Lyngdorf MP-40 2.1 AV Processor Review

Rate This AV Processor:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 25 11.2%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 35 15.7%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 131 58.7%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 32 14.3%

  • Total voters
    223
And? XT32 and Dirac have similar if not more impressive reviews. Did you look at the amount of correction in the graphs? It’s really nothing to call home about.

I can see where this thread is going though so I’m gonna peace out, we’re not doing objectivity in here .
Not meaning to be snarky, but how much hands on experience do you actually have with Room Perfect? Being a relative newbie on this forum, I'm not sure what the proper local decorum is in such matters.

I've admitted that I have comparatively little experience with the product under discussion, having only purchased one a few months ago. I do have extensive experience with XT32 (3 years, AV8805) and Dirac (6+ years, M17 2.1), the latter work heavily supplemented by insights derived from REW. I wouldn't have thought about comparing the 3 products without significant experience with each configuring real life systems. It would be like a critic writing a review of an entire concert he didn't attend or exited during intermission. (Or in one confirmed case, had passed out before intermission.)

Addendum: I would suggest that hearing a demo in a showroom or in someone else's listening space is hardly dispositive. There's no substitute for hands on.
 
And? XT32 and Dirac have similar if not more impressive reviews. Did you look at the amount of correction in the graphs? It’s really nothing to call home about.

I can see where this thread is going though so I’m gonna peace out, we’re not doing objectivity in here .

In my opinion, objectively RoomPerfect is the easiest to use to get good results.
 
Not meaning to be snarky, but how much hands on experience do you actually have with Room Perfect? Being a relative newbie on this forum, I'm not sure what the proper local decorum is in such matters.

I've admitted that I have comparatively little experience with the product under discussion, having only purchased one a few months ago. I do have extensive experience with XT32 (3 years, AV8805) and Dirac (6+ years, M17 2.1), the latter work heavily supplemented by insights derived from REW. I wouldn't have thought about comparing the 3 products without significant experience with each configuring real life systems. It would be like a critic writing a review of an entire concert he didn't attend or exited during intermission. (Or in one confirmed case, had passed out before intermission.)

Addendum: I would suggest that hearing a demo in a showroom or in someone else's listening space is hardly dispositive. There's no substitute for hands on.
Already said my piece here, not gonna keep reiterating the same points ad nauseam. Been doing this 20 years, worked for B&O, Harman Intl. and in custom install similar to what Amir’s outfit does.

My opinions are what they are.
 
I have a Lyngdorf and love RP. What I like about it is you do not need to be an expert to use it. I am not interested in constantly playing around with EQ curves and most people aren’t. To me there is a lot of value in that. Is it worth $12k? That depends, are people buying it?
 
I have a Lyngdorf and love RP. What I like about it is you do not need to be an expert to use it. I am not interested in constantly playing around with EQ curves and most people aren’t. To me there is a lot of value in that. Is it worth $12k? That depends, are people buying it?

Yeah some folks seem to consistently miss that this is Lyngdorf's niche. It's pretty much fool proof. You just measure the distance, click the button and it seems to consistently produce good results. Full per channel PEQ filters are then also provided as an escape hatch for the tweaker or calibrator to use. This is the core value proposition.

How much you are willing to pay for that is of course a very personal choice. I'll wager to say for a lot of Lyngdorf's customers, time is a huge constraint and money is not. So the value proposition is very much good for that target audience.
 
Lyngdorf tells their customers (and the community) essentially nothing about how the product does what it does. What's the filter resolution? How many taps? I was at the Alexis Park Hotel for CES in 1998 and sat for a lengthy demo in the TacT room when the Millennium and RCS were first being born, I'm not just talking out of my ass.

Doesn't cut it for me at the price point. I've been doing this too long to take their word for it.
 
Measuring with the things that actually matter in the product and potentially make it capable of superior real world fidelity than all of the little me-too-whatevers removed from the signal path isn't "optimized" anything.
Removing the DSP pipeline allows us to see how good the underlying DAC implementation is as we compare it to stand-alone DACs with no DSP functions. Having this info then let's us shine a spotlight on penalties of the poor, integrated DSP pipeline with every stage robbing the system dynamic range.
 
Why should Lyngdorf tell the world how they're doing what their doing? Why give the back-engineering folks (you know who you are) a big leg up? It makes no sense, particularly if Lyngdorf's customer base is smiling. An acquaintance of mine owned a pair of Cremona fiddles - a Stradivarius and Guaneri del Jesu - seriously big money instruments. People still aren't sure how the old Cremona workshops did what they did.

BTW, I was standing in line behind Stevie Wonder at an AES show waiting to try out one of the first Autotune boxes. That and five bucks at Starbucks might just get me a cup of joe. Remember, the wisdom of the Firesign Theater, "We're all bozo on this bus. Squeeze the wheez."
 
Why should Lyngdorf tell the world how they're doing what their doing? Why give the back-engineering folks (you know who you are) a big leg up? It makes no sense, particularly if Lyngdorf's customer base is smiling.”
AudioGon argument. If you’re happy with your purchase that’s fine, but this forum generally likes more data and less “trust me bro”.

FWIW, I also dislike that Sony ES’ latest room correction suite was delivered with scant details despite being very well received. At least with that platform you can infer what they’re doing that’s different (stereo omnidirectional mic setup).
 
AudioGon argument. If you’re happy with your purchase that’s fine, but this forum generally likes more data and less “trust me bro”.

FWIW, I also dislike that Sony ES’ latest room correction suite was delivered with scant details despite being very well received. At least with that platform you can infer what they’re doing that’s different (stereo omnidirectional mic setup).
I think that’s why we are here for technical reviews and not trust me bro. It’s not about likes or dislikes. From what I can see the limits of technical’s review is determining what you can hear and what you can’t and trusting the reviewer has not made a mistake with test methodology
 
I think that’s why we are here for technical reviews and not trust me bro. It’s not about likes or dislikes. From what I can see the limits of technical’s review is determining what you can hear and what you can’t and trusting the reviewer has not made a mistake with test methodology

Agree, we're limited by the information we have from the manufacturer, and what insights we can back into through testing.
Amir's review shows exactly what RP did with his Revel setup, which is why I linked it above. The results aren't anything you can't accomplish with Audyssey XT32 or Dirac Live.
 
Agree, we're limited by the information we have from the manufacturer, and what insights we can back into through testing.
Amir's review shows exactly what RP did with his Revel setup,

Actually, it shows what Amir measured RP doing in his room, which is neither exact nor exhaustive - a completeness problem. It is, however, useful for evaluating the product. (Absolutely no disrespect intended to Amir, whom I imagine understands where I'm going.)
The results aren't anything you can't accomplish with Audyssey XT32 or Dirac Live.
I would be curious to see how close an approximation of an XT32 tuning of a typical living room you could achieve using Dirac Live, and vice versa.
 
Actually, it shows what Amir measured RP doing in his room, which is neither exact nor exhaustive - a completeness problem. It is, however, useful for evaluating the product. (Absolutely no disrespect intended to Amir, whom I imagine understands where I'm going.)

I would be curious to see how close an approximation of an XT32 tuning of a typical living room you could achieve using Dirac Live, and vice versa.
So you're gonna go on one about exact and exhaustive, all while accepting a trust me bro from Peter Lyngdorf? This just keeps getting better and better.

XT32 and Dirac Live have similar capabilities. The default Dirac Live curve for both Stereo and HT is essentially a tweaked Harman curve with a little extra bottom end (+6.5db), beginning wherever it detects your subwoofer or speakers are capable of without damage. I mirror this curve in the Audyssey app using an iPad and stylus because it sounds good. All you have to do to mirror is delete the "Midrange Compensation" dip and adjust the subwoofer target curve.

In terms of actually doing the post EQ verification using REW, I (just like you I might add) like the result, and don't feel the need. That argument isn't available to RP users only.
 
Can we dial back the snark please. Either have a civil debate/discussion or don’t participate. I’m going to open a few windows because it seems to be getting a little hot in here! ;)
 
Bro, what?

Have you even read Amir’s objective RP review which shows actual before and after results?

Sigh. Please read more carefully. I cited this testing way back in Post 12 of this thread. The same post where I referenced the measurements (including bass management) by Dr. Olive’s team.

I’m also experienced enough to see the extreme limitations of testing room correction on a pair of full range speakers. (I feel some Deja vu here: the confederate flag guy used to overinterpret Amir’s Audyssey testing similarly; maybe still is but I’m not seeing them.) No bass management, let alone playing with some of the more interesting configurations Lyngdorf offers, such as “boundary” (flanking) subs and separate LFE.

It does an OK job, it doesn’t do a better job than Dirac Live (which I have extensive and ongoing experience with) and seems to do a similar job to XT32.

I’m not sure how you’re defining “better” or “similar” here. Are you just looking at graphs and seeing that one happens to be flatter than the other?

If your argument is that Audyssey/Dirac throws more at hammering the response to fit a predetermined target curve…sure, that’s true. I think we need to go beyond that. Listening matters. It’s indisputable fact that RoomPerfect is only commercial room correction system that, under controlled conditions, was preferred over no EQ.

People seem to give RP a pass because it’s a luxury product and because it’s essentially a black box like YPAO and Sony’s latest room correction. They don’t let you look under the hood, and so people make all kinds of assumptions about the quality that are probably overly generous.

To repeat myself, it’s indisputable fact that RoomPerfect is only commercial room correction system that, under controlled conditions, was preferred over no EQ. Yamaha or Sony can’t claim that.

Some of us have measured what it does, as well as XT32 and Dirac (basic and the far more useful DLBC) on the same loudspeakers in the same room. Unfortunately without the benefit of being able to optimize the system to maximize use of RP (speakers close to wall and “boundary subs.”

But…you’ve given me an idea. I recently picked up an Anthem MRX 520 (ironically perhaps, to replace the Lyngdorf 1120 in the guest room; that was always a temporary spot for 1120, pending some bedroom renovations). Thats means I’ll have reasonably current hardware with all the systems, except Trinnov, on hand.

ARC - MRX 520
Audyssey XT32 + iOS app - the Marantz AV7703 boxed up in our basement
Basic Dirac - miniDSP SHD Studio
DLBC - HTP-1
RP - TDAI-1120

We also have an occasional use 2-channel system that could be a test bed. I’ll have to noodle on how to implement - right now the system requires the superior feature set of HTP-1: PEQ to equalize the passive small closed box subs in the front corners, DLBC to integrate the 5 subs in current use. But objectively (REW Pro and 4 iSemCON + 1 Earthworks M30 mic make that reasonably quick) and subjectively characterizing each on the same stuff could be a summer project.

I DO use two subwoofers in my HT setup, which is something XT32 handles well,

We have very different definitions of “handles well” I guess…

I could buy an SDP-58 on Harman employee discount if I felt like it, and I haven’t. Think abt that.

What’s to think about? We’re already aligned that the pricing of that particular box is batshit. I wouldn’t expect the Samsung employee price to be that compelling as a result. Also its promised unique selling points appear to either be absent (Logic16, free upgrades to new Dirac tech) or buggy (Dante).

Lyngdorf tells their customers (and the community) essentially nothing about how the product does what it does. What's the filter resolution? How many taps?

Respectfully, Lyngdorf’s customers don’t give a damn about any of that nerd shit. And one basic band of PEQ deployed smartly is better than a trillion “taps” or whatever used badly.
 
Last edited:
I’m also experienced enough to see the extreme limitations of testing room correction on a pair of If your argument is that Audyssey/Dirac throws more at hammering the response to fit a predetermined target curve…sure, that’s true. I think we need to go beyond that.

Go beyond that? It’s room correction.. If you want to have woo woo discussions with Stereophile and TAS superlatives I think they do that @ AudioGon. Which goes without mentioning that you can adjust the “curtains” on both Dirac Live and XT32 to leave certain brackets of your FR unchanged if you please.

To repeat myself, it’s indisputable fact that RoomPerfect is only commercial room correction system that, under controlled conditions, was preferred over no EQ. Yamaha or Sony can’t claim that.

Link to “indisputable” Lyngdorf paid survey?

Respectfully, Lyngdorf’s customers don’t give a damn about any of that nerd shit.

I know they don’t, and that’s kind of the point.
 
Go beyond that? It’s room correction.. If you want to have woo woo discussions with Stereophile and TAS superlatives I think they do that @ AudioGon.

Lol, take it up with Dr. Olive. ;)

Which goes without mentioning that you can adjust the “curtains” on both Dirac Live and XT32 to leave certain brackets of your FR unchanged if you please.

Being well aware of that, had it any relevance to what I wrote I would have mentioned it.

Link to “indisputable” Lyngdorf paid survey?

Yep! :)


These have been publicly if unofficially unblinded.
 
Lol, take it up with Dr. Olive. ;)



Being well aware of that, had it any relevance to what I wrote I would have mentioned it.



Yep! :)


These have been publicly if unofficially unblinded.
Those results do NOT say what you said they say.

This is of particular note:

“Three of the five room corrections (RC1-RC3) were strongly preferred over no room correction (RC4). However, one of the room corrections (RC5) was equally rated to the no correction treatment (RC4), and one of the room corrections (RC6) was rated much worse. Overall, the sound quality of R6 was rated "very poor" based on the semantic definitions of the preference scale.”

Also:

“A flat in-room target response is clearly not the optimal target curve for room equalization. The preferred room corrections have a target response that has a smooth downward slope with increasing frequency. This tells us that listeners prefer a certain amount of natural room gain. Removing the rom gain, makes the reproduced music sound unnatural, and too thin, according to these listeners. This also makes perfect sense since the recording was likely mixed in room where the room gain was also not removed; therefore, to remove it from the consumers' listening room would destroy spectral balance of the music as intended by the artist.”

Sounds like.. The Harman curve. Shocker.
 
Those results do NOT say what you said they say.

This is of particular note:

“Three of the five room corrections (RC1-RC3) were strongly preferred over no room correction (RC4)“

Given that RC1 and RC2 never left Harman’s labs and RC3 was RP, it says exactly what I claim: the only commercially available RP system shown in controlled testing to be preferred to no EQ.

The worst one (we agree, I assume, because of the defective default target curve) was Audyssey.

Also, remember that a room curve is a result, not a target.
 
Given that RC1 and RC2 never left Harman’s labs and RC3 was RP, it says exactly what I claim: the only commercially available RP system shown in controlled testing to be preferred to no EQ.

The worst one (we agree, I assume, because of the defective default target curve) was Audyssey.

Where in the article does it say any of this?

I’ll need to see this “public but not official” unblinding.
 
Back
Top Bottom