Lyngdorf MP-40 2.1 AV Processor Review

[CJW]

How many people here wining on how the Lyngdorf is not worth it listened to it with Room Perfect activated in a home theatre? 1, 2, 3 , 4. 0?

 

[FrankF]

There's a lot of used McIntosh MX160's for sale at 4k. Good way to try out Room Perfect for less.

 

[Holmz]

Sound - Attenuation and Speed vs. Sound Frequency and Air Humidity

The speed and attenuation of sound in moist air varies with sound frequency and air humidity.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com

Ok @GXAlan - I think that the point I was trying to make was lost.
As I am not a great communicator, lemme try again…

How does one get the impulse reponse, or leading edge of a drum hit, when the sub only outputs the low pass information?
If we look at the peak of that drum thump it will always appear to be to the right of where it needs to be, in order to be correctly time aligned.

And I am assuming that the same speed of sound exists everywhere in the room.

 

[GXAlan]

How does one get the impulse reponse, or leading edge of a drum hit, when the sub only outputs the low pass information?
If we look at the peak of that drum thump it will always appear to be to the right of where it needs to be, in order to be correctly time aligned.

Take a perfect ultra high resolution recording of a drum hit with a perfect capture of that initial attack.

If you low pass the recording and you lose the leading edge, then you know that the leading edge is content that is at a higher frequency. If the bass is delayed, then the sum of the high frequency and low frequency data should match the original recording even if the original impulse is staggered and not aligned.

The time alignment for speakers based on pre-inputted distances is likely better than a mono omnidirectional mic for that reason.

 

[Moonbase]

Ok @GXAlan - I think that the point I was trying to make was lost.
As I am not a great communicator, lemme try again…

How does one get the impulse reponse, or leading edge of a drum hit, when the sub only outputs the low pass information?
If we look at the peak of that drum thump it will always appear to be to the right of where it needs to be, in order to be correctly time aligned.

And I am assuming that the same speed of sound exists everywhere in the room.

What do you mean when you say “it will always appear right of where it needs to be”?

The Schroeder frequency is worth reading up on, there are plenty of good discussions on this and it effects.

 

[Holmz]

What do you mean when you say “it will always appear right of where it needs to be”?

It means that the wideband, and higher frequencies, have their impulse function at the place which is the leading thumb, snare hit, etc.
But that a low pass filtered section of the theme spectrum will appear to be right of that same leading edge with respect to the wideband “snap”.

The Schroeder frequency is worth reading up on, there are plenty of good discussions on this and it effects.

This time alignment issue has nothing to do with the Schroder frequency.

 

[Moonbase]

It means that the wideband, and higher frequencies, have their impulse function at the place which is the leading thumb, snare hit, etc.
But that a low pass filtered section of the theme spectrum will appear to be right of that same leading edge with respect to the wideband “snap”.



This time alignment issue has nothing to do with the Schroder frequency.

The lfe channel is not a low pass filter. The lfe is a channel in its own right. So it would entirely depend on how the mixing was done. Drums are from 50hz to 250hz so mainly in the main speakers domain. Its also common recording advice to filter below 50hz when recording drums. Not many instruments delve lower than 50hz while the lfe channel does for movies.
The time align is a simple job of measuring or adjusting the phase. The rp does time align anyway. No issues here

 

[Paffi]

How many people here wining on how the Lyngdorf is not worth it listened to it with Room Perfect activated in a home theatre? 1, 2, 3 , 4. 0?

That´s what I´m thinking - "It´s to expensive", "but you never tried it", "it´s to expensive"

 

[Moonbase]

If you have to ask the price then its not for you. As part of a dedicated room it’s not a standout cost.

 

[BassMojo]

Amirm's evaluation showed that the MP40 test unit performed extremely well, even with the one lesser channel (I suspect something didn't come out of the factory correct). He indicated that if both channels were the same, that it could be at the top of tested AVPs. Lyngdorf makes great gear that excels for both HT and 2Ch use. Most products that I have experienced do one or the other well, but don't do both great, Lyngdorf does. RoomPerfect has also tamed my (terribly acoustic) open space living room and it sounds amazing.

Why not look in the used market? I selling my mint condition MP60 2.1 ($15K flagship model) for $8K.

 

[Titurel]

As part of a dedicated room it’s not a standout cost.

This is a sensible observation. What has possibly been missing from this discussion is a relative cost per function analysis. For example, clean, reliable switching power supplies have changed cost per output watt considerations. At the same time, DSP has opened a universe of functionality inconceivable when I soldered together my first Dynaco pas preamp, back when the only burning issues were noise and deviation from the RIAA curve. Now, folks expect their pre/pro to do everything from taking out the garbage to changing the baby. The calculus has changed - output power is now cheap, processing power is becoming cheaper, novel processing remains expensive, while speaker costs are still tied to room size and repertoire.

Products like Room Perfect, Dirac, etc. exist in large part because it is typically cheaper to condition the signal than it is to build an ideal listening room.

 

[jhaider]

They should do that but they don't. I have talked to some companies about having such an optimized path so we may see it in the future.

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. It's a the audio electronics equivalent of a defeat device. I hope that if AVR/P makers recklessly attempt to game the system in this manner, you ignore the defeat device modes entirely, and reprimand them in text for trying to cheat like that.

Thanks for the details! Perhaps we could say that Dirac has a certain advantage due to being avalible in a larger variety of devices, but that is not RP´s fault in any way.

Unfortunately, DLBC is still rarer than it should be IMO. Would really like to see broader adoption by, e.g. NAD and miniDSP. ART is better, but DLBC is be much easier for the typical hobbyist to use, or should be (some recent versions have made the measurement process more finicky on some AVR/Ps).

Every other system is able to figure out distances automatically, so the need to measure is an unusual one. In the era before room correction, just level calibration level and delay are so easy to do when trying to “even” out the response.

I wonder if this knowledge lets RP know precisely what direct versus reflected sound. RP’s tones are musical, non standard test tones. (Not log chirp, not MLS).

ARC IIRC required manual distance measurements until recently, too. (Or maybe still does on older but still Genesis-compatible boxes?)

One other thing important thing about RP - it seems much more robust in dealing with outside noise. There have literally been reviewers (not me) on the phone with Lyngdorf while running RP calibration on review samples. I tried a run with HVAC on vs. off, and the differences were basically just normal error tolerance. Don't try that with ARC/Audyssey/Dirac or probably Trinnov!

I couldn't disagree more whole heartedly.

I have plenty of expensive gear, and could afford one of these AVP's if I wanted to. I use Dirac for my 2ch setup, and used Dirac previously on an RZ50 before selling it to try out XT32 on the x3700h. XT32 tuned on an iPad with the Audyssey app has provided more enjoyment and less futzing around than my former Dirac home theater setup, and I have extreme doubts that RoomPerfect would provide a better result.

I have exclusively been using AVR's as AVP's since nobody wants to sell an AVP at a normal price anymore. I'd happily pay $2-3k for a competent AVP, but everyone wants $5-10k for less performance and features just because they assume you can afford it if you can afford outboard amps.

This is (IMO) a product for custom installers (I used to be one) to sell to people with more money than sense.

First, I agree with you that "mainstream" AVP pricing has gone to crazy town. I mean, ~$7k MSRP for Marantz AV10 or JBL SDP-58? Just effing bonkers. They're both worth half that, if that. I give Lyngdorf a little more slack on pricing as a "luxury" product with an actual unique selling point in RP. Fortunately, there's still HTP-1, which was is considerably less expensive than all its competitors and IMO better than most in that it's the most complete product (Auro upmixing, loudness compensation, PEQ that is properly applied before room correction, DLBC).

Second, your subjective enjoyment is your own thing and that's cool, but what I draw from your comment is one or more of the following:
(a) you're not using subwoofers in that system,
(b) you subjectively prefer a gutless upper bass region or
(c) your preferred target curve does not neuters upper bass room gain.

Why?
As to (a) Audyssey doesn't do bass management. This requires time and effort to fix. To be fair, either does basic Dirac. One needs to step up to DLBC to get meaningful reduction in human effort to calibrate, IMO.
As to (b) If your target curve accounts for natural room gain, the Audyssey iOS app's logic messes up the subwoofer level. This requires extensive remediation. I believe their dumb little windows thing finally fixes that issue, but of course that has stupid and anti-consumer licensing terms and isn't even available for Mac or iOS. Dirac does not suffer from this flaw (or at least didn't last time I used basic Dirac - one needs to caveat because new bugs can always be introduced).
As to (c) option (b) above does not apply if for whatever reason you use and like a target curve with "flat" (i.e. room-gain-neutered) upper bass. That's fine, you do you! Audyssey then tends to get the relative levels OK, leading only to the tweaking required in (a) above.

Third, to clarify, are your "extreme doubts" about the comparative result of RP vs Audyssey in a multichannel system based experience or mere speculation? Just asking, as somebody who has the direct experience of pulling an AVP with Audyssey XT32 + iOS app to fix the basic defects of Audyssey's default target curve + considerable human effort to remediate the upper bass issues caused by Audyssey's limitations (Marantz AV7703) out of a system, and then plugging everything back in to a Lyngdorf MP60...

 

[GXAlan]

ARC IIRC required manual distance measurements until recently, too. (Or maybe still does on older but still Genesis-compatible boxes?)

One other thing important thing about RP - it seems much more robust in dealing with outside noise. There have literally been reviewers (not me) on the phone with Lyngdorf while running RP calibration on review samples. I tried a run with HVAC on vs. off, and the differences were basically just normal error tolerance. Don't try that with ARC/Audyssey/Dirac or probably Trinnov!

Trinnov is fairly sensitive to noise and it can have trouble localizing speaker position if there are some obstructions (eg. a rear speaker).

First, I agree with you that "mainstream" AVP pricing has gone to crazy town. I mean, ~$7k MSRP for Marantz AV10 or JBL SDP-58? Just effing bonkers. They're both worth half that, if that. I give Lyngdorf a little more slack on pricing as a "luxury" product with an actual unique selling point in RP. Fortunately, there's still HTP-1, which was is considerably less expensive than all its competitors and IMO better than most in that it's the most complete product (Auro upmixing, loudness compensation, PEQ that is properly applied before room correction, DLBC).

+1.

If you ask me, the “goal”

$500 7.1 with room correction
$1000 11.1 with room correction
$2000 premium 13.2 ch AVR
$4000 reference 16+ ch processor

And then you can have bonuses for brand (McIntosh), cosmetics, etc.

The HTP-1 is the best bargain in high end 16 channel processing. (although the closeout sales of the Arcam lineup weren’t bad either.)

 

[Titurel]

One other thing important thing about RP - it seems much more robust in dealing with outside noise. There have literally been reviewers (not me) on the phone with Lyngdorf while running RP calibration on review samples. I tried a run with HVAC on vs. off, and the differences were basically just normal error tolerance. Don't try that with ARC/Audyssey/Dirac or probably Trinnov!

My guess is that Lyngdorf is doing some of its filtering on the front end, using very particular or structured test signals. Test systems searching for values at discrete frequencies should be fairly noise tolerant - likely better than windowed sweeps and such. The higher test tones for Room Perfect sound almost exactly like someone leaning on all the keys in the middle octave(s) of a Hammond B3. This makes me suspect they're doing the equivalent of 12 band per octave filtering up front, on the test signal. I can think of several advantages in that strategy, not just noise tolerance.

 

[Blumlein 88]

My guess is that Lyngdorf is doing some of its filtering on the front end, using very particular or structured test signals. Test systems searching for values at discrete frequencies should be fairly noise tolerant - likely better than windowed sweeps and such. The higher test tones for Room Perfect sound almost exactly like someone leaning on all the keys in the middle octave(s) of a Hammond B3. This makes me suspect they're doing the equivalent of 12 band per octave filtering up front, on the test signal. I can think of several advantages in that strategy, not just noise tolerance.

I don't know not having used one, but Lyngdorf was behind the Tact units. Tact used a pulse for measurements. Those were very picky about noise contamination. VERY picky. The early units used pulses repeated however many times you set it to use. It was helpful to use at least 10 and 20 was better. Later Tact units used two pulses, one for lower frequencies and one for higher frequencies. Sounded like a double thump/click. Especially in the low end you still could get contamination. So is Lyngdorf using a pulse or pulses something like that still?

Using a sweep the way Dirac or measuring software REW is much less contaminated by noise though it too can be an issue with lower frequencies. I don't know that it was due to the test signal used, but the last series of Tact units seemed to be more beneficial than Dirac is or the various methods used by AVRs.

 

[Dougey_Jones]

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. It's a the audio electronics equivalent of a defeat device. I hope that if AVR/P makers recklessly attempt to game the system in this manner, you ignore the defeat device modes entirely, and reprimand them in text for trying to cheat like that.



Unfortunately, DLBC is still rarer than it should be IMO. Would really like to see broader adoption by, e.g. NAD and miniDSP. ART is better, but DLBC is be much easier for the typical hobbyist to use, or should be (some recent versions have made the measurement process more finicky on some AVR/Ps).



ARC IIRC required manual distance measurements until recently, too. (Or maybe still does on older but still Genesis-compatible boxes?)

One other thing important thing about RP - it seems much more robust in dealing with outside noise. There have literally been reviewers (not me) on the phone with Lyngdorf while running RP calibration on review samples. I tried a run with HVAC on vs. off, and the differences were basically just normal error tolerance. Don't try that with ARC/Audyssey/Dirac or probably Trinnov!



First, I agree with you that "mainstream" AVP pricing has gone to crazy town. I mean, ~$7k MSRP for Marantz AV10 or JBL SDP-58? Just effing bonkers. They're both worth half that, if that. I give Lyngdorf a little more slack on pricing as a "luxury" product with an actual unique selling point in RP. Fortunately, there's still HTP-1, which was is considerably less expensive than all its competitors and IMO better than most in that it's the most complete product (Auro upmixing, loudness compensation, PEQ that is properly applied before room correction, DLBC).

Second, your subjective enjoyment is your own thing and that's cool, but what I draw from your comment is one or more of the following:
(a) you're not using subwoofers in that system,
(b) you subjectively prefer a gutless upper bass region or
(c) your preferred target curve does not neuters upper bass room gain.

Why?
As to (a) Audyssey doesn't do bass management. This requires time and effort to fix. To be fair, either does basic Dirac. One needs to step up to DLBC to get meaningful reduction in human effort to calibrate, IMO.
As to (b) If your target curve accounts for natural room gain, the Audyssey iOS app's logic messes up the subwoofer level. This requires extensive remediation. I believe their dumb little windows thing finally fixes that issue, but of course that has stupid and anti-consumer licensing terms and isn't even available for Mac or iOS. Dirac does not suffer from this flaw (or at least didn't last time I used basic Dirac - one needs to caveat because new bugs can always be introduced).
As to (c) option (b) above does not apply if for whatever reason you use and like a target curve with "flat" (i.e. room-gain-neutered) upper bass. That's fine, you do you! Audyssey then tends to get the relative levels OK, leading only to the tweaking required in (a) above.

Third, to clarify, are your "extreme doubts" about the comparative result of RP vs Audyssey in a multichannel system based experience or mere speculation? Just asking, as somebody who has the direct experience of pulling an AVP with Audyssey XT32 + iOS app to fix the basic defects of Audyssey's default target curve + considerable human effort to remediate the upper bass issues caused by Audyssey's limitations (Marantz AV7703) out of a system, and then plugging everything back in to a Lyngdorf MP60...

Bro, what?

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

Review and Measurements of Lyngdorf RoomPerfect EQ

This is a follow up to my review of the Lyngdorf TDAI-3400. While that review was focused on objective measurements of the DAC and amplifier, this review is focused on the performance of the room equalization (RoomPerfect). As much as I like to perform a comprehensive test and review of Lyngdorf...

www.audiosciencereview.com

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. 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.

I DO use two subwoofers in my HT setup, which is something XT32 handles well, and standard Dirac Live does not handle at all, you need DLBC, which isn’t available as widely as it should be.

TLDR: RP isn’t special, just like ARC Genesis isn’t special. My opinion about Denon AVR’s being great AVP’s is born out by objective review. High SINAD on pre-outs + reliable 8k switching + All formats supported. Not sure what other features you’re looking for.

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

 

[Moonbase]

Bro, what?

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

Review and Measurements of Lyngdorf RoomPerfect EQ

This is a follow up to my review of the Lyngdorf TDAI-3400. While that review was focused on objective measurements of the DAC and amplifier, this review is focused on the performance of the room equalization (RoomPerfect). As much as I like to perform a comprehensive test and review of Lyngdorf...

www.audiosciencereview.com

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. 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.

I DO use two subwoofers in my HT setup, which is something XT32 handles well, and standard Dirac Live does not handle at all, you need DLBC, which isn’t available as widely as it should be.

TLDR: RP isn’t special, just like ARC Genesis isn’t special. My opinion about Denon AVR’s being great AVP’s is born out by objective review. High SINAD on pre-outs + reliable 8k switching + All formats supported. Not sure what other features you’re looking for.

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

I quote from article “
Conclusions
As I had expected and hoped, the Lyngdorf RoomPerfect does a wonderful job of correcting the impact of the room, especially in low frequencies. Without correction”

 

[Dougey_Jones]

I quote from article “
Conclusions
As I had expected and hoped, the Lyngdorf RoomPerfect does a wonderful job of correcting the impact of the room, especially in low frequencies. Without correction”

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 .

 

[CJW]

Bro, what?

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

Review and Measurements of Lyngdorf RoomPerfect EQ

This is a follow up to my review of the Lyngdorf TDAI-3400. While that review was focused on objective measurements of the DAC and amplifier, this review is focused on the performance of the room equalization (RoomPerfect). As much as I like to perform a comprehensive test and review of Lyngdorf...

www.audiosciencereview.com

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. 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.

I DO use two subwoofers in my HT setup, which is something XT32 handles well, and standard Dirac Live does not handle at all, you need DLBC, which isn’t available as widely as it should be.

TLDR: RP isn’t special, just like ARC Genesis isn’t special. My opinion about Denon AVR’s being great AVP’s is born out by objective review. High SINAD on pre-outs + reliable 8k switching + All formats supported. Not sure what other features you’re looking for.

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

With your observations I assume you have listened to a Lyngdorf product with RP activated?

 

[Dougey_Jones]

With your observations I assume you have listened to a Lyngdorf product with RP activated?

Yes, I sure have.