Recommended Components: 2018 Edition Signal Processors

Signal Processors

A

DEQX PreMate D/A preamplifier/equalizer: $4995
In a field where, as KR puts it, "all automatic EQ systems conflate speaker correction with room correction," the DEQX PreMate stands out: In use, this DSP engine begins by measuring and analyzing the speakers—in exclusion of the listening room, to the greatest extent possible—then generates filters to correct frequency response, optimize time alignment, and, if desired, create a customized active crossover for that speaker. After that, the user can, if he or she wishes, completely discard the speakers' internal passive crossover components (although that's not required). Bass management and, ultimately, room correction can also be implemented with the PreMate: icing on the cake. The PreMate Incorporates a volume control and switches for choosing—or not—from three preprogrammed configurations. The usual variety of connectors provide S/PDIF, AES/EBU, TosLink, and USB inputs; there is also an XLR input for a calibrated mike (included), plus a variety of analog outputs, to use for the main stereo channels and subwoofers. Apart from noting that "the learning curve is steep," KR was unequivocal in his praise for the DEQX PreMate: "It made my very good speakers undeniably better, smoother and cleaner." (Vol.37 No.12 WWW)

Dirac room correction system: Full version: $720.85, Stereo version: $431.40
Of course, the sound quality is dependent on the hardware in the system, says KR, but the acoustic transformation capabilities of DLRC are well beyond what is found built into most processors. (Vol.37 No.5 WWW)

Paradigm PBK: $99 ★
An adaption of the formidable Anthem Room Correction system used in Anthem's Statement D2 processor, the PBK includes USB cables and a microphone, and will work with up to four Paradigm subwoofers. While easier to use and considerably less expensive than either the SVSound or Audyssey devices, the PBK's subjective results were "no better or worse," said Kal. The PBK provided "a huge improvement" in the bass performance of the Paradigm Reference SUB 15, however. "The PBK, the SUB 15's obvious mate, is a bargain," KR concluded. (Vol.33 No.1 WWW; also see JI's MartinLogan review in Vol.40 No.1)

B

miniDSP nanoAVR 8x8 HDMI audio processor: $249 ★
Taken to task by KR for its ungainly bass-management configuration—but nonetheless praised for offering real hands-on room EQ, like the miniDSP 10x10hd—the nanoAVR 8x8 now features reworked software and DSP firmware to allow standard bass management. (Registered owners of the previous version can download the update from the miniDSP website.) KR confirms that the changes address his criticisms: "I can now highly recommend the miniDSP nanoAVR 8x8 for use with high-end pre-pros that lack EQ or have limited or inadequate EQ." (Vol.37 Nos. 7 & 11 WWW)

COMMENTS
supamark's picture

You have the KEF Blade II listed class A full range, and the KEF Reference 5 in class A (restricted LF) yet their frequency respnse in JA's room is essentially the same at 20 Hz (both have a -10dB point below 20 Hz in JA's room)... what's up with that?

link to Ref 5 review measurements page:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/kef-reference-5-loudspeaker-measurem...

John Atkinson's picture
supamark wrote:
You have the KEF Blade II listed class A full range, and the KEF Reference 5 in class A (restricted LF) yet their frequency respnse in JA's room is essentially the same at 20 Hz (both have a -10dB point below 20 Hz in JA's room)... what's up with that?

Judgment call on my part.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

waynel's picture

Was surprised to see this amp on the list considering you said you could not recommend it.

John Atkinson's picture
waynel wrote:
Was surprised to see this amp on the list considering you said you could not recommend it.

This amplifier didn't measure well but I defer to my reviewers' judgments on sound quality when deciding on the ratings.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

supamark's picture

fair enough.

Joe8423's picture

but I've been reading JA's opinions for quite a while and I've concluded that his personal opinions on audio components are the product of terrible hearing and/or terrible taste. I have no criticisms of how he does his job as editor of stereophile. I just can't get my head around his opinions of specific components/speakers.

John Atkinson's picture
Joe8423 wrote:
I've been reading JA's opinions for quite a while and I've concluded that his personal opinions on audio components are the product of terrible hearing and/or terrible taste.

I do have my hearing checked regularly, so it must be my taste :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

mrkaic's picture

...this is a lovely artful reply. Congrats, dude!

Indydan's picture

This is off topic. But, Will Art Dudley or someone else be visiting and reporting on the Montreal audio fest?

John Atkinson's picture
Indydan wrote:
Will Art Dudley or someone else be visiting and reporting on the Montreal audio fest?

Art Dudley and Robert Schryer will be attending the Montreal show for Stereophile.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Indydan's picture

Thanks for the information.

FredisDead's picture

I have learned over the years not to take the rankings seriously, but these are essentially the same speakers, one designed for larger rooms and one designed for smaller rooms. I can't help but believe that the magazine is unduly influenced by John Devore's description of the O/93 as being built down to a lower price point. I don't think JD was fair to his own babies. Since it was Art Dudley whom was the major proponent of the O/96 and since he now has a smaller listening room, it would be great if he were to audition the O/93's in his new room and let us know if he hears a qualitative difference.

ken mac's picture

John [DeVore] has no influence on how we write or review his speakers.
I owned and reviewed many of Johns' speakers (owned 8, Super 8, Nines; reviewed Super 8s, 3s, Nines, O/93) long before I joined Stereophile.
The 2 speakers are not really alike, and not designed for different sized rooms, I believe. I've heard both many times and prefer my O/93s. John makes extremely natural sounding loudspeakers that work well in many systems, hence their popularity.

tonykaz's picture

I'm not much of a Fan of Vinyl nowadays but still... shouldn't there be a phono cartridge in the Same Class as that A+ Turntable for $30,000 or the one for $104,000 ? and.. are there only two "A+" Turntables ?

I can understand, of course. I was a Big Time Phono Cartridge Shop, once upon a time. I know fully well the difficulties involved in proper set up of Phono Cartridges and their Arm and all things tracking, etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc..... phew.

Committing to review Phono Cartridges is an elaborate set of burdens to put upon any competent reviewer lacking an Assistant ( like ole HP at TAS had ).

We at Esoteric Audio reviewed ( and had "Active" ) every phono Cartridge we sold, it was an exhausting commitment. Koetsu was A+.

Proper playback of RedBook via one of the many A+ Rated Players is a God Send compared to the Mechanical Complexity of revolving mechanisms and those mechanical transducers having astonishingly low output.

My two great Audiophile Philosophers ( HR & Steve G ) still have vinyl "lives" and rather vast vinyl collection commitments that I'm happily well past, their commentaries have substantial merit because they both have that vast history of experiences giving them the heft of "Earned Confidence" so.....

Stereophile should give them both the A+ Recommended placement : HR for Writing and Steve G for Vlog.

Tony in Michigan

z24069's picture

The list once again contains (many of the same) names of some great offerings from many manufacturers.

It is still beyond explanation however (IMHO) how Esoteric offerings are totally missing from yet another issues of recommended components. The K-01X (now K-01Xs), Grandioso K1, etc...are among some of the finest digital playback gear (same to be said for the 2-box and 4-box options) in the world. Clearly they belong on this list and the lack of focus on evaluating and listing these products with their peers definitely needs to be cured once and for all.

Great issue over all; you are however missing several key entries from Esoteric and others.

Thank you,

John Atkinson's picture
z24069 wrote:
It is still beyond explanation however (IMHO) how Esoteric offerings are totally missing from yet another issues of recommended components.

I have explained this before. If we haven't reviewed a company's products in the past 3 years, they are not included in "Recommended Components." With the changes in Esoteric's US distribution, we have been waiting for things to settle down. However, we do have a review of the Esoteric N-01 scheduled for our August issue.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Ola Harstrom's picture

Was interested to see how this would be rated.

Is HR's coverage (Gramophone Dreams #11 -->so it should perhaps have been in the Fall of 2017 edition...?) not considered a formal review?

Tx!

DavidNC's picture

We read these 'best of' or 'recommended component' reviews with an interest as to where our own products stand against the opposition.
So I looked for Vitus.....nowhere !! Not on any list !!
So I searched Vitus (on this site) and found no mention since 2011 !!
Surely Vitus deserve a 'review' even if it's not liked ??

jazzman1040's picture

This list is chock full of traditional designs, but has few representatives of fully active speakers. Even for the LS50 you selected the passive version when all reviews I've read suggest the active version is far superior. I count only the KIi's as fully active? In a world where technology is advancing incredibly fast, where ease of use is of primary importance for all except for a select few (maybe only readers of Stereophile?), shouldn't this list include more than a few active speaker selections? Or maybe they don't measure up? For value it would seem they win hands down. On performance, most critics I've read agree that actives are the way to go. So what gives?

X