Parasound Halo P 5 Stereo Preamplifier Preview

[PENG]

Are these digital processing systems aimed at being more accurate, or more exciting at the expense of accuracy?

Audyssey will have us believe that they do aim for accuracy, referencing THX etc.

Dynamic EQ | Audyssey

I did try it at higher volume and it seemed to work as claimed. Seem like an old idea implemented with modern technoligies.

 

[RichB]

You might be right. In the few systems owned by others that I've measured I've found that they seem to like very exaggerated bass and a somewhat elevated lower midrange. I admit my sample size is very small (four systems), but the similarities struck me. Usually the bass emphasis is attained by placing the placing speakers near corners or close to the back wall. I think the near-corner placement is also affecting the lower midrange. In two cases we moved their speakers around to achieve a much flatter response and they didn't care for the results, even though it measured better at their listening seat. Are these digital processing systems aimed at being more accurate, or more exciting at the expense of accuracy?

Many folks even famous reviewers at Sterophile have seating against the wall. I have seen the measurements and there are big boosts in the bass response.
Taming that, would have a great impact on the sound balance so I am not surprised that this is well received.

In my situation, I have 20 feet of open room in back of my seating, so it is not surprising that I do not benefit.
Also, switching from Pure Direct to Stereo mode on my AV8801 alters the instrument placement. I am guessing that the additional processing is altering the phase.

I suspect that if you have a good room and full range speakers, there may be more to lose.
So far, this has been my experience.

I have posted room response curves from my seating position and they are not bad.
Even moving the OmniMIc around a few feet as you do when doing Audyssey would produce different traces.
So, some seats would likely get worse and others better.
Perhaps, this is why so many attempts are recommended.

I have house guests and kids home for the summer. When I get a chance, I will run some traces before and after; Paying specific attention to volume

Audyssey will have us believe that they do aim for accuracy, referencing THX etc.

Dynamic EQ | Audyssey

I did try it at higher volume and it seemed to work as claimed. Seem like an old idea implemented with modern technoligies.

Dynamic EQ is definitely an update.
There is a volume increase which is also good for business

- Rich

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Better, or just different? For those of us that get relatively flat in-room frequency response without EQ beyond about 125Hz, I've been wondering what improvement these room correction facilities could make. For you, ADTG, one benefit is obvious, you get better sub integration. For the upper seven octaves on a 2.1 system, I wonder what these correction algorithms are dong. I'm going to have to find someone local with a decent set-up to measure with and without Audyssey engaged on OmniMic.

Better bass, not just different. At low volume & high volumes. But honestly it's mainly the bass integration. Without DEQ, I honestly can't tell much of a difference between Audyssey/ Flat vs off. I only hear the difference when DEQ is on, but at all volumes, not just low volumes.

So to recap, w/o DEQ I cannot tell a difference. But as soon as DEQ is turned on, everything is better.

Wait, I think I can bypass Audyssey for L/R channel and just keep DEQ. I THINK. I will try this and see.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Many folks even famous reviewers at Sterophile have seating against the wall. I have seen the measurements and there are big boosts in the bass response.
Taming that, would have a great impact on the sound balance so I am not surprised that this is well received.

In my situation, I have 20 feet of open room in back of my seating, so it is not surprising that I do not benefit.
Also, switching from Pure Direct to Stereo mode on my AV8801 alters the instrument placement. I am guessing that the additional processing is altering the phase.

I suspect that if you have a good room and full range speakers, there may be more to lose.
So far, this has been my experience.

I have posted room response curves from my seating position and they are not bad.
Even moving the OmniMIc around a few feet as you do when doing Audyssey would produce different traces.
So, some seats would likely get worse and others better.
Perhaps, this is why so many attempts are recommended.

I have house guests and kids home for the summer. When I get a chance, I will run some traces before and after; Paying specific attention to volume



Dynamic EQ is definitely an update.
There is a volume increase which is also good for business

- Rich

But even when I increase the volume of Pure Direct above the volume of Audyssey DEQ, the DEQ's bass still sounded 100% better. So it's not just a volume boost.

Another serendipitous outcome is the fact that even though my subs are shaking me like a rag doll INSIDE my HT Room, there is very little bass heard or felt OUTSIDE the HT Room.

My daughters & wife used to complain all the time. Now they don't even notice until they are actually inside my HT room.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

My guess is that Audyssey flat alone has done nothing for him in his setup but he is the kind of people, like me, who listen at well below THX level. So since he started to engage Dynamic EQ recently he became a believer in Audyssey but again only with DEQ engaged, when he obviously will be getting boost in the higher frequency range as well.

I've measured the max vol in my room as 105dBC. But that's from speakers + subs, not from a single speaker like THX Reference spec. But usually the Avg Vol is probably 80-85dBC from all speakers + subs.

 

[RichB]

But even when I increase the volume of Pure Direct above the volume of Audyssey DEQ, the DEQ's bass still sounded 100% better. So it's not just a volume boost.

Another serendipitous outcome is the fact that even though my subs are shaking me like a rag doll INSIDE my HT Room, there is very little bass heard or felt OUTSIDE the HT Room.

My daughters & wife used to complain all the time. Now they don't even notice until they are actually inside my HT room.

The bass change is interesting. That makes sense if you bass was flattened out.
Are you talking about your Salon2 system?

I think another interesting point for many is the detail question.
I have found a loss by engaging processing but that may have more to do with my room.
However, I also believe there is a trade-off.

I have been testing J River with the Oppo BDP-105 USB DAC.
For some inexplicable reason (at least to me), these USB drivers (ASIO, WASAPI, Kernel Streaming) have a noticeably different sound.
It seem like the USB is very sensitive to the data delivery. Get it right, and it is something to behold.

I purchased the JPlay ASIO software (99 Euro) that I learned about the AH forum.
After playing with countless options, I have found a setup that surpasses the BDP-105's native playback via the network.
The level of detail is astounding. I feel like I am wearing headphones. Many folks equate detail and treble and that is not what I am describing.
It is the ability to identify each instrument and to have each one resolved. This is amazing.

It is not flattering to all recordings, but when I compare it the Network playback, I USB playback is actually not brighter and I still prefer the USB DAC.
It is the most amazing experience that I have had in quite a while.

- Rich

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The bass change is interesting. That makes sense if you bass was flattened out.
Are you talking about your Salon2 system?

I think another interesting point for many is the detail question.
I have found a loss by engaging processing but that may have more to do with my room.
However, I also believe there is a trade-off.

Well, subs + speakers (Salon2, 201/2, 802D2, TAD).

Okay, there is an Audyssey Bypass L/R +DEQ mode.

So I have been comparing Audyssey Flat DEQ vs Bypass DEQ for the past hour.

And I really cannot tell the difference at all.

They both sound equally awesome. Crystal clear detail either way. And detail as in bass, midrange, vocals, & treble.

There was no loss at all w/ Audyssey Flat, BUT there was some loss of detail w/ regular Audyssey.

So this confirms by initial impression that I cannot tell the difference between Audyssey Flat vs Bypass. But I unequivocally prefer Dynamic EQ.

To recap:

1) Flat = Bypass
2) Flat & Bypass > Audyssey Regular
3) Flat DEQ & Bypass DEQ are AWESOME.

So I think I will use Bypass + DEQ.

What exactly is DEQ? Is it sub EQ + other things?

People keep on saying DEQ "improves" sound at all volume, especially at lower volume. But the only apparent thing I notice is that my bass sounds 100% better w/ DEQ at my average volume of 80 dBC & peak volume of 105 dBC from all speakers + all subs. The bass is only loud in my room, but quiet outside my room, which is awesome.

Without DEQ, the audible bass seems extremely low inside my HT room, although the bass trim levels are actually turned up higher and all the walls in my house shakes.

So w/o DEQ, I have to crank up the bass trim level extra hot (+12dB) and it still does not sound as detailed and smooth and all the walls in the house shakes.

But w/ DEQ, I only have to crank the bass +3dB and the bass is 100% more detailed and I barely hear the bass beyond my HT room and none of the walls outside my HT room shakes.

 

[RichB]

To recap:

1) Flat = Bypass
2) Flat & Bypass > Audyssey Regular
3) DEQ is AWESOME.

So I will just keep Audyssey Flat DEQ.

If you are into this stuff, the Omni MIC is a simple tool to measure your results:

Dayton Audio OmniMic V2 Precision Audio Measurement System 390-792

- Rich

 

[PENG]

To recap:

1) Flat = Bypass
2) Flat & Bypass > Audyssey Regular
3) Flat DEQ & Bypass DEQ are AWESOME.

So I will use Bypass + DEQ.

So my prediction was correct. I was easy though, purely logical thinking..

By the way, wise choice with Bypass +DEQ, if Flat does not improve anything, why waste processing power to process the signal and then just sound the same as no processing!!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So my prediction was correct. I was easy though, purely logical thinking..

By the way, wise choice with Bypass +DEQ, if Flat does not improve anything, why waste processing power to process the signal and then just sound the same as no processing!!

Yeah, all these years I went w/ PD over Audyssey Flat because I didn't hear any difference after I prejudicially, ignorantly, and stubbornly turned OFF DEQ.

Then when I finally opened up and tried DEQ, I was flabbergasted. I had to have DEQ. Then I thought DEQ required Audyssey to be on.

But now I have discovered that I could use DEQ without Audyssey (Bypass L/R + DEQ), there is no reason for me to use Audyssey.

I suppose it really makes no difference either way, though.

 

[PENG]

But now I have discovered that I could use DEQ without Audyssey (Bypass L/R + DEQ), there is no reason for me to use Audyssey.

I suppose it really makes no difference either way, though.

And I suppose Audyssey really likes your room, that's the only reason why it leaves things alone because it finds nothing to fix. In my HT room I also hear little difference between Audyssey, flat and off. For some music, there are subtle differences but never obvious. In the living room where the R900s are, the difference with Audyssey on and off is obvious. So I am sure it has to do with the room, and you must have a very nice room, that is, acoustically speaking. DEQ is of course a different animal, good thing it turns out to be one that you like.

By the way, tonight I started to try the DEQ offset of 10 (recommended by Chris of Audyssey) for music and I do like it better.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

And I suppose Audyssey really likes your room, that's the only reason why it leaves things alone because it finds nothing to fix. In my HT room I also hear little difference between Audyssey, flat and off. For some music, there are subtle differences but never obvious. In the living room where the R900s are, the difference with Audyssey on and off is obvious. So I am sure it has to do with the room, and you must have a very nice room, that is, acoustically speaking. DEQ is of course a different animal, good thing it turns out to be one that you like.

By the way, tonight I started to try the DEQ offset of 10 (recommended by Chris of Audyssey) for music and I do like it better.

So an "offset of 10dB" means that the trim levels (speaker channel levels) are set to 65dBC, instead of 75dBC.

I assume you feel that DEQ zero offset (trim levels set to 75dBC) produces too much DEQ "compensation"?

Everyone is different.... In so many ways.

 

[PENG]

So an "offset of 10dB" means that the trim levels (speaker channel levels) are set to 65dBC, instead of 75dBC.

I assume you feel that DEQ zero offset (trim levels set to 75dBC) produces too much DEQ "compensation"?

Everyone is different.... In so many ways.

When someone asked something like that in the FAQ, Prof Chris Kyriakakis was only willing to say:

[/COLOR]1.If the offset is 0 then Dynamic EQ doesn't do anything at 0 dB master volume.<o></o>
2.If the offset is 10 dB then Dynamic EQ is told to do less compensation at allvolume levels. I'm afraid I can't discuss all the details because they areproprietary.

I don't care what the details are, I just know the offset does work for me when I listen to music, as I get more of the what you call "crystal clear" effect. It is like turning my Energy Veritas to sound more like my Focal 1028 Be without sounding "bright", less bass for you though for sure..

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

When someone asked something like that in the FAQ, Prof Chris Kyriakakis was only willing to say:

1.If the offset is 0 then Dynamic EQ doesn't do anything at 0 dB master volume.<o></o>
2.If the offset is 10 dB then Dynamic EQ is told to do less compensation at allvolume levels. I'm afraid I can't discuss all the details because they areproprietary.

I don't care what the details are, I just know the offset does work for me when I listen to music, as I get more of the what you call "crystal clear" effect. It is like turning my Energy Veritas to sound more like my Focal 1028 Be without sounding "bright", less bass for you though for sure..

Yeah, whatever works best is right.

 

[RichB]

For the record, the P5 does not have Audyssey, no DEQ

- Rich

 

[tvrgeek]

This looks like a SUPER deal for a good DAC and good preamp in one box. With all the HDMI and auto-eq problems I have been having, I'm right on the verge of moving me back to stereo. Great match for my HCA 750 I was using anyway. The OEM promises to post the details on their WEB this week. I am from the "old music-matters" generation. Music first, then add functions if they don't mess up the music. Now, if it had a really good FM section it... Probably not a market for it.

For what it's worth Audessey HATES my room. Could not deal with the major nodes and is insane on its ideas of what my speakers produce, unless by come magic a 3 inch Fountek can produce 40 Hz ( F3 is 120). With a stereo preamp, I can whip up another black box filter to deal with it myself. Analog of course. My experience with the Marantz AV7005 confirms the adage, "To err is human; to really foul things up requires a computer"

 

[davidbeinct]

I'll revive this thread to make my first post here. I bought this preamp because it has both phono stage and an incorporated DAC. I am a two-channel guy and still like vinyl, although I am under no illusions about its superiority. So far I have only been using the DAC USB input and it is a great product. I have ripped all my CDs to a hard drive and run them out a Mac Mini to the DAC. The sound is great. I am also using Rhapsody for trying new music and must admit, running its MP3s out to the DAC, they sound great too. I mostly was using an old Acoustat TNT-120 amp but recently purchased a factory refurbished Marantz MM7025. Added a trigger and got rid of an annoying, if generally unobtrusive, hum from the old Acoustat. Next two steps will be to rehab an old Pioneer turntable I inherited and upgrade my speakers. I am looking at Golden Ear Triton Sevens and Martin Logan Electromotion ESLs.

 

[MosesMalone]

Anymore firsthand input about this pre? I'm thinking of matching it up with the Halo A21 power amp. People said the now-discontinued P3 was more fitted for the lower-end A23 as opposed to the A21. I wonder if this new P5 has a better preamp section than it's predecessor.

Also, it sells for $1,095, not $950 like what was stated in the article. Parasound will be increasing the price on most of their gear on April 1st, P5 not included, so I guess they just decided to hike up the MSRP before it hit the streets.

Still I can't find any other solid preamps in this price range that matches all of these features except Emotiva's XSP-1. The XSP-1 is fully balanced unlike the P5, but the P5 has an integrated DAC.

HT Bypass and full bass management via HPF/LPF knobs are essential imo. They also included a phono stage for turntables and if it's as good as Parasound's Zphono, then that's another great feature. Looks like Parasound knocked this one out of the park.

 

[ematthews]

Anymore firsthand input about this pre? I'm thinking of matching it up with the Halo A21 power amp. People said the now-discontinued P3 was more fitted for the lower-end A23 as opposed to the A21. I wonder if this new P5 has a better preamp section than it's predecessor.

Also, it sells for $1,095, not $950 like what was stated in the article. Parasound will be increasing the price on most of their gear on April 1st, P5 not included, so I guess they just decided to hike up the MSRP before it hit the streets.

Still I can't find any other solid preamps in this price range that matches all of these features except Emotiva's XSP-1. The XSP-1 is fully balanced unlike the P5, but the P5 has an integrated DAC.

HT Bypass and full bass management via HPF/LPF knobs are essential imo. They also included a phono stage for turntables and if it's as good as Parasound's Zphono, then that's another great feature. Looks like Parasound knocked this one out of the park.

I am on the fence here too. I can not decide on this or the Emo XSP... I don't really need another DAC as I use the Emotiva xda-1 and don't really need balanced either. I do need sub controls and most important is sound... I found my old USP-1 a little thin and bright when comparing to my Marantz gear.... I am leaning towards the Parasound since I have read it sounds more full than the XSP-1.... Who knows what to believe. Some will say you should hear no difference between preamps...Or amps for that matter..

 

[macddmac]

Sorry I haven't kept up with this thread. I have the P5 / A-21 combo in my 2 channel rig.
I'm done shopping for amps and pre's for a long time now as this pair more than exceeds my expectations. Next up, Oppo 105, and a new sub
Cheers, Mac