Sounds like an HDMI handshake issue possibly. On my MX151, to get my HTPC, I have to switch off from that input to something else (in my case the MS300) and back in order to get it to lock on right. Try switching off for 2-3 seconds and coming back and see if it executes the handshake.

I also had a cable issue and so be sure you are using a good grade of high speed HDMI cable. I went through a couple until I got a decent one.

If you use a Harmony or other remote, you can program the switch off and back command as I do. Finally, make sure you have told the MX150 the right signal type for the input you are using. If it is HDMI but you have it set for component, that won't cut it of course. Thank You sgbroimp, I will try all these suggestions and see which one works. May have to make a trip to BB for a good HDMI cable.

Thanks again. I wonder why the MX160 description page, the specifications page and the brochure page (under downloads) no longer has any mention of DTS X?

View and Download McIntosh MX121 owner's manual online. MX121 Amplifier pdf. Amplifier McIntosh MX151 Owner's Manual. Mcintosh a/v. McIntosh Laboratory, Inc. 2 Chambers Street Binghamton, New York Phone: 607-723-3512 www.mcintoshlabs.com MX121 A/V Control Center Owner's Manual.

It is also curiously missing from the front faceplate. I remember the 160 dealer brochure leaked on AVS clearly discussed future DTS X support. The McIntosh support person I spoke with two weeks ago (not Chuck Hinton) said McIntosh is working to have a software update for the MX160 out by the end of this month. He also said that forthcoming updates, not necessarily the next one, would enable DTS X support. Given that the release of DTS X updates for other processors is rumored for late this year, I am assuming that McIntosh will at least try to enable it once it is available.

For what it is worth, I am also looking forward to the next software update as my MX160 currently requires me to go into the setup menu to change the main video output from, say, HDMI 1 to HDMI 2. Since I have both a projector and flat panel connected to my MX160, this is cumbersome at best for now. I am also hopeful that a software update will provide support for discrete input selection as the supplied RF remote only has an input up/down function for cycling among inputs. The McIntosh support person I spoke with two weeks ago (not Chuck Hinton) said McIntosh is working to have a software update for the MX160 out by the end of this month. He also said that forthcoming updates, not necessarily the next one, would enable DTS X support. Given that the release of DTS X updates for other processors is rumored for late this year, I am assuming that McIntosh will at least try to enable it once it is available.

For what it is worth, I am also looking forward to the next software update as my MX160 currently requires me to go into the setup menu to change the main video output from, say, HDMI 1 to HDMI 2. Since I have both a projector and flat panel connected to my MX160, this is cumbersome at best for now. I am also hopeful that a software update will provide support for discrete input selection as the supplied RF remote only has an input up/down function for cycling among inputs. I am not a regular follower of this forum but still very interested in the new MX160 processor having had a MX121 for a few years. Have you had the MX160 long enough to let us know what you think about the sound? Perhaps that has been done already? I have been very pleased with the MX121 and am hopeful that the new one will not disappoint.

Any observations would be helpful. Thanks in advance. I am not a regular follower of this forum but still very interested in the new MX160 processor having had a MX121 for a few years. Have you had the MX160 long enough to let us know what you think about the sound?

Perhaps that has been done already? I have been very pleased with the MX121 and am hopeful that the new one will not disappoint. Any observations would be helpful. Thanks in advance. I have only had the MX160 installed for two weeks and have only been around for a few days of that. My initial impression is favorable, but I still need to find the time to run Room Perfect. I will try to post my further thoughts after the software update has been installed and Room Perfect has been run.

Due to my travel schedule, this may not be for a couple of weeks. I have only had the MX160 installed for two weeks and have only been around for a few days of that. My initial impression is favorable, but I still need to find the time to run Room Perfect. I will try to post my further thoughts after the software update has been installed and Room Perfect has been run. Due to my travel schedule, this may not be for a couple of weeks. Great to hear you finally got it John.

Very interested to hear your further thoughts on the MX-160. Did you have a MX-150/1 prior or something else I can't recall exactly, was it an 8802 (I saw you had posted in the owners thread a little while back)? Also importantly are you running an ATMOS speaker layout at all? Great to hear you finally got it John.

Very interested to hear your further thoughts on the MX-160. Did you have a MX-150/1 prior or something else I can't recall exactly, was it an 8802 (I saw you had posted in the owners thread a little while back)? Also importantly are you running an ATMOS speaker layout at all? Thanks, I am very happy to have finally gotten the MX160. I have an MX150 with the 151 update in my system in my house in Houston.

My MX160 is freshly installed in our second home in Austin. I do not have an 8802, although I have a 7701 for another room in our Austin house. I have considered upgrading that to an 8802A, although I have deferred that due to having to swallow the purchase of the MX160. I do not yet have an Atmos speaker configuration in place for the MX160 system, but I have sufficient amplification already in place. I just need to decide on the exact locations I want to place the additional four speakers, purchase them, and then get them installed. I hope to do that in the next month.

I did find time to run Room Perfect this afternoon, and I am very pleased with how the MX160 does with both movies and two channel music. Assuming the forthcoming software update for the MX160 addresses the items I have been told that it will, I believe I am going to be very satisfied with the MX160. Thanks, I am very happy to have finally gotten the MX160. I have an MX150 with the 151 update in my system in my house in Houston. My MX160 is freshly installed in our second home in Austin. I do not have an 8802, although I have a 7701 for another room in our Austin house.

I have considered upgrading that to an 8802A, although I have deferred that due to having to swallow the purchase of the MX160. I do not yet have an Atmos speaker configuration in place for the MX160 system, but I have sufficient amplification already in place. I just need to decide on the exact locations I want to place the additional four speakers, purchase them, and then get them installed.

I hope to do that in the next month. I did find time to run Room Perfect this afternoon, and I am very pleased with how the MX160 does with both movies and two channel music. Assuming the forthcoming software update for the MX160 addresses the items I have been told that it will, I believe I am going to be very satisfied with the MX160.

Ok great you had the MX-150 also. Have you formed any specific views if it goes further in SQ from the MX-150, especially given you are running still running it in 5.1? It would be a lot harder to do an apples with apples comparo between having had the 150 and then went to an ATMOS layout. I don't blame you for focusing on the MX-160 upgrade over upgrading an auxiliary room to an 8802! Congrats once again on being one of the first to get the 160!

Ok great you had the MX-150 also. Have you formed any specific views if it goes further in SQ from the MX-150, especially given you are running still running it in 5.1? It would be a lot harder to do an apples with apples comparo between having had the 150 and then went to an ATMOS layout.

I don't blame you for focusing on the MX-160 upgrade over upgrading an auxiliary room to an 8802! Congrats once again on being one of the first to get the 160! It is difficult to compare the SQ of my MX160 with that of my MX150 as they are in different rooms with different speaker systems and amplification. The system with my MX150 has McIntosh XRT1K's for left and right, XCS1K for center, XLS320's for surrounds, and a JL Audio Gotham for a sub.

The front speakers are driven by McIntosh MC1.2KW amps, and the surrounds are driven by MC501's. I have had this system for quite a while, and I am still extremely pleased with how it sounds. In my Austin system, I am using a McIntosh MC8207 amp to drive Paradigm Signature S8's for left and right, Paradigm C5 for center, and Paradigm SIG-1.5R-30 v.3 for surrounds. I am using a Paradigm SUB 2 as the SW.

Folder Size Pro Serial. I am much happier with the SQ of this system now that I have replaced an Anthem D2V with the MX160 and an Anthem amp with the MC8207. I got the Anthem D2V when we bought our Austin house in the summer of 2014 as I anticipated McIntosh would be coming out with a replacement for the MX150, and I could sell the Anthem when the MX160 was released.

I guess I have just been a McIntosh guy since I got my first MX130 and MC7106 in 1994. By the way, when you get a minute, please check to see if the 160 has a low volume listening modes, i.e. Dolby Volume. I know Audyssey has a low volume listening mode. Does anyone know if DTS has a similar algorithm? There is a 'late night' mode button on the MX160 front panel. I assume it functions the same way as does that feature on the MX150/151.

The MX151 manual describes it as follows: 'The LATE NIGHT Push-button turns a volume compression circuit On and Off. This feature suppresses loud sounds or music that might disturb neighbors or others not in the immediate area of the Home Theater.

Soft levels are also raised slightly so they are still listenable at reduced overall volume levels. This works only on a Dolby Digital Sound Track with encoded data that supports the compression function.' Yes, that's the exact description of the mode on the 150/151. Unfortunately it will not work with DTS tracks.

Not sure if it will work with Atmos. Actually, that is the description for the MX150/151. I copied and pasted it from that manual. Unfortunately, the 'Preliminary and Partial' MX160 manual supplied as stapled together sheets of paper says nothing about that feature or many other aspects of the MX160 and its features, adjustments, etc. I am hopeful a more complete manual is forthcoming along with the software update. It is difficult to compare the SQ of my MX160 with that of my MX150 as they are in different rooms with different speaker systems and amplification. The system with my MX150 has McIntosh XRT1K's for left and right, XCS1K for center, XLS320's for surrounds, and a JL Audio Gotham for a sub.

The front speakers are driven by McIntosh MC1.2KW amps, and the surrounds are driven by MC501's. I have had this system for quite a while, and I am still extremely pleased with how it sounds. In my Austin system, I am using a McIntosh MC8207 amp to drive Paradigm Signature S8's for left and right, Paradigm C5 for center, and Paradigm SIG-1.5R-30 v.3 for surrounds. I am using a Paradigm SUB 2 as the SW.

I am much happier with the SQ of this system now that I have replaced an Anthem D2V with the MX160 and an Anthem amp with the MC8207. I got the Anthem D2V when we bought our Austin house in the summer of 2014 as I anticipated McIntosh would be coming out with a replacement for the MX150, and I could sell the Anthem when the MX160 was released. I guess I have just been a McIntosh guy since I got my first MX130 and MC7106 in 1994. Yeah that's always a challenge when you swap rooms between processors, let alone completely different speakers and amps. I guess we'll have to wait for Joerod to get an MX-160 to truly get a feel for the differences and comparisons to Datasat, etc.

Sounds like you're indeed very heavily McIntosh orientated with your speakers etc. I can't say any of my A/V suppliers vend McIntosh's speakers so I can't comment on them. I have Revels across 9 channels in my system (plus 2x Sub1) which I love and worked really well with the MX-150 while I had it (only 5.1 then though). Yeah that's always a challenge when you swap rooms between processors, let alone completely different speakers and amps. I guess we'll have to wait for Joerod to get an MX-160 to truly get a feel for the differences and comparisons to Datasat, etc. Sounds like you're indeed very heavily McIntosh orientated with your speakers etc. I can't say any of my A/V suppliers vend McIntosh's speakers so I can't comment on them.

I have Revels across 9 channels in my system (plus 2x Sub1) which I love and worked really well with the MX-150 while I had it (only 5.1 then though) Revels are very nice! I'm sure they sound great! I haven't sold the CB yet. It just doesn't seem to have a critical (to me) DSP I want. Surround matrix for concert blue Rays.

Well, with the forthcoming Atmos (and presumably DTS:X) board from Theta, I would think it mandatory you would get Dolby Surround on the Casablanca, which, as an upmixer, works very well applied to a wide variety of fixed channel material. I'm considering the Theta right now, but I think I'd like both that board and the 8x2 HDMI board with full HDMI 2.0a to be completed and factory installed before I consider further. The following is what I found out about the MX160. The DAC's are essentially the same. Thus the audio is about the same.

The Aux assignments for the MX160 are different than the MX151. Depending on the mix of Atmos and/or Auro speakers, the Aux outputs will automatically be assigned to these.

If there are free Aux outputs, there are options for Stereo subs in the front (Bi-Amped, with or without LFE), and options for stereo subs in the rear. After assigning, the on-screen setup menu shows a pictorial of the jacks with each labeled for its function. The following is what I found out about the MX160. The DAC's are essentially the same.

Thus the audio is about the same. The Aux assignments for the MX160 are different than the MX151. Depending on the mix of Atmos and/or Auro speakers, the Aux outputs will automatically be assigned to these. If there are free Aux outputs, there are options for Stereo subs in the front (Bi-Amped, with or without LFE), and options for stereo subs in the rear. After assigning, the on-screen setup menu shows a pictorial of the jacks with each labeled for its function.

Ok so it is indeed an extended channel ATMOS/DTS:X version of the MX-151. As much as I did love my 150's sound overall, it's a bit hard to get that excited about the same hardware updated.

The Casablanca IV with ATMOS/DTS:X card is sounding interesting again, just as the thrang mentioned earlier.may have to look at a refurbed one. The following is what I found out about the MX160. The DAC's are essentially the same.

Thus the audio is about the same. The Aux assignments for the MX160 are different than the MX151. Depending on the mix of Atmos and/or Auro speakers, the Aux outputs will automatically be assigned to these. If there are free Aux outputs, there are options for Stereo subs in the front (Bi-Amped, with or without LFE), and options for stereo subs in the rear.

After assigning, the on-screen setup menu shows a pictorial of the jacks with each labeled for its function. There is already dedicated front height and rear height connections. Do you mean aux 1-4 can be used along side with the other 4 height connections for a total of 8 height/wide/overhead speakers?

I came from an MX-151 to a CBIV, and I'm very happy with it. I'm not in a hurry for ATMOS/DTS:X, so that works out well too. Terrific 7.1 from the CBIV! Dave I have the presently operating ATMOS channels, so its a must for me. Not sure what the price impact is for the extra DAC or the premium vs extreme DACs. I get the feeling and had a little feedback that I'd be foolish not to go with the extreme DACs.

I may get in touch with Theatermax, I was looking to see if they were active here as I've read members here who've had good experiences with them for their Theta gear.

Hmmm, a tweaked MX150. Was hoping for a bit more. No 2 HDMI monitor out No 1080p Upscaling No HDMI standby No PLIIz (height or width) or Plus No DLNA, network streaming, internet radio (not that I care for this as I believe this stuff belongs in a seperate Network Audio Player/media player like Denon are now doing. A Processor should be limited to AV only & should not include any source. Why is it in the MX121.b/c it was inherited from the Marantz SR7005.) If it supports 3D passthru & conforms to HDMI 1.4a in part, what about HDMI 1.3c Deep Color, x.v.Color, Auto Lip-sync?

Are the published specs omitting detail or is the MX150 upgrade/MX151 light on the HDMI feature set? Any more on the runmor-mill regarding a MX160 in the works? (with ESS ES9018S Sabre32 DACS throughout!). Hmmm, a tweaked MX150. Was hoping for a bit more.

No 2 HDMI monitor out No 1080p Upscaling No HDMI standby No PLIIz (height or width) or Plus No DLNA, network streaming, internet radio (not that I care for this) If it supports 3D passthru & conforms to HDMI 1.4a in part, what about HDMI 1.3c Deep Color, x.v.Color, Auto Lip-sync? Are the published specs omitting detail or is the MX150 upgrade/MX151 light on the HDMI feature set? Any more on the runmor-mill regarding a MX160 in the works? (with ESS ES9018S Sabre32 DACS throughout!) What about MX-152 thru MX159:p. I can't help but wonder if the April 2012 release announcement means the MX151 will actually be shipping by February 2013, similar to the MX150 release.

Dealers get the orders and the money, and customers sit on it for 9 months or more waiting. Sound familiar? I'm still waiting on my MVP891 ordered mid Feb. It's on the water, the message in a bottle says.

Maybe I should just ask my dealer to put in an order for a MX160 & a couple of MC602s. They may come quicker!:laughin: OK, so Hand Made in the USA (at least partly so when it comes to the source & processor electronics) does take time, but something in Binghampton appears a little amiss of late? I might just buy another MC2301 & leave it at that for a few years until they catch up. At least I know the Denon flagship works flawlessly & is built like a brick s.house.

Hey McIntosh.Yeah Charlie, I am talking to you. It is wonderful that you have managed to release a firmware update for the MX150 owners so they can enjoy advanced features on their A/V processor. Since I don't own an MX150, do you think I care? However, I do own two MCD1100 SACD/CD/DAC players (yep $20,000 worth), and guess what? My USB inputs are still crippled at 16Bit/44.1kHz, and nothing but hot air coming from your reps with respect to when we can expect to have your advertised promise of 24Bit/192kHz. The same holds true for those who now own the C48 and C50 preamplifiers with the same crippled USB input.

What exactly is being done at McIntosh Labs to make us happy with our purchases? The silence is as disheartening as it is deafening. Hey McIntosh.Yeah Charlie, I am talking to you. It is wonderful that you have managed to release a firmware update for the MX150 owners so they can enjoy advanced features on their A/V processor.

Since I don't own an MX150, do you think I care? However, I do own two MCD1100 SACD/CD/DAC players (yep $20,000 worth), and guess what? My USB inputs are still crippled at 16Bit/44.1kHz, and nothing but hot air coming from your reps with respect to when we can expect to have your advertised promise of 24Bit/192kHz.

The same holds true for those who now own the C48 and C50 preamplifiers with the same crippled USB input. What exactly is being done at McIntosh Labs to make us happy with our purchases? The silence is as disheartening as it is deafening. When I got he 150 update from my rep, he spoke with chuck about the 1100 update, as I have one.

Just a couple of more weeks. They are working on it. Maybe by Xmas. Scott Sent from my iPad using A.Aficionado.

Hey McIntosh.Yeah Charlie, I am talking to you. It is wonderful that you have managed to release a firmware update for the MX150 owners so they can enjoy advanced features on their A/V processor.

Since I don't own an MX150, do you think I care? However, I do own two MCD1100 SACD/CD/DAC players (yep $20,000 worth), and guess what? My USB inputs are still crippled at 16Bit/44.1kHz, and nothing but hot air coming from your reps with respect to when we can expect to have your advertised promise of 24Bit/192kHz.

The same holds true for those who now own the C48 and C50 preamplifiers with the same crippled USB input. What exactly is being done at McIntosh Labs to make us happy with our purchases? The silence is as disheartening as it is deafening. +1, I have a MCD1100 tooooooo & I asked my dealer about this before I even committed. I was assured. (BTW, this is my 3rd MCD1100 in 4 months.I didn't want to say anything, benefit of the doubt regarding S&H across the pond to Oz but maybe it's time something is mentioned) McIntosh, when it's right it's great!

Hey McIntosh.Yeah Charlie, I am talking to you. It is wonderful that you have managed to release a firmware update for the MX150 owners so they can enjoy advanced features on their A/V processor. Since I don't own an MX150, do you think I care? However, I do own two MCD1100 SACD/CD/DAC players (yep $20,000 worth), and guess what? My USB inputs are still crippled at 16Bit/44.1kHz, and nothing but hot air coming from your reps with respect to when we can expect to have your advertised promise of 24Bit/192kHz.

The same holds true for those who now own the C48 and C50 preamplifiers with the same crippled USB input. What exactly is being done at McIntosh Labs to make us happy with our purchases? The silence is as disheartening as it is deafening.

+1 their priorities are all messed up. +1 their priorities are all messed up. Mike.I am gradually embracing the idea of a bail out on McIntosh after 44 years of owning and using their components, selling all my McIntosh gear, and heading in a fresh direction with an audio company that reveres its customers, delivering the very best they have to offer every single day.

I want to support a company that supports me, one that values my business and commitment to them. I love the old McIntosh ways, but this knot in my stomach lately about their new direction is a serious turn off.

Howard (hkval) recently sold everything in his system that had a McIntosh logo on it. Other respected members here have done the same over this past year.

If it strikes me to make the move, I may well follow their lead and see what other high-end manufactures have to offer. There are lots of great players in the high-end audio business besides McIntosh.

Well do not think I would do that Dan, but the support for the minor things is most frustrating to say the least! I wish there was a way to talk to the actual techs in charge of the firmware updates / support issues.

Hell a LOT of Cash to spend and yet very poor support:(:(:( I am going to email your reply with your permission to the link in the link to: For any issues with Dealer Dashboard access or if you do not have your password, please call Steve Mulnick at 805-526-2933 or email smulnick@mcintoshlabs.com. MyPal great list:) Can we add support for Headphones to like a mcd1100 unit.

I would like to be able to drive decently a nice set of high impedance cans at this over 12k price tag. I think that is not much to ask to add a headphone section too. PS I think NO ONE makes a sacd with the 5.1 channels on balanced xlr only, so some rca still need to survive right?:) Yes of course on both counts. The headphone amp is something they themselves already do well. 7.1 EXT-In can be RCA. The MVP891 has RCA only. I'm sorry to read all your comments in this thread which has dis-heartened me greatly.

I don't have much money but I save every cent to get my McIntosh gear which I love and get great enjoyment out of. I cannot however keep upgrading my gear every time the smallest upgrade is available as reselling this gear in Australia is close to impossible. I thought the company was one of the very few left in the world that still had morals and valued their customers (especially their long loyal customers). Am I now to believe this is not true and that I might as well resort to crapy 'Made In China' brands, which will leave no interest for companies to make quality products? I am sick of buying rubbish from China. I weep for the future!:-(. I've never understood why Mac is so secretive with their firmware upgrades.

Why not have them out there for the general public to download? I agree, it's strange. I think it's to discourage purchasing units from outside authorized channels. The flaw in this logic is that it disregards those who purchase used gear from here or AG (or elsewhere).

I realize used doesn't have a warranty, but it should come with the ability to update firmware. Point of reference, my (now sold) Marantz AV7005 would automatically check for updates if it was connected to the Internet and you could update the firmware through the on-screen menus -- very nice feature. It didn't require you register it with Marantz or really anything else. Wonder if the MX121 does the same since it's based on the 7005? Hmmm, a tweaked MX150. Was hoping for a bit more.

No 2 HDMI monitor out No 1080p Upscaling No HDMI standby No PLIIz (height or width) or Plus No DLNA, network streaming, internet radio (not that I care for this as I believe this stuff belongs in a seperate Network Audio Player/media player like Denon are now doing. A Processor should be limited to AV only & should not include any source. Why is it in the MX121.b/c it was inherited from the Marantz SR7005.) If it supports 3D passthru & conforms to HDMI 1.4a in part, what about HDMI 1.3c Deep Color, x.v.Color, Auto Lip-sync? Are the published specs omitting detail or is the MX150 upgrade/MX151 light on the HDMI feature set? Any more on the runmor-mill regarding a MX160 in the works? (with ESS ES9018S Sabre32 DACS throughout!) What is HDMI Standby? I know it sounds self descriptive, but I want to be sure I understand the feature.

+1, I have a MCD1100 tooooooo & I asked my dealer about this before I even committed. I was assured. (BTW, this is my 3rd MCD1100 in 4 months.I didn't want to say anything, benefit of the doubt regarding S&H across the pond to Oz but maybe it's time something is mentioned) McIntosh, when it's right it's great! I gave up and got rid of my C48. I just couldn't stand looking at the thing. Every time I looked at it I got mad. Not healthy, it had to go.

Fool me once. Never again will I purchase something from McIntosh with the promise of an update that enables capability (or any update firmware for that matter). Allen-bh, would you mind commenting on the performance of the marantz 7005 vs the mx150? How close on movies, multi-channel music (both digital and analog in) and 2 channel via analog in (as preamp)? I imagine it won't compare as a preamp, but maybe for movies and multichannel it's close, and I can get a good preamp with ht bypass for critical 2 channel listening. Sad and long story.

My brand new MX150 was DOA. It went back to McIntosh two weeks ago and just this afternoon I picked it up at UPS. It apparently got a new HDMI board (those that are in the 151's), new CPU and some other things in addition to the firmware update. I'm going to break it in first before I judge it and that's going to take a few weeks. I tried what you're suggesting, using the Marantz AV7005 with a McIntosh C48.

For two channel listening I used HT bypass of the C48. Bottom line is that my W4S DAC2 outperformed the C48. The DAC2 also has HT bypass and can act as a preamp so I decided to get rid of both the C48 and 7005 and purchased the MX150. The Marantz is a solid video performer, yet the audio is not the best. I'd put it below the C48 (for two channel) and way below the Anthem D2V I used to have. The features of the Marantz are great, and the unit is bullet-proof.

I didn't play much with the audio configuration once I setup Audyssey. It's a great unit for the price, but if you're trying to compare the Marantz AV7005 to a MX150 or a D2V, the cards are stacked against the Marantz.

Lastly, keep in mind that the MX150 does not scale any video. So if your inputs aren't HD, you may be disappointed as you'll also need a scaler. It will convert analog to HDMI however. Allen-bh, would you mind commenting on the performance of the marantz 7005 vs the mx150? How close on movies, multi-channel music (both digital and analog in) and 2 channel via analog in (as preamp)? I imagine it won't compare as a preamp, but maybe for movies and multichannel it's close, and I can get a good preamp with ht bypass for critical 2 channel listening. Just before Christmas 2011, my 1.5 year old MX150 quit working, and my dealer had to send it back to McIntosh.

Our kids were home for the holidays, and we wanted to watch some movies, so I did a one day express shipping order from Amazon for a Marantz AV7005. I primarily chose this model as I was able to put it into my upstairs system with minimal recabling in place of the MX150. I liked the operation of the AV7005, and the video passthrough was quite good. However, the sound quality even in home theater mode was not nearly as good as that of the MX150. I just got the MX150 back about a month ago and just did the new software update this past Friday, and I am once again very happy with the sound of my home theater system.

I don't regret buying the AV7005 as it is a very nice and flexible piece that I plan to keep as a backup unit.:thumbsup. Bryan, thanks for the reply. To be clear, I'm not really trying to compare the av7005 to an mx150, just wanted to know how close it came.

I'm actually trying to compare the 7005/c48 combo to the mx150. If the marantz came close on movie performance, and the c48 is as good on 2 channel analog as the 150, then that could be a good solution. The dac is not an issue as I will be using the oppo bdp95 dacs for both 2 channel And sacd as they are excellent (although I will have to rely on the marantz analog inputs for sacd multichannel music). The marantz gives me audessey room correction, and the c48 gives me 5 band EQ to 'fix' old or poor recordings on the fly. Not too many preamps offer this option. One problem I just realized is the the convoluted process of utilizing HT bypass in the c48.

The process of needing to use a 12 volt trigger and needing to turn off the entire system to disengage from HT bypass is very cumbersome and just plain stupid frankly. I don't want to be having to turn my system on and off simply to go from audio to tv or movies and back. Anyway, thanks for the reply and good luck with the new 150!!! .I will be using the oppo bdp95 dacs for both 2 channel And sacd as they are excellent. A question here, I got a bunch of cables for my bdp95 including xlrs for the balanced output and RCAs for the multi-channel.

I have the Mx121 and my question is, do i have to have specific assignment to use the balanced analogue xlrs in my 121? In other word, how can i segment out the balanced input from the oppo while ignoring the multi-channel analog inputs that also contain L &R. What Im trying to do is use the balanced outputs for stereo sacd outputs into my 121 while using the unbalanced outputs for multi-channel SACD but of course I don't want both a mixed down to stereo on the xlrs and multichannel on the rcas. Not sure Im explaining this right.

Bryan, thanks for the reply. To be clear, I'm not really trying to compare the av7005 to an mx150, just wanted to know how close it came. I'm actually trying to compare the 7005/c48 combo to the mx150. If the marantz came close on movie performance, and the c48 is as good on 2 channel analog as the 150, then that could be a good solution. The dac is not an issue as I will be using the oppo bdp95 dacs for both 2 channel And sacd as they are excellent (although I will have to rely on the marantz analog inputs for sacd multichannel music). The marantz gives me audessey room correction, and the c48 gives me 5 band EQ to 'fix' old or poor recordings on the fly.

Not too many preamps offer this option. One problem I just realized is the the convoluted process of utilizing HT bypass in the c48.

The process of needing to use a 12 volt trigger and needing to turn off the entire system to disengage from HT bypass is very cumbersome and just plain stupid frankly. I don't want to be having to turn my system on and off simply to go from audio to tv or movies and back.

Anyway, thanks for the reply and good luck with the new 150!!! I built a more or less similar system to the one you are thinking of. I am using a Mac C2300 pre and an Anthem D2V, together with an Oppo 95 and a Mac MCD1100. For stereo music I used the tubed pre and the Mac CD player with celestial results. In multichannel, after multiple testing of the connection modes, I am finally using hdmi from the Oppo for movies, with obviously the ARC room correction on. For SACD multichannel I use the Oppo dacs connected thru the analog inputs of the D2v, and the prepro set in 'analog DSP'. This allows me for using room correction, although it also implies another AD conversion (but at least with prime DACs).

The sound is in both cases very good, but not excellent. I have been thinking also on 'downgrading' the prepro to an Integra or similar with room correction, but I am still hesitating, since I will have to face a non wanted new dilemma: to loose room correction and bass management if I want to send a direct analog signal from Oppo to the amps; or to run the risk of downgrading this signal if, for the purpose of using the room correction, I activate the ADCs of the prepro (I don't think the DACs of the Integra are at the same level as the Oppo's). Since in multichannel I am not as happy as I am with the stereo performance of my system, I also thought on the possibility of changing the D2v for either an MX121 or a 151. But I am not sure if the first one is really an upgrade from the Anthem and, in relation with the 151, not having a video scaler (already there in the D2v, and performing at a great level) is a clear handicap.

Therefore and up to now, I am living happy with my balanced concessions, and did not find any alternative that could really overcome neither the strengths nor the weaknesses of my present system. Hope it well help you (and yes, the 12 volt trigger is a pain in. I built a more or less similar system to the one you are thinking of. I am using a Mac C2300 pre and an Anthem D2V, together with an Oppo 95 and a Mac MCD1100. For stereo music I used the tubed pre and the Mac CD player with celestial results.

In multichannel, after multiple testing of the connection modes, I am finally using hdmi from the Oppo for movies, with obviously the ARC room correction on. For SACD multichannel I use the Oppo dacs connected thru the analog inputs of the D2v, and the prepro set in 'analog DSP'. This allows me for using room correction, although it also implies another AD conversion (but at least with prime DACs).

The sound is in both cases very good, but not excellent. I have been thinking also on 'downgrading' the prepro to an Integra or similar with room correction, but I am still hesitating, since I will have to face a non wanted new dilemma: to loose room correction and bass management if I want to send a direct analog signal from Oppo to the amps; or to run the risk of downgrading this signal if, for the purpose of using the room correction, I activate the ADCs of the prepro (I don't think the DACs of the Integra are at the same level as the Oppo's). Since in multichannel I am not as happy as I am with the stereo performance of my system, I also thought on the possibility of changing the D2v for either an MX121 or a 151. But I am not sure if the first one is really an upgrade from the Anthem and, in relation with the 151, not having a video scaler (already there in the D2v, and performing at a great level) is a clear handicap.

Therefore and up to now, I am living happy with my balanced concessions, and did not find any alternative that could really overcome neither the strengths nor the weaknesses of my present system. Hope it well help you (and yes, the 12 volt trigger is a pain in. Do you find the Anthem too bright for movies/multichannel? Just before Christmas 2011, my 1.5 year old MX150 quit working, and my dealer had to send it back to McIntosh. Our kids were home for the holidays, and we wanted to watch some movies, so I did a one day express shipping order from Amazon for a Marantz AV7005. I primarily chose this model as I was able to put it into my upstairs system with minimal recabling in place of the MX150.

I liked the operation of the AV7005, and the video passthrough was quite good. However, the sound quality even in home theater mode was not nearly as good as that of the MX150. I just got the MX150 back about a month ago and just did the new software update this past Friday, and I am once again very happy with the sound of my home theater system. I don't regret buying the AV7005 as it is a very nice and flexible piece that I plan to keep as a backup unit.:thumbsup: Do I read this correctly.McIntosh took 2+ months to repair/return your 150? Bryan, thanks for the reply. To be clear, I'm not really trying to compare the av7005 to an mx150, just wanted to know how close it came.

I'm actually trying to compare the 7005/c48 combo to the mx150. If the marantz came close on movie performance, and the c48 is as good on 2 channel analog as the 150, then that could be a good solution.

The dac is not an issue as I will be using the oppo bdp95 dacs for both 2 channel And sacd as they are excellent (although I will have to rely on the marantz analog inputs for sacd multichannel music). The marantz gives me audessey room correction, and the c48 gives me 5 band EQ to 'fix' old or poor recordings on the fly. Not too many preamps offer this option. One problem I just realized is the the convoluted process of utilizing HT bypass in the c48. The process of needing to use a 12 volt trigger and needing to turn off the entire system to disengage from HT bypass is very cumbersome and just plain stupid frankly. I don't want to be having to turn my system on and off simply to go from audio to tv or movies and back.

Anyway, thanks for the reply and good luck with the new 150!!! Yeah, I hated the HT bypass control in the C48. My W4S DAC2 has a button on the remote that puts the unit into HT bypass. When I complained to McIntosh that the C48 didn't have such a function, I was asked 'why would someone want that'? For real.:tears: I was using the analog out of my DAC2 into the C48's analog inputs (balanced). The C48 colored the music with a very bland sort of haze. People say McIntosh has a 'smooth' or 'analog' sound, but this was not good, and I didn't like it.

None of the C48's EQ settings could ever get the signal as good as it sounded with the DAC2 straight to my MC601's (which I love the sound of by the way -- just incredible sounding amps). As I've recently learned, if you're in the market for a C48/50 you should also investigate ARC's DSPRE and the Classe CP800. It seems this is a very popular combination. Allen-bh, would you mind commenting on the performance of the marantz 7005 vs the mx150?

How close on movies, multi-channel music (both digital and analog in) and 2 channel via analog in (as preamp)? I imagine it won't compare as a preamp, but maybe for movies and multichannel it's close, and I can get a good preamp with ht bypass for critical 2 channel listening.

@jeff -- I've had some time to listen and evaluate the MX150 now for the last week and have the following observations. First, when setting up the room perfect, it's more like the anthem D2V in that the more sampling areas you capture, the more accurate the room corrections are. Second, and more importantly back to your question, when I started listening to the MX150 in stereo mode I wasn't really surprised. The sound was a little better than the C48. Very dry, not a lot of sizzle.

I then started playing with the settings in the 'audio mode setup' portion of the installer menu and found that by default, when you set the audio mode to 'no proc.' (no processing), it still goes through some parts of the unit (not sure which, perhaps the DAC or RP and not the other processor). Instead, you have to setup the audio mode to use 'pure stereo'. When I did this, WOW! Sound was what I've been looking for all along.

It rivals my W4S DAC2 in HT Bypass mode. For clarity, in this setup I used balanced (analog) from my DAC2 to the MX150.

I have to say, the MX150 in this configuration is incredible. It's miles ahead of the C48 and the AV7005 in direct analog mode. I'm still listening to the MX150 now and have to say it's definitely got a quality 2 channel preamp section. So much so that I've given up (for now) on my C1000 quest. @jeff -- I've had some time to listen and evaluate the MX150 now for the last week and have the following observations.

First, when setting up the room perfect, it's more like the anthem D2V in that the more sampling areas you capture, the more accurate the room corrections are. Second, and more importantly back to your question, when I started listening to the MX150 in stereo mode I wasn't really surprised. The sound was a little better than the C48. Very dry, not a lot of sizzle. I then started playing with the settings in the 'audio mode setup' portion of the installer menu and found that by default, when you set the audio mode to 'no proc.' (no processing), it still goes through some parts of the unit (not sure which, perhaps the DAC or RP and not the other processor).

Instead, you have to setup the audio mode to use 'pure stereo'. When I did this, WOW! Sound was what I've been looking for all along.

It rivals my W4S DAC2 in HT Bypass mode. For clarity, in this setup I used balanced (analog) from my DAC2 to the MX150. I have to say, the MX150 in this configuration is incredible. It's miles ahead of the C48 and the AV7005 in direct analog mode. I'm still listening to the MX150 now and have to say it's definitely got a quality 2 channel preamp section.

So much so that I've given up (for now) on my C1000 quest. Maybe I'm wrong or confused, but I thought the mx150 digitized all inputs and did not allow direct analog pass-through? That would mean that you are not listening to the mx150 as a true preamp. Am I mistaken?

@jeff -- I've had some time to listen and evaluate the MX150 now for the last week and have the following observations. First, when setting up the room perfect, it's more like the anthem D2V in that the more sampling areas you capture, the more accurate the room corrections are. Second, and more importantly back to your question, when I started listening to the MX150 in stereo mode I wasn't really surprised. The sound was a little better than the C48. Very dry, not a lot of sizzle. I then started playing with the settings in the 'audio mode setup' portion of the installer menu and found that by default, when you set the audio mode to 'no proc.' (no processing), it still goes through some parts of the unit (not sure which, perhaps the DAC or RP and not the other processor).

Instead, you have to setup the audio mode to use 'pure stereo'. When I did this, WOW! Sound was what I've been looking for all along. It rivals my W4S DAC2 in HT Bypass mode. For clarity, in this setup I used balanced (analog) from my DAC2 to the MX150. I have to say, the MX150 in this configuration is incredible.

It's miles ahead of the C48 and the AV7005 in direct analog mode. I'm still listening to the MX150 now and have to say it's definitely got a quality 2 channel preamp section. So much so that I've given up (for now) on my C1000 quest. OK how do you do this? Stead, you have to setup the audio mode to use 'pure stereo'. I know about the selector to bypass mode, but what is and how do you get 'pure stereo'.?

Is it by selecting stereo and under processing making a custom choice with Pure Stereo? What is the diff from stereo and pure stereo? I do see I have one for stereo already and it is on no post processing. Wow a lot of options and I wish I had a list of what all the Dolby, DTS and other settings under them such as Neo6 wide Neo6 gain, Dolby PLIIx settings and there are many are for and do? I guess I do little to no processing with my 150 since I no not much:).

@jeff -- I've had some time to listen and evaluate the MX150 now for the last week and have the following observations. First, when setting up the room perfect, it's more like the anthem D2V in that the more sampling areas you capture, the more accurate the room corrections are. Second, and more importantly back to your question, when I started listening to the MX150 in stereo mode I wasn't really surprised.

The sound was a little better than the C48. Very dry, not a lot of sizzle. I then started playing with the settings in the 'audio mode setup' portion of the installer menu and found that by default, when you set the audio mode to 'no proc.'

(no processing), it still goes through some parts of the unit (not sure which, perhaps the DAC or RP and not the other processor). Instead, you have to setup the audio mode to use 'pure stereo'. When I did this, WOW! Sound was what I've been looking for all along. It rivals my W4S DAC2 in HT Bypass mode. For clarity, in this setup I used balanced (analog) from my DAC2 to the MX150.

I have to say, the MX150 in this configuration is incredible. It's miles ahead of the C48 and the AV7005 in direct analog mode. I'm still listening to the MX150 now and have to say it's definitely got a quality 2 channel preamp section. So much so that I've given up (for now) on my C1000 quest.

Very few pre amps fare very well when you compare them to the dac2's direct out to the amp. OK guess I solved the questions myself duh looked in the manual again. I guess I never went to far with tweaking the voicing and sound stage settings etc.:music: I will need to connect the laptop and do some long sessions and create several custom options of the menu so that I can go back and fourth to compare. I know it all depends on the music, source etc and your mood of how you are listening etc. But I know I should be able to make some nice changes to allow for better separation, dynamics and staging of depth etc. I put together a 1 page list of the options, and the settings overviews.:thumbsup.

You're right about all signals being put through the MX150's DAC. Here's the response I got from Ron C.: 'DSP bypass eliminates the DSP processing section which also eliminated Room Perfect from stereo so I never use it. All signals are digitized in the MX150 which is capable of doing this transparently.' ' Not sure I agree that it sounds better in 2 channel mode when RP is engaged as Ron prefers. But it certainly makes a difference when listening in 5.1. I personally prefer my 2 channel to sound as pure to the source as possible and not processed / corrected.

To each their own. Bryan: so it seems we are confirmed that the mx150 does not actually function as a pure preamp. Once again Mac leaves me scratching my head. I would think that people that can afford an mx150 would also likely have a very CD/SACD player and might like to hear the DAC in those units as well. Even the not-very-expensive W4S dac2 and OPPO BDP95 may sound better directly, but certainly a Playback Design, Berkeley Audio Design, EMM Labs, Esoteric, etc, stands a good chance of being better. Why limit that capability? Sounds very much like the strange HT Bypass process with Mac preamps and equally strange analog bypass in the mx121 (although at least the mx121 offers the option).

'should be common knowledge'. Obviously for several of us it wasn't. I've also had a bit more time to listen to the MX150 now in 'pure stereo' and other modes and have gone back to using my Wyred4Sound DAC2 in HT Bypass mode. The DAC2 just sounds better.

I guess I'd be pretty happy if it could drive my setup at high volume, but the gain is not that much. I'm using balanced outputs which gave me a bit more, but it's just not that high.

I will offer that the MX150 sounds much better than the C48 in 2 channel listening. Looks like the preamp search is back on. 'should be common knowledge'. Obviously for several of us it wasn't. I've also had a bit more time to listen to the MX150 now in 'pure stereo' and other modes and have gone back to using my Wyred4Sound DAC2 in HT Bypass mode. The DAC2 just sounds better. I guess I'd be pretty happy if it could drive my setup at high volume, but the gain is not that much.

I'm using balanced outputs which gave me a bit more, but it's just not that high. I will offer that the MX150 sounds much better than the C48 in 2 channel listening.

Looks like the preamp search is back on. Bryan, not to beat this horse to death (although I'm clearly doing a good job of it, lol), but please elaborate what hookup/settings you are using when you say the W4S Dac2 sounds better. As I've been trying to ascertain, and Kal has verified, it seems all incoming signals (no matter what setting) are re-digitized, which to me means you are ultimately hearing the mx150 dacs and not the source dacs. So I'm curious what you are hearing and why? Is it possible that the W4S dac is somehow 'cleaning up' the signal and giving the Mac Dac a better feed? Pardon my ignorance, but I can easily understand the issue with the MX150 not being ideal for analog sources but with digital sources whether from a music server or from CD's or the cloud, it would seem to me that keeping it totally in the digital domain until it hits the DACs on the way to the amps would keep the signal purer than taking a digital source and a dedicated DAC and doing a D-A conversion, then letting the MX150 do an A-D conversion AND THEN ANOTHER D-A conversion to send the music to the amps.

IOW, there are two less conversions from digital sources using the MX150 as a preamp. Help me out here as to why the audio quality would be improved by employing a dedicated DAC and feeding that to the MX150 to convert to digital only to have it converted again to analog. Confused:scratch2: Thanks, MikeSp. Actually, I may have misunderstood Bryan.

In re-reading his last post, I believe he may be using the W4S Dac2 as his preamp and NOT using the mx150 at all for 2 channel music. In other words, whatever his 2 chanel source, it is going directly into the W4S (maybe as dac but definitely as preamp) and then into his amps. HT processor L/R signal passes thru his W4S via HT Bypass. Bryan, is this correct? Jeff, you're exactly right. The W4S has a built-in preamp and can actually do HT Bypass/Unity Gain.

In this scenario the W4S actually is last in line to my two MC601's. The Mx150 feeds the F/R F/L to the W4S and when I want to listen to HomeTheater/MX150 I just put the W4S into HT/Bypass mode. When listening to the W4S as a direct preamp/DAC it is fed by JRiver MC in Kernel Streaming (thus I'm able to listen to up to 24bit 192K digital). From all my listening, nothing has yet to rival this solution. When I set the W4S DAC2 to fixed output and feed a preamp, the sound just is never as good. Thus far, I've had a C48, 2300, Anthem D2V, and MX150 (and Av7005, but I never had high hopes for it). Guess I'm picky;) I've heard that the ARC MP1 is pretty awesome for something like what I'm looking for and have even read Kal's favorable comments on the MP1.

@Kal - Would you please comment further as what I've read is pretty brief? I think the MP1 has a future in my setup. IMHO, the Room Perfect implementation in the MX150 is much better than ARC in the Anthem D2V. It just sounds better with 2 channel music. Perhaps it's the DAC? I could actually get to enjoy the MX150 in 2 channel with RP, but could never get that far with ARC. Bryan, I'm looking in the same direction.

I'm thinking I can get the Integra DHC 80.3 for movies, and with the advanced Audyssey XT32, it should sound at least as good as anything else on movies. Then move to a multi-channel preamp for multi and 2 channel music. Some discontinued models include the BelCanto Pre6, the MP1 you mentioned, the McCormack MAP1, and the Conrad Johnson MET1.

The problem with each of them is that, if you want to run both your source and your pre-pro through them (which you will need to do to use the same amps), you will need to find their 'unity gain' (pure pass thru) to ensure the signal is not being attenuated. Supposedly it is typically around the '12 oclock' setting on the preamp, but not sure. Somebody smarter than me can surely better explain this. Unity gain is what an HT Bypass switch or input does for you automatically. None of these aforementioned units have HT Bypass. However, there is one (and I believe only one) currently produced unit that does provide this: the Parasound Halo P7, which provides one balanced stereo input, and 2 sets of 7.1 inputs. Both sets of 7.1 inputs have HT Bypass ability, so this seems to be the perfect solution.

The BIG question: how do they sound, especially the P7, which is a bargain at $2,000? And so you surely have, Kal. Obviously we would greatly appreciate your input. You were kind enough to respond to my thread on AVS regarding lesser pre/pros with RC compared to higher end pre/pros without RC, so this is a sort of continuation of that discussion, if you will. While either Bryan or I will start a mch preamp thread over at the General Audio section (maybe preamp/amps threads), it sure does seem like a combination of a good 'pure' mch preamp (such as those listed above) and a mid-priced pre/pro with excellent RC/EQ like the Integra DHC 80.3 may very well achieve more in totality (movies, mch music via SACD or BR or DVD, 2 ch music) than even some of the best pre/pros. I say this based on a lot of research and discussions that reveal flaws in just about every processor available, as relates to their attempts to be truly one-box solutions (flaws include: not as good as pure preamps, digitize all inputs, marginal or no auto RC/EQ, some or even significant EQ but no auto-aspect, complicated or pro-only set-up/operation, etc, etc.). You may have seen my 'diatribe' (maybe I was a little harsh, but purely fueled by frustration) at James Tanner regarding Bryston's steadfast refusal to provide even EQ, let alone any auto RC like Audyssey, in their otherwise outstanding new SP3 processor.

You seem to have loved it as it is, and have a 2nd installment of the review upcoming, but even you took issue with him over this in that thread. So, is an Integra DHC 80.3 coupled with a Parasound P7, CJ MET1 competitive with the likes of this SP3, Classe SSP800, Mac MX150 or even the Arcam AV888?