I want my next purchase to be mcintosh, i pretty much have that sorted out... If i want to go for the mx134/5 with an mc206 it is going to cost almost double what the mht200 will. Thus require me to wait a very long while before i make the purcahse.

In terms of the mht200, what is the difference between input resolution of 24bit 192khz and 24bit 96khz. Is this a noticiable difference? what would have a output resolution of >96khz that i would be hooking up?

The mx134/5 has a video upconverter, the mht200 does not. Is the upconverter *that great. Is it going to upconvert all types of video signals? I can not find any information on this...

Thanks guys.

but what will it transcode ect.

It's for switching convenience. It's not a signal improvement issue. It just allows you to run a single output cable to your TV/monitor and convert signals to run on that cable.

For instance, you run component video output cable from receiver to TV. For input, you accept component video from the DVD player, S-video from satellite TV converter box, and composite video from your old VCR. The "upconversion" means that you don't need a corresponding S-video or composite cable output to the TV.

I'm curious about the rest of your system. And what may I ask has got you looking at McIntosh for a multi-channel set up?

Brian

I've known several people who have owned Macintosh gear. They claimed to be audiophiles, but their speakers weren't set up for any sort of imaging. So I have to take their opinions with some grains of salt.

It seems that Macintosh owners are very passionate about their systems and brand loyalty. But I never heard a convincing audition of the gear. The stuff is more expensive than brands like B&K, Adcom, and Aragon. But is it any better?
In amplifiers for example, the Aragon 8008 has always been one of the top rated amplifiers on the market at ANY price. While the 8008 is not exactly inexpensive at >$2000, it is a bargain compared with most Macintosh amps.

I'm serious here. What is it about Macintosh gear that people love so much?

Thanks,
P.

you mentioned. Mechanically they are superb. And their electronics are well thought out - especially their amps.
They seem to lag the latest stuff though - like digital switching for video, and no SACD or digital output for their DVD players.

You should stop in a store that carries them and spend some time listening.

on the same level as Krell, ARC, Conrad-Johnson. I prefer the tube-driven models but their SS gear is as bulletproof as they come.

setups for 2 channel and then started shopping for multichannel, bc, well basically I need to compromise and have a system that can do both...
from what i understand thier multichannel outputs just as well as a 2 channel system...

I am open to other brands, but have a feeling i will sacrafice 2 channel sound with other brands multichannel setups.

Very few actresses will do DVDA these days.

It said upconverting so I called it upconverting. I know what you are saying but this isn't my line of business. That's why I kept putting upconverting in quotation marks. Still, I think my explanation let everyone know what I was talking about.

So what is upconverting anyway?

Transcoding is quite simply the process of passing the signal through a different interface. Minimal processing is done to the signal.

Upconverting is a form of scaling. Video signals can be scaled electronically to match the resolution to the display unit.
For example, in conference settings, we almost always use 1024x768 for our projectors because it is the most universal.

If a presenter brings me a laptop which uses a higher resolution (eg my Dell Inspiron 8000 has a max resolution of 1400x1050) I will scale it down to 1024x768. Likewise, if someone has a laptop which for some reason requires 800x600, I will scale it up to 1024x768. That is also called upconverting.

Or to take my home theatre... I am running an interlaced s-video signal from my receiver to my projector. However I have a scan doubler which upconverts to RGBHV and 720p. An upconverted signal is processed -- the scaler is basically extrapolating from the given data. So the output will not be as good as a native signal. But even with the artifacts, it is usually better than the lower signal, depending on your tolerance.

Cheers,
P.