# MiniDSP AVR nano DL vs Processors with DIRAC



## fbczar (Apr 2, 2010)

I Would like to know if Kal, or any of you with experience with the MIniDSP 2, would rather have the stand-alone AVRnano DL or if it would be better to have a processor that uses Dirac. I have a Denon 3312ci and was considering the Emotiva XMC-1 unless the MiniDSP's flexibility and sound quality make a high quality processor unnecessary.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

fbczar said:


> I Would like to know if Kal, or any of you with experience with the MIniDSP 2, would rather have the stand-alone AVRnano DL or if it would be better to have a processor that uses Dirac. I have a Denon 3312ci and was considering the Emotiva XMC-1 unless the MiniDSP's flexibility and sound quality make a high quality processor unnecessary.


Here's a generic answer: If one presumes that the actual processing/correction in the two options is identical, then it is always preferable to have everything in one box. It eliminates connections/cables and helps insure level and format compatibility.

I have no specific answer.


----------



## selden (Nov 15, 2009)

The NanoAVR works only for PCM over HDMI -- i.e. for only one of your source devices.

The new $1K DDRC-88A provides Dirac EQ for 8-channels of analog audio. In other words, it works with any pre/pro or AVR with preamp outputs, going between it and the amps driving your speakers. If you have more than 8 channels, use two of them. 

See http://www.minidsp.com/products/dirac-series/ddrc-88a

My understanding is that Emotiva is still having problems actually delivering Dirac.


----------

