Anthem MRX-700 or Yamaha RX-A3010

[DS-21]

Why? Because it has ARC?

The Yamaha RX-A1010 outperforms the MRX300 in every way in terms of electrical measurements.

The electrical differences aren't going to be audible. But ARC vs. YPAO will.

I remember reading that the ARC in their MRX line isn't the same as that in the preprocessors. I don't remember the differences, but factor that into the value equation.

The AVR has a little less horsepower, and only corrects up to 5kHz.

 

[PENG]

I've never experienced with Anthem before. But if their support is "high-end", then it might be worth it.

I had, and was a little disappointed with their tech support. For AVR I would stick with Denon as I think they are well balanced in terms of look, feature set, sound quality, noise levels, fw updates, power, efficiency, price and reliability.

 

[mjcmt]

So I don't see how the Anthem 700 is a "cleaner audiophile receiver" than the Yamaha 3010 if even the Yamaha RX-A2000 outperforms the Anthem MRX-700 in just about every single aspect.

This review is pretty convincing to me.
Anthem MRX-700 Review | Digital Trends

 

[mjcmt]

This review is pretty convincing to me.
Anthem MRX-700 Review | Digital Trends

Also these reviews too:
Anthem MRX 700 A/V Receiver
Anthem MRX 700 A/V Receiver | Home Theater

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

This review is pretty convincing to me.
Anthem MRX-700 Review | Digital Trends

Also these reviews too:
Anthem MRX 700 A/V Receiver
Anthem MRX 700 A/V Receiver | Home Theater

And if they review Bose, they would rave about Bose too. So would Stereophile and any magazine who wants to make big money from adds.

This is why many of us only look at the measurements - the objective part and the only part that is not clouded by the dollar sign.

The subjective opinionated so-called "review" part is nothing more than adds for the companies.

So if you look at the measurements on Home Theater Magazine, even excluding the amp section, what you have left, although still incomplete, are the measurements of the pre-pro section. And then you can see that even the $500 Yamaha, Denon, Pioneer, and Onkyo outperform even the $2,000 MRX-700 in the pre-pro section.

But if you subjectively feel that ARC is better than Audyssey or other RC, then that's fine because you may be right. I have never used ARC, so I just don't know. Although I just can't imagine anything sounding better than the sound I'm hearing now - absolutely crystal clear and detailed sound and image with large soundstage.

To be complete, I've also heard some people say they don't think ARC is any better than Audyssey after they've compared the 2 RC.

But objectively (via available measurements), even a $500 AVR outperforms the $2,000 Anthem (if you exclude ARC).

So perhaps DS-21 is absolutely correct when he said the Anthem is basically a $500 AVR (or was it $300 ) with a $1500 ARC, or something like that (too lazy to look up: D).

 

[timoteo]

+1 for the Yammie!!!

I say that because I own one & have never heard an Anthem...so the Yamaha must be better

Just sayin!!!

 

[DS-21]

So if you look at the measurements on Home Theater Magazine, even excluding the amp section, what you have left, although still incomplete, are the measurements of the pre-pro section. And then you can see that even the $500 Yamaha, Denon, Pioneer, and Onkyo outperform even the $2,000 MRX-700 in the pre-pro section.

IMO, AVR review measurements don't adequately cover their performance.

What they really need to do is also take a measurement (perhaps even of just one main channel) in a standardized location with a standardized speaker (something decent but not necessarily great), showing the target curve as actually implemented by the room correction system when used as directed. That wouldn't be perfect, because for all of them there are tricks to get better results. But it least it would be something, given that the only area where these different boxes materially differ sonically is in their room correction hardware/software.

 

[mjcmt]

The INT 225 is a cool piece. Reasonably priced and scads of power. But IMO it's a bit large for a 2-channel box. 2-channel is really just for headphones, car audio (debatably), and "lifestyle" background music systems in 2012.

The 225 is not too large in general terms, maybe for a bedroom system I'll agree. And I enjoyed 2 channel just fine for other than headphones and background music. In fact I don't think I'm enjoying movies and tv anymore w/ surround sound than I did with a 2 channel system, but it may have to do with the type of movie I watch on occasion. Football games do seem well mixed for a surround sound experience though.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

IMO, AVR review measurements don't adequately cover their performance.

What they really need to do is also take a measurement (perhaps even of just one main channel) in a standardized location with a standardized speaker (something decent but not necessarily great), showing the target curve as actually implemented by the room correction system when used as directed. That wouldn't be perfect, because for all of them there are tricks to get better results. But it least it would be something, given that the only area where these different boxes materially differ sonically is in their room correction hardware/software.

I know Sean Olive compared some of the RC. Did he compare ARC vs Audyssey vs other RC?

Did he also look at the Harman version of RC? I had an HK AVR once. I tried it's RC. It sounded really bad.

 

[DS-21]

I know Sean Olive compared some of the RC. Did he compare ARC vs Audyssey vs other RC?

Yes.

He compared an earlier version of ARC (they've subsequently made some changes in the target curve in the bass) with the standalone Audyssey box (MultEQ XT; no DynamicEQ) and the Lyngdorf room correction box, as well as two different calibrations (single-seat optimized and multi-seat optimized) of the system they use for the flagship JBL Synthesis system.

The JBL systems came out of top. Lyngdorf was second. ARC was statistically the same as no EQ. Audyssey was the only system worse than no EQ.

(I had thought, based on knowledge of the current ARC target curve, that ARC was 2d. Somebody who visited Harman's labs in CA corrected me on that at some point. Lyngdorf was 2d. That bodes well for the forthcoming Emotiva pre-pro, perhaps.)

Now, I suspect that the current ARC target curve, with an appropriate room gain setting (a variable one can change), would be preferred to no EQ; the biggest complaint people had about ARC was that it sounded "thin," "forward," "bright." Likewise, I suspect Audyssey DynamicEQ could be employed to make Audyssey preferred over no EQ, though Audyssey also got demerits for being "colored," "thin," and "harsh." (See slide 19, supra)

From the objective measurements, those comments make sense. ARC and Audyssey were the only two that dialed out the natural room gain. (See slide 23, supra.)

Did he also look at the Harman version of RC? I had an HK AVR once. I tried it's RC. It sounded really bad.

That doesn't surprise me. Harman's been a big disappointment in terms of electronics, IMO. They haven't really put the great research they've done into use. Unlike Anthem, they haven't trickled down their RC research into reasonably-priced products. (The EzSet EQ in their AVR's struck me as half-baked, too.) And their BassQ, while interesting, is (was?) expensive and fairly limited in capacity. Harman really needs to up its game and translate the excellent research of Dr. Olive, Welti, Devantier, and others into room correction and multisubs ("sound field management) into actual shipping products. And not just at the Synthesis level, but in the low four-figure AVR market.

 

[3db]

IMO, AVR review measurements don't adequately cover their performance.

What they really need to do is also take a measurement (perhaps even of just one main channel) in a standardized location with a standardized speaker (something decent but not necessarily great), showing the target curve as actually implemented by the room correction system when used as directed. That wouldn't be perfect, because for all of them there are tricks to get better results. But it least it would be something, given that the only area where these different boxes materially differ sonically is in their room correction hardware/software.

Thats off course one's hearing is standard too.

 

[DS-21]

Thats off course one's hearing is standard too.

What does that have to do with anything I actually wrote, which was an idea for an objective comparison of room correction systems?

Room correction systems, loudness compensation/dynamic compression software, and various "DSP listening modes" are really the only things in modern AVR's that actually do cause real sonic differences between them.

It's no different from on-axis and polar measurements of loudspeakers, really.

My premise is that things known to cause sonic differences - because, in this case, of variances in frequency response - should be measured. Otherwise, we're just shooting in the dark.

The standard speaker and room (for a given testing forum, that is to say HTMag might have their own setup, Stereophile might have their own, etc.) is just to provide a basis for comparing the target curves of different systems, and the efficacy of their measurement + EQ systems in actually reaching their intended target curve in a standardized situation.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

flagship JBL Synthesis system came out on top.

So how much is the JBL RC?

Lyngdorf was second. ARC was statistically the same as no EQ. Audyssey was the only system worse than no EQ.

See, I knew I wasn't crazy for not using Audyssey.

Well, even if the flagship JBL RC improves SQ, the question is "how much" ?

I guess for those with "terrible" room acoustics, it might be significant and worth it. But for relatively decent rooms?

 

[3db]

What does that have to do with anything I actually wrote, which was an idea for an objective comparison of room correction systems?

Room correction systems, loudness compensation/dynamic compression software, and various "DSP listening modes" are really the only things in modern AVR's that actually do cause real sonic differences between them.

It's no different from on-axis and polar measurements of loudspeakers, really.

My premise is that things known to cause sonic differences - because, in this case, of variances in frequency response - should be measured. Otherwise, we're just shooting in the dark.

The standard speaker and room (for a given testing forum, that is to say HTMag might have their own setup, Stereophile might have their own, etc.) is just to provide a basis for comparing the target curves of different systems, and the efficacy of their measurement + EQ systems in actually reaching their intended target curve in a standardized situation.

Because you base all your opinion on objective graphs. However, all this objectiveness can be tossed out the window if a person's hearing doesn't fit the norm. Hearing/listening is subjective and one's man meat can be another man's poison. Don't be so absolute in your arguments. What you find unaccetpable with Audessy may work very well for someone else.

 

[cpp]

AcuDefTechGuy are you talking about JBL's 'ARCOS Adaptive Room Correction and Optimization System'

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

AcuDefTechGuy are you talking about JBL's 'ARCOS Adaptive Room Correction and Optimization System'

Sounds a little too rich for my poor taste.

Anyway, I think the best stance is to try out the RC (whether it's Audyssey, ARC, or others). Then compare and see which works best. If the RC sounds best, then, of course, use the RC. If not, then don't use RC. But we may all have different results, so we probably should never say that there is only one correct way or one best RC.

As PENG pointed out to me, the engineer professor PhD who is responsible for the Audyssey is very intelligent with many years of experience. I'm sure he knows a thing or two about RC and mathematics, physics, electrical theories and all that engineering stuff that most of us will never truly grasp no matter how many books we read. I know I'll never understand it.

 

[DS-21]

So how much is the JBL RC?

Too rich for my blood.

I think that if I'm going to spend that much for room correction, I'd go with the 8-channel ADA Trinnov unit. Alas, it costs like $1250 a channel. Still, a cheap AVR with preouts for source switching and codec decoding, the Trinnov box for room correction, and actively biamped mains...that sounds fun!

Well, even if the flagship JBL RC improves SQ, the question is "how much" ?

I guess for those with "terrible" room acoustics, it might be significant and worth it. But for relatively decent rooms?

My experience is consistently that it's still significant and worth it. Even when one already has mains that have controlled midrange directivity and are properly placed, along with multisubs calibrated to give ± 2dB performance (variance excludes any boost from "house curve") from 20-200Hz.

And yes, that includes Audyssey, though that's mostly because one needs to run the Audyssey calibration to access their really cool bit of software, DynamicEQ. That's a godsend for people who often listen at lower levels.

Others may differ.

Because you base all your opinion on objective graphs.

No. I base my opinion on actual personal experience with several different room correction systems.

Note that ARC, Audyssey (home and car!), and Trinnov are all represented in my room correction mike pile.

(And yes, despite all that audio kit there's still money in that little Montblanc wallet. )

Pioneer, Yamaha, and sadly Harman Kardon don't have serious products on the market, so I've seen no reason to give them a spin. Though one mike is actually missing, I guess: the receiver part of the Pioneer Elite EX500 AVR and SACD/DVD-A player set I've kept in my old bedroom at my parents' house since 2005 or so has an early-2000s variant of their RC system, M-whatever. It has a little bubble mike so unsophisticated that it has a clip on the back: not even a threaded hole for a tripod! That RC is, as one would expect, somewhere between ineffectual and deleterious.

Besides, reviewers providing meaningful objective data won't stop people from preferring one thing over the other, will it? Many people still seem to like crappy speakers with big sound power problems in the midrange, don't they?

Now. if your argument is simply that seeing the data will lead to perceptual bias towards the flatter ones (or alternately, towards the ones with more bass), that's more interesting. I think that may well be true, but I don't particularly care.

 

[3db]

No. I base my opinion on actual personal experience with several different room correction systems.

I see. What room corrections did you personally test? Also, I didn't realize your hearing set the standard for everyone else.

 

[DS-21]

I see. What room corrections did you personally test?

Did the picture not show up? I currently use ARC and Trinnov at home and Audyssey MultEQ XT in my daily driver. I used to have two Audyssey boxes at home as well.

My "hearing" is probably less of a relevant factor making my results less-than-valid for the masses than the fact that most people have crappy speakers with serious sound power problems in the midrange (that whole "tweeter on a 180deg waveguide" problem) and I only use loudspeakers of competent design.

I'm having trouble understanding why you object so strenuously to provision of actual data on the nature of different room correction systems' target curves, and their measurement/EQ systems' competence to reach their target curves.

 

[3db]

Did the picture not show up? I currently use ARC and Trinnov at home and Audyssey MultEQ XT in my daily driver. I used to have two Audyssey boxes at home as well.

So you didn't test YPAO or Pioneer's MMAC and yet you are commenting on them about their effectiveness? Nice

My "hearing" is probably less of a relevant factor making my results less-than-valid for the masses than the fact that most people have crappy speakers with serious sound power problems in the midrange (that whole "tweeter on a 180deg waveguide" problem) and I only use loudspeakers of competent design.

I'm having trouble understanding why you object so strenuously to provision of actual data on the nature of different room correction systems' target curves, and their measurement/EQ systems' competence to reach their target curves.

Most people have crappy speakers? Wow You really must know your stuff then to generalize like that. I have problems with your generalizations and then using them as absolutes to support your arguements. Just sayin aka if a listener has a problem hearing properly with a room correction achieiving its targetted curves, then its not very useful to that listener is it? Listening is subjective. I don't use a room correction at all when listening to two channel music. I prefer it that way. I find room correction makes it far too lean for my tastes. I'm among many who like to hear their music unprocessed. Its personal and subjective and room corrections achieving targetted goals are meaningless.

I do support your idea of seeing how well each room correction does in its design out of curiosity. However, there are many other things I hold as more important than room correction in AVR. We had this arguement before nd I'm not going down there again.