Can you provide some links where receivers measured better than processors? I'd find that interesting. Just curious... not calling you a liar here.
Wow, thanks for not calling me a liar, that's something I don't do, though of course I could have misstated things from time to time unintentionally and/or unknowingly.
ADTG has already provided you the source so you can see the measurements for yourself. I have compiled a comparison table of the AVRs, AVPs Amir has tested so far. The Denon AVR-X8500H current ranks top, and 4 other Denons are in the top 10. The Marantz AV7705 is way down on the chart/table but did do quite well at lower output (2.4 V XLR, or 1.2 V RCA). The Emotiva RMC-1 ranks 3rd and the $6,000 JBL SDP-55 ranks 13th, based on THD+N measured at the pre-out at 2V RCA or 4V XLR, just to give you some ideas.
So based on measurable facts, more expensive, and/or separate components, do not always equal "better" based on measurable performance. On the subjective side, all bets are off, and/but "subjective" is not measurable, can't prove, can't debate on that front. That's why like most other engineers, I tend to ignore hearsay, and focus on calculable and/or measurable facts. Engineers design products base on know scientific facts, principles and measurable performance, people who sale such products usually (obvious there are exceptions) don't understand the technical stuff, but obviously they are the one who influenced/biased potential buyers, not the engineers who work in the background.
If you are interested in learning more about the technical/objective side, Hometheaterhifi.com has a 5 parts article on AVR builds, highly recommended. I don't believe everything on that article are 100% correct as some of those were not completely unbiased, but I would say most of it are well based on facts.
Below is the link to Part I of the five part article I mentioned earlier, about AVR/AVP builds:
AVR - Audio Video Receiver - Build Quality: Part 1
hometheaterhifi.com
Are you saying that the Marantz technologies actually sound worse than Denon, because of HDAM?
No I have never said such a thing, and never will. Let me emphasize an important point again, that is, "sound better", "sound worse" are a subjective in nature. I will say though, that because it is subjective, so even if something does "sound better" to you, it may not, or may even "sound worse" to others.
I prefer to focus on specifications and measurements, that are verifiable by precision instruments. For example, if Gene found the SR8015's pre out THD+N measured 0.001% at 2 V (I just pick a number as an example), another competent bench test site, such as HTHI, ASR will not likely report 0.01% on their benches, though it would be reasonable to see some slight variations due to the inexact conditions under which the device was measured, and there would have to be slight variations between devices of the same model anyway.
My comments were about the possibilities that the HDAM buffer stage, being right at the end of the pre out signal path, may actually result in higher distortions overall, based on the HTFI review comments, and at least one ASR member who seems knowledgeable in amplifier design. Aside from that, as an EE myself, I do understand the logic that a well design buffer is not an EQ. In this case it doesn't even amplify because the gain is "1", so all it does is to affect the output impedance and/or allowing the pre out to clip at higher output level. All these things are measurable, yet measurements so far did not show better results. One thing for sure, an extra stage must result in higher THD+N because there is no such thing as perfect/ideal amplifier, buffer or not, not even the best available op amp IC, let alone a discrete opamp that the HDAM basically is. So while I was only quoting others, I do believe they are right, as it is logical that an extra buffer stage would add distortions and noise of it's own. The only question is, what benefits it would bring, and that's the part that I looked for supporting evidence, and found none so far. Now the HDAMs circuitry and applications used in Marantz integrated amps are quite different so the resulting benefits could be different too.
Below is just one reference on the HDAM (specific to AVRs/AVPs only)related topic:
The AV8805 is the latest generation flagship A/V processor and preamp from Marantz. Featuring support for up to 13.2 channels of immersive sound, the...
hometheaterhifi.com
In the paragraph just before the "Conclusions" heading, the author commented:
"Harmonic distortion has not improved from the AV8802 to the AV8805 as was expected from the new chips. The change in the worst-case THD specification between the chips used in the AV8802 and AV8805 points to a 50% distortion reduction. We know the distortion is not from the AKM AK4490 DAC since the THD increased as we changed the output level from 2VRMS to 4VRMS with the volume control.
It is possible the HDAM discrete circuits past the new analog ICs are the dominant distortion source. The only way to find out is to open up the case and start probing internal boards which is not something we do here at Secrets."
That is not to say it made the unit sound worse than anything, in fact the review concluded that:
“The Marantz AV8805 is an outstanding 13.2-channel processor and is highly recommended.”
Measurements are not always about sounding better or worse, and it isn't hard for today's mid to high end AVRs, AVPs to have THD+N good enough to fall below the threshold of audibility, unfortunately, more people would still buy in to marketing hypes such as HDAM, AL32, flag ship DAC ICs, 1% tolerance resistors, audiophile grade caps, toroidal transformers, copper shielding, gold plated connectors, exotic interconnect cables, fully differential balanced circuitry etc etc etc.... I went back from a >$3,000 Marantz flag ship AVP to a $1,200 AVR and am very happy about the decision.
