Anthem MRX 1140 vs Denon AVR-X8500H

[ciotime]

Planning to upgrade to a 9.2.4 HT setup. Can't decide between the Anthem MRX 1140 vs Denon AVR-X8500H. Not exactly the same specs and price point but so far have narrowed my picks to these 2. Thanks.

 

[Cos]

As a Anthem/Paradigm Fan, if I was looking for a receiver I would still go with the Denon X8500H or X8500HA if you need 4k/120fps for gaming. It reviewed very well on www.audiosciencereview.com

Denon AVR-X8500H AVR Review | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

Note if you are doing 9.2.4 the Anthem unit only has 11 channels of amplification, so you would need to use an external amp for 2 channels.

 

[ciotime]

As a Anthem/Paradigm Fan, if I was looking for a receiver I would still go with the Denon X8500H or X8500HA if you need 4k/120fps for gaming. It reviewed very well on www.audiosciencereview.com

Denon AVR-X8500H AVR Review | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

Note if you are doing 9.2.4 the Anthem unit only has 11 channels of amplification, so you would need to use an external amp for 2 channels.

Thanks...I don't do gaming. I'm mainly 90% movies 10% music. I currently am using an X3700H for a 7.3.4 setup with a McIntosh 2 ch Integrated Amp powering my 2 front's.

 

[PENG]

Thanks...I don't do gaming. I'm mainly 90% movies 10% music. I currently am using an X3700H for a 7.3.4 setup with a McIntosh 2 ch Integrated Amp powering my 2 front's.

What are you powering the other 9 channels with at the moment?

 

[ciotime]

What are you powering the other 9 channels with at the moment?

I also have a 5 ch Buckeye amp which is powering the Center+4 Atmos speakers. So the Denon is powering only the 4 ear level surrounds. So only the side/rear surrounds are connected to the Denon's speaker binding post.

 

[PENG]

I also have a 5 ch Buckeye amp which is powering the Center+4 Atmos speakers. So the Denon is powering only the 4 ear level surrounds. So only the side/rear surrounds are connected to the Denon's speaker binding post.

Okay, in that case the X8500HA is really a good choice because it is probably the only AVR that allows you to disconnect each power amp channel from the pre out on individual basis, without using the all or none preamp mode.

That means you can use any of its internal amps for the less demanding channels and then disconnect the remaining ones (from the pre outs) where you will be using the McIntosh and Buckeye amps to get the best performance of the pre outs. As you know, the X8500H (the HA should be just as good) is still on top of the ASR chart ranked by SINAD. Its power amp section is also much more powerful then the MRX-1140's 60 WPC for the surround and height channels.

 

[Cos]

I did not know you could disconnect each AMP individually on the X8500H, that makes it much easier to use as a pre/pro or hybrid. Such a great feature, you can save on amps, just have the unit do the ATMOS Channels. That is reason for me to consider it over a pre/pro.

 

[Pogre]

Wish I had the funds for a 8500. It is a really nice unit. At my budget level tho, the extra money above and beyond a 3700 does me much better toward the speakers.

 

[Pogre]

I did not know you could disconnect each AMP individually on the X8500H, that makes it much easier to use as a pre/pro or hybrid. Such a great feature, you can save on amps, just have the unit do the ATMOS Channels. That is reason for me to consider it over a pre/pro.

Yeah, I didn't know that ether. What a great feature.

 

[tparm]

I’ll add my $0.02 here. I went form a Denon A110 to Emotiva RMC-1L to landing recently on an Anthem AVM 70. I like the Denon models, that are easy to use, have great bass management and a pure analog path in Pure Direct.

An aside, everyone gets wrapped up about what DACs a unit has. All three of the products mentioned above have AKM 4490s (at least the builds I had/have do) which I believe isn’t nearly as important as their implementation and the units build quality. I should also add I don’t care about HDMI 2.1, eARC or CEC as none of those apply to my system. Lastly, a lot of people will say you can’t hear the difference from a piece of equipment to another. This is kinda sorta true but not totally. I’ll expand on this below but in all modes my RMC sounded better than the A110 and with ARC engaged the Anthem is superior to both of my other units.

With that out of the way, with the Denon and Emotiva I used Pure Direct / Reference Stereo for 2CH listening. I have a Gustard external DAC that I ran a Node though. Because of the ease of use of ARC in my Anthem I decided to set up a 2CH HiFi profile and a 2.2CH profile. I switched the signal from analog (external DAC) to converted to digital with both ARC engaged and off. I was surprised to find I preferred the sound with the signal digitized (using the “inferior” internal Anthem DAC) and with ARC engaged.

Then I did the unthinkable and set up the 2.2CH profile and this is now how I listen to two channel music. Because of this I have been playing around with Spatial files through my Apple TV and some sound amazing.

A lot of people here will talk about placebo affect, blah blah. I have recentlay sold my A110 and the RMC-1L because to me, in my room, the Anthem sounds best. The WebUI is also awesome. The Gustard DAC is now in my garage system. I believe measurements are important and tell a part of the story (mostly relating to engineering and build quality and no sound quality). Nothing replaces a properly set up room, speaker and sub placement and treatments if you are able, my room is thoroughly treated using tons or REW sweeps, allowing room correction to do nothing more than fine tune your system.

I guess I’ve rambled on, but to me the Anthem is superior option. It’s super easy to use, ARC is great and very flexible for setting up multiple profiles, and the build quality seems excellent.

 

[PENG]

A lot of people here will talk about placebo affect, blah blah. I have recentlay sold my A110 and the RMC-1L because to me, in my room, the Anthem sounds best. The WebUI is also awesome. The Gustard DAC is now in my garage system. I believe measurements are important and tell a part of the story (mostly relating to engineering and build quality and no sound quality). Nothing replaces a properly set up room, speaker and sub placement and treatments if you are able, my room is thoroughly treated using tons or REW sweeps, allowing room correction to do nothing more than fine tune your system.

A lot of people here and elsewhere will also talk about things like: it is what you hear, and implementation that matters....not which ICs, or measurements... blablabla... As I always maintain, that one cannot argue about what one hears. It is impossible to prove or measure the validity of subjective measurements. Objective measurements are provable and repeatable. Also, engineers who design the best audio gear rely on facts and theory, and to them measurements are indispensable, though of course they also do listening tests. That reminds me of what I read about Peter Walker's once said in an interview (quoted below) many years ago. On your point of the choice of the DAC chip vs implementation, I would consider both important, and it would seem like not a good idea for a manufacturer who claim better implementation, but would opt for a lesser DAC IC. Wouldn't it make more sense to not give their competitor an excuse and marketing advantage by using a comparable or better DAC IC? Or they simply use "implementation" as an excuse when the real reason for not using a better IC is mainly the all important "cost"?

For those interested, Peter Walker, a highly regarded engineer apparently once said the following in an interview with the Audio Amateur in 1978 in the Quad factory:

https://geocities.restorativland.org/ResearchTriangle/Lab/6722/pwint1.txt

PW: We designed our valve (tube) amplifier, manufactured it, and put it on the
market, and never actually listened to it. In fact, the same applies to the 303 and
the 405. People say, "Well that's disgusting, you ought to have listened to it."
However, we do a certain amount of listening tests, but they are for specific
things. We listen to the differential distortion - does a certain thing matter?
You've got to have a listening test to sort out whether it matters. You've got to do
tests to sort out whether rumble is likely to overload pickup inputs, or whether
very high frequency stuff coming out of the pickup due to record scratch is going
to disturb the control unit. But we aren't sitting down listening to Beethoven's
Fifth and saying, "That amplifier sounds better, let's change a resistor or two. Oh
yes, that's now better still." We never sit down and listen to a music record
through an amplifier in the design stage. We listen to funny noises, funny
distortions, and see whether these things are going to matter, to get a subjective
assessment. But we don't actually listen to program material at all.

For those who don't know how good Peter Walker and the Quad 303, 405 were, just ask @TLS Guy and I am sure he will have good things to say about him and those amps.

Subjective measurements of "sound quality" is subjective and will naturally vary among the individual listeners. Even then, it would likely be not deemed reliable by most experts if not done in a controlled DBT session. And then if you throw in the effects of different DSP functions including Room EQ, it just gets so complicated that it would be impossible to conclude one way or another. Even just to compare using direct mode, not too many hobbyist would have the resource to try several or more different AVPs in order to find out which one they prefer as it would be very time consuming even if money is not an issue. Going by specs and measurements would seem like a reasonable/viable alternative imo. Good engineering and build quality should lead to good sound quality too in terms of accuracy/transparency. Again, at least one design engineer, Mr. Walker seemed to agree.

By the way, I also might have suggested the OP to consider the Anthem AVM70 too but he seems to be considering the MRX-1140, not the AVM70.

 

[ciotime]

A lot of people here and elsewhere will also talk about things like: it is what you hear, and implementation that matters....not which ICs, or measurements... blablabla... As I always maintain, that one cannot argue about what one hears. It is impossible to prove or measure the validity of subjective measurements. Objective measurements are provable and repeatable. Also, engineers who design the best audio gear rely on facts and theory, and to them measurements are indispensable, though of course they also do listening tests. That reminds me of what I read about Peter Walker's once said in an interview (quoted below) many years ago. On your point of the choice of the DAC chip vs implementation, I would consider both important, and it would seem like not a good idea for a manufacturer who claim better implementation, but would opt for a lesser DAC IC. Wouldn't it make more sense to not give their competitor an excuse and marketing advantage by using a comparable or better DAC IC? Or they simply use "implementation" as an excuse when the real reason for not using a better IC is mainly the all important "cost"?

For those interested, Peter Walker, a highly regarded engineer apparently once said the following in an interview with the Audio Amateur in 1978 in the Quad factory:

https://geocities.restorativland.org/ResearchTriangle/Lab/6722/pwint1.txt

For those who don't know how good Peter Walker and the Quad 303, 405 were, just ask @TLS Guy and I am sure he will have good things to say about him and those amps.

Subjective measurements of "sound quality" is subjective and will naturally vary among the individual listeners. Even then, it would likely be not deemed reliable by most experts if not done in a controlled DBT session. And then if you throw in the effects of different DSP functions including Room EQ, it just gets so complicated that it would be impossible to conclude one way or another. Even just to compare using direct mode, not too many hobbyist would have the resource to try several or more different AVPs in order to find out which one they prefer as it would be very time consuming even if money is not an issue. Going by specs and measurements would seem like a reasonable/viable alternative imo. Good engineering and build quality should lead to good sound quality too in terms of accuracy/transparency. Again, at least one design engineer, Mr. Walker seemed to agree.

By the way, I also might have suggested the OP to consider the Anthem AVM70 too but he seems to be considering the MRX-1140, not the AVM70.

Thanks Peng. Actually the AVM70 is in consideration. It's just that at the moment I only have a 2X200wpc McIntosh integrated amp and a 4 ch Buckeye DIY amp. So for a 7.3.4 setup I would need an additional 5ch amp. And if in the future I'd wanna add wide's that's another 2 ch amp. That's why for now the MRX1140 seems more practical and budget friendly. But if you guys think that going for the AVM70 is the BETTER choice and that the extra cost of adding power amps to do this is worth it then I'm ok with that.

Also I checked the PREAMPLIFIER specs on the MRX1140 and the Maximum Output (<0.1% THD) is rated at 5.2 VRMS, 7.1VRMS. I don't quite understand why there's 2 values. Is this good enough to drive most power amps? I myself plan to use my McIntosh MA8900 to power the 2 front speakers.

 

[PENG]

Thanks Peng. Actually the AVM70 is in consideration. It's just that at the moment I only have a 2X200wpc McIntosh integrated amp and a 4 ch Buckeye DIY amp. So for a 7.3.4 setup I would need an additional 5ch amp. And if in the future I'd wanna add wide's that's another 2 ch amp. That's why for now the MRX1140 seems more practical and budget friendly. But if you guys think that going for the AVM70 is the BETTER choice and that the extra cost of adding power amps to do this is worth it then I'm ok with that.

Also I checked the PREAMPLIFIER specs on the MRX1140 and the Maximum Output (<0.1% THD) is rated at 5.2 VRMS, 7.1VRMS. I don't quite understand why there's 2 values. Is this good enough to drive most power amps? I myself plan to use my McIntosh MA8900 to power the 2 front speakers.

I found Anthem's documentation lacking, if you compare its manual with the X8500H, its 70 pages vs 360 pages and the Anthem manual covers all of their current AVRs.

My guess is that Anthem uses a low spec DAC IC, and possible other parts in the signal path for the channels other than the main 5 channels so the 5.2 V (still very good) would be for the secondary channels. We shouldn't guess, this is a legit question to ask Anthem's tech/customer support.

Based on specs and measurements only, if you are going to use the internal amps, then the X8500H is superior. If not, I think the AVM70 is an excellent alternative. The only thing I would do prior to making a final decision is to do your own research to find what you could collect online about Anthem's track record on bugs, fixes, after sale support based on customer feed backs.

AVRs/AVPs today are sophisticated device, they could be buggy and I don't think all the bugs could be found easily either as it/they may not show until you do certain things. So I tend to trust the big names such as D+M, Y, S, even O/I's AVRs/AVPs more and would therefore do a lot more detailed research on the smaller producers such as Arcam, Anthem, even NAD's.

 

[ciotime]

I found Anthem's documentation lacking, if you compare its manual with the X8500H, its 70 pages vs 360 pages and the Anthem manual covers all of their current AVRs.

My guess is that Anthem uses a low spec DAC IC, and possible other parts in the signal path for the channels other than the main 5 channels so the 5.2 V (still very good) would be for the secondary channels. We shouldn't guess, this is a legit question to ask Anthem's tech/customer support.

Based on specs and measurements only, if you are going to use the internal amps, then the X8500H is superior. If not, I think the AVM70 is an excellent alternative. The only thing I would do prior to making a final decision is to do your own research to find what you could collect online about Anthem's track record on bugs, fixes, after sale support based on customer feed backs.

AVRs/AVPs today are sophisticated device, they could be buggy and I don't think all the bugs could be found easily either as it/they may not show until you do certain things. So I tend to trust the big names such as D+M, Y, S, even O/I's AVRs/AVPs more and would therefore do a lot more detailed research on the smaller producers such as Arcam, Anthem, even NAD's.

Thanks for your input Peng. Actually after looking at the Denon AVRs again I've decided to narrow my choice to either the X6700H vs the MRX1140/AVM70. The X6700H is more than good enough for my needs if I do choose to get it.

So far all the reviews seem to say that Anthem has really done a good job at fixing all the bugs.

The one thing I like about the Denon is that it has Auro 3D while in the MRX1140 it's the flexibility to do calibrations using ARC. I'm just at a lost on which one to choose. If only the MRX1140/AVM70 also had Auro 3D hands down I would choose it right away coz I really do wanna try other brands other than Denon.

 

[Golfx]

PENG is the yoda of good engineering advice. His forum postings and unwavering detailed advice have helped many of us decide where to put our money.

I will come at this from a slightly different angle. I believe we should reward manufacturers who have good engineering hygiene and bench measurements, responsive customer support, AND a healthy dose of anticipatory prevention from releasing buggy hardware and software. Sound United, the parent company of Denon, did adopt early-manufactured buggy 2.1 chips (designed/manufactured elsewhere) but has since rectified that problem at their expense with solid transparent customer support.

You just need to read the early-on Anthem AVM 70/90 owner’s threads of their problems of bugs, lack of documentation and ARS issues. Their customer service was overwhelmed and tardy. It was very unsettling as I was hoping to purchase the AVM 90 upon release (we still don’t have a date for that).

I also like the point PENG made about the difference in level of detail presented in their respective manuals. I always want to know how to do something. Denon provides that detail whereas Anthem just skims the surface.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ciotime]

PENG is the yoda of good engineering advice. His forum postings and unwavering detailed advice have helped many of us decide where to put our money.

I will come at this from a slightly different angle. I believe we should reward manufacturers who have good engineering hygiene and bench measurements, responsive customer support, AND a healthy dose of anticipatory prevention from releasing buggy hardware and software. Sound United, the parent company of Denon, did adopt early-manufactured buggy 2.1 chips (designed/manufactured elsewhere) but has since rectified that problem at their expense with solid transparent customer support.

You just need to read the early-on Anthem AVM 70/90 owner’s threads of their problems of bugs, lack of documentation and ARS issues. Their customer service was overwhelmed and tardy. It was very unsettling as I was hoping to purchase the AVM 90 upon release (we still don’t have a date for that).

I also like the point PENG made about the difference in level of detail presented in their respective manuals. I always want to know how to do something. Denon provides that detail whereas Anthem just skims the surface.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

True...it's just that having owned 3 Denon AVRs in the past 15 years including the X3700H that I'm using now it kinda feels like I wanna go and try something new in terms of brand. I actually was eyeing the StormAudio ISP Core 16 but at about $10K is just hard to convince myself to spend that amount. That's why I'm considering the Anthem MRX1140. Even the rumored 13.2 Onkyo TX-RZ90 with Dirac which is supposed to come out early next year has me intrigued.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Planning to upgrade to a 9.2.4 HT setup. Can't decide between the Anthem MRX 1140 vs Denon AVR-X8500H. Not exactly the same specs and price point but so far have narrowed my picks to these 2. Thanks.

How big is your room?

 

[Golfx]

Aha! Classic “upgraditis” that infects most of us on these forums and feeds the industry. I too wanted to venture toward the exotic and new. Hence why the upscaled AVM 90 sounded appealing. But I waited and waited and waited, sigh. So I bought Denon’s A110 (as a prepro) which seduced me with the lure of exotic and the reliability of a Toyota. There is a lot to be said for driving a Toyota camray. Jaguars are more sexy but sometimes they strand you in the intersection which removes your trust.

I very much understand your desire (lust) to upgrade. You will likely never be sorry you jumped on that Storm you always wanted. They have excellent customer support and excellent customization. I recently lost my logic and upgraded to the Trinnov Altitude 16. I’m keeping my A110 as a backup—for awhile.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ciotime]

How big is your room?

Room is 13'X19'X8'....actually debating now between MRX1140 vs X6700H.

 

[ciotime]

Aha! Classic “upgraditis” that infects most of us on these forums and feeds the industry. I too wanted to venture toward the exotic and new. Hence why the upscaled AVM 90 sounded appealing. But I waited and waited and waited, sigh. So I bought Denon’s A110 (as a prepro) which seduced me with the lure of exotic and the reliability of a Toyota. There is a lot to be said for driving a Toyota camray. Jaguars are more sexy but sometimes they strand you in the intersection which removes your trust.

I very much understand your desire (lust) to upgrade. You will likely never be sorry you jumped on that Storm you always wanted. They have excellent customer support and excellent customization. I recently lost my logic and upgraded to the Trinnov Altitude 16. I’m keeping my A110 as a backup—for awhile.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Trinnov Altitude 16??!!! Logic lost is really appropriate So is it worth the " Extra " cash?? Is it a night and day difference? I truly believe in the law of diminishing returns.