Anthem AVM 90 15.4CH Processor Review

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I just can't believe that there are so many bad rooms and or speakers, that all that complexity is required and even makes a difference. I have three systems here and NONE of them need that nonsense. All Eqs of any variety are all disabled.

I think most people (or cases) don’t need room EQ. We see some people love it, but that’s not the majority.

That might be one reason that Yamaha, the largest sound company in the world, doesn’t seem to even care to offer more than their own minimal YPAO, when they could easily offer Dirac or Audyssey. Making money is about appeasing the majority population, not the minority. Another reason why Yamaha will probably never make an AVP/AVR that has more than 11CH, which they probably think is already too many channels. Selling to the majority.

 

[TLS Guy]

I think most people (or cases) don’t need room EQ. We see some people love it, but that’s not the majority.

That might be one reason that Yamaha, the largest sound company in the world, doesn’t seem to even care to offer more than their own minimal YPAO, when they could easily offer Dirac or Audyssey. Making money is about appeasing the majority population, not the minority. Another reason why Yamaha will probably never make an AVP/AVR that has more than 11CH, which they probably think is already too many channels. Selling to the majority.

I think they are correct. Very few domestic rooms can use more than 11 channels. Adding more becomes and acoustic mess. Room correction is the classic example of "fools gold."

 

[PENG]

Thanks. Multeq-x Pro is the same product as Multeq-X just with business/installer friendly licensing. I think I saw that video but will review again. I know some folks have had good results with importing REW/usb mic generated biquad filters into multeq-x. I think Matt did that too but can’t recall. I’m not sure I want to put that much time/work into it but certainly something to think about. If I can get better results with ARC or maybe Dirac/DLBC that’s appealing as it’s much less time on my end.

Good point on the REW/Biquad thing I would say... In my opinion, that sort of thing is often overrated, no offense to Matt at all as I do agree having such a feature is a plus. My only point is that people tend to forget (not Matt as he knows very well what I going to say next) in may posted REW graphs, they may include the listening window, but just the MMP. Some do, but most don't. Audyssey, Dirac Live, Anthem Genesis, and probably Trinnov too (I just know too little about it to say too much), all calculate and implement the RC/EQ filters based on the data collected in multiple mic positions, so in order to say the REW filters do the same, better, or worse, it would have been a lot more work than what a lot of forum people do.

So I can really understand your point when you said "If I can get better results with ARC or maybe Dirac/DLBC that’s appealing as it’s much less time on my end."

The question is, what would you consider "better results". For me, I would consider the objective part only, that is go by measurements not by ears ("not", because it is subjective, others of course it is what we hear that counts).
In that sense, I happen to have used all 3, and I manage to get "better results" with Audyssey and Dirac Live, not ARCG, ommv. In practice, I do like ARC G as well.

 

[TLS Guy]

Good point on the REW/Biquad thing I would say... In my opinion, that sort of thing is often overrated, no offense to Matt at all as I do agree having such a feature is a plus. My only point is that people tend to forget (not Matt as he knows very well what I going to say next) in may posted REW graphs, they may include the listening window, but just the MMP. Some do, but most don't. Audyssey, Dirac Live, Anthem Genesis, and probably Trinnov too (I just know too little about it to say too much), all calculate and implement the RC/EQ filters based on the data collected in multiple mic positions, so in order to say the REW filters do the same, better, or worse, it would have been a lot more work than what a lot of forum people do.

So I can really understand your point when you said "If I can get better results with ARC or maybe Dirac/DLBC that’s appealing as it’s much less time on my end."

The question is, what would you consider "better results". For me, I would consider the objective part only, that is go by measurements not by ears ("not", because it is subjective, others of course it is what we hear that counts).
In that sense, I happen to have used all 3, and I manage to get "better results" with Audyssey and Dirac Live, not ARCG, ommv. In practice, I do like ARC G as well.

The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced it is a dead end. Very few rooms, and I mean very few, are inherently had. Most serious speaker ills can not be corrected by any form of equalization. I have got on very well in this AV arena for 18 years now and the stereo era for far longer, and have never reached for Eq of any variety to correct my systems. What problems have done is to have caused me to modify my speakers, or even start over.

 

[PENG]

I just can't believe that there are so many bad rooms and or speakers, that all that complexity is required and even makes a difference. I have three systems here and NONE of them need that nonsense. All Eqs of any variety are all disabled.

You and @AcuDefTechGuy should try looking at Gene's in room response. His room seems quite big and I doubt it represents one of those "bad rooms" you might be referring to.

His no correction curve (red) looks much better than mine, though my final "corrected" results look smoother and flatter than his in the bass range.

Regardless, if you have a room like his in the bass response, you should be able to benefit from room correction, even just Audyssey, unless you like the much less smooth and peakier (both bumps and dips) bass.

I suspect it may be a case of subjective versus objective, that subjectively you don't like room corrections' effect, when it smooth/flatten your speaker's in-room response? If so, there is nothing wrong but you must know that may be why so many people do like to use RC/EQ. And, I am talking about at least for the bass range from below 200 Hz or may be as high as 500 Hz.

 

[dolynick]

Of the three rooms I have more serious audio systems in, none of them sound "bad" au naturel without room EQ. Generally speaking, after running EQ and now being equpped to measure again afterwards, I don't see room EQ as an actual fix for any major problem in a room that is realy going to audibly ruin sound, aside from taming some room nodes a little and helping with sub integration. It gernerally can't really fix any notable null and it can't do much about RT60 issues which muddy up the sound. Room EQ is, in my opinion, about trying to improve or tweak things further rather than a fix all.

Each of my three systems all have their virtues. The non-EQ'd room is certainly able of producting sound that captivates or grabs the attention at times too.

In other words, it's more of a handy tool - especially for larger multi-channel systems for theatre use. If you're chasing a more level reference response (as most communities push), it's usually to your benefit to use it but it's not necessarily going to be the "magic bullet" it sometimes gets made out to be.

 

[Nondemo01]

I think it needs to be pointed out that even high-end recording studios will use room correction. I also think some make it out to be more difficult than it is. Sure, one can endlessly tweak with REW and tons of microphone positions but the vast majority will do it in less than an hour (if they do it at all.) I think the results speak for themselves. Every manufacturer includes some kind of room correction from basic to complex. I think it makes a big difference even above the Schroeder frequency for some listening. Personally, I preferred the Dirac calibration over ARC and both over Audyssey. However, I'd love to try DLBC, ARC Genesis, and Audyssey Pro but don't have a "theater" system anymore. My 2ch will use Dirac to better integrate 2 subs. I suspect I'll hire an integrator once I'm in my new place. Some things are better left to pros while I sip lattes at Starbucks.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

You and @AcuDefTechGuy should try looking at Gene's in room response. His room seems quite big and I doubt it represents one of those "bad rooms" you might be referring to.

His no correction curve (red) looks much better than mine, though my final "corrected" results look smoother and flatter than his in the bass range.

Regardless, if you have a room like his in the bass response, you should be able to benefit from room correction, even just Audyssey, unless you like the much less smooth and peakier (both bumps and dips) bass.

I suspect it may be a case of subjective versus objective, that subjectively you don't like room corrections' effect, when it smooth/flatten your speaker's in-room response? If so, there is nothing wrong but you must know that may be why so many people do like to use RC/EQ. And, I am talking about at least for the bass range from below 200 Hz or may be as high as 500 Hz.

View attachment 65913

The YPAO actually made the in-room response smoother for my system. But I preferred the sound of the uncorrected FR.

In terms of smoothing the FR, YPAO, Audyssey, Dirac and other RC will do that.

The RC can objectively smooth the FR. But it doesn’t objectively make the sound better. Whether one sounds better or not is 100% subjective.

It’s a 2-way street. So we can also say that RC subjectively (with bias) makes people think the sound is better, especially when they SEE with their own eyes that RC smooths the FR.

I wonder when we go to live non-amplified concerts like chamber music, are the sounds we hear in those rooms CORRECTED.

Anyway, it’s up to everyone to decide for themself. Whatever sounds better to you is the correct choice.

 

[PENG]

The YPAO actually made the in-room response smoother for my system. But I preferred the sound of the uncorrected FR.

In terms of smoothing the FR, YPAO, Audyssey, Dirac and other RC will do that.

The RC can objectively smooth the FR. But it doesn’t objectively make the sound better. Whether one sounds better or not is 100% subjective.

It’s a 2-way street. So we can also say that RC subjectively (with bias) makes people think the sound is better, especially when they SEE with their own eyes that RC smooths the FR.

I wonder when we go to live non-amplified concerts like chamber music, are the sounds we hear in those rooms CORRECTED.

Anyway, it’s up to everyone to decide for themself. Whatever sounds better to you is the correct choice.

I agreed, just disagree with blanket statements, best examples were TLSGuy's. Having said that, while RC doesn't objectively make the sound better, it does make it more neutral, in terms of frequency response. With that done, users could experiment different response, thereby using it somewhat like tone control, but do so from a reference point, by varying the target curve, and selecting the affected range.

Such manual tweaking were not possible, or highly restricted, until the last several years when the popular ones including AARCG, DL, and Audyssey all have improved their apps to facilitate custom target curves and other change options.

I would not tell anyone RC will make their gear sound better to them, but I would recommend that they try it in case it works for them, so don't rule it out because of TLSGuy, you, or my comments/opinions. That's for gear that comes with RC, such as D+M, Y, A, O/I, NAD, Arcam. In cases where one has to pay for the license, then it is up to them to do their own research, before investing a few hundred dollars on such license, e.g. DLBC. They could also do a free trial in those cases.

 

[Nondemo01]

The YPAO actually made the in-room response smoother for my system. But I preferred the sound of the uncorrected FR.

In terms of smoothing the FR, YPAO, Audyssey, Dirac and other RC will do that.

The RC can objectively smooth the FR. But it doesn’t objectively make the sound better. Whether one sounds better or not is 100% subjective.

It’s a 2-way street. So we can also say that RC subjectively (with bias) makes people think the sound is better, especially when they SEE with their own eyes that RC smooths the FR.

I wonder when we go to live non-amplified concerts like chamber music, are the sounds we hear in those rooms CORRECTED.

Anyway, it’s up to everyone to decide for themself. Whatever sounds better to you is the correct choice.

Corrected? No. However, the room is designed and treated to "sound good" and probably costs 10X more than any FOH line array in the world. Case in point:

(Not only is Nahre Sol an amazing pianist, she is a really good YouTuber and goes in depth on concert halls here.)
It seems like you benefit from a designated and designed listening space with as much attention given to architecture as equipment. That's awesome and I am jealous.
However, the vast majority of us do not and will **benefit from** some type of room correction **for a smother in room response**. RC is different than "house curves/EQ" but can incorporate both into a measurement. We track in as dead a room as possible while in studio to correct flaws during instrument recording. When we mix, it's generally more open/lively. Mastering is another story that requires a dedicated listening environment. All use some kind of RC. Can all three be done in the same room? Sure. Many are. But most professional recording is done in stages in different studios with different people on different gear. As Audioholics has pointed out many times, if you have "good" speakers and like the sound, limiting the RC to bass management is probably ideal. If you need to correct for other considerations like late-night listening or limit bass management due to neighbors, then RC is absolutely essential. I agree with PENG, if it's free, give it a shot. Can't hurt and only costs time/effort. If you like the "FREE" but think the "NOT FREE" will fix something, go free trial. If you are a complete geek-squad and LOVE tweaking for different presets/listening sessions, go all in and get the better mic, stand, and send your wife/husband/them/they to Target so you don't drive everyone nuts with test tones. (Tell them there's a free Stanley in it for them.)

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I agreed, just disagree with blanket statements, best examples were TLSGuy's. Having said that, while RC doesn't objectively make the sound better, it does make it more neutral, in terms of frequency response. With that done, users could experiment different response, thereby using it somewhat like tone control, but do so from a reference point, by varying the target curve, and selecting the affected range.

Such manual tweaking were not possible, or highly restricted, until the last several years when the popular ones including AARCG, DL, and Audyssey all have improved their apps to facilitate custom target curves and other change options.

I would not tell anyone RC will make their gear sound better to them, but I would recommend that they try it in case it works for them, so don't rule it out because of TLSGuy, you, or my comments/opinions. That's for gear that comes with RC, such as D+M, Y, A, O/I, NAD, Arcam. In cases where one has to pay for the license, then it is up to them to do their own research, before investing a few hundred dollars on such license, e.g. DLBC. They could also do a free trial in those cases.

My recommendation is always to try it out for free and use what you like - YMMV.

My point is, there needs to be different perspectives - people need to realize that not everyone will prefer auto RC from any company. Just because the in-room REW measurements look more flat/linear objectively does not mean everyone will subjectively prefer it. Flatter FR does not mean the sound should be objectively more neutral or accurate; it just means the FR looks more flat/linear in measurement.

I’ve seen people complaining both on forums and in person how they just could not understand (“could not figure out for the life of me”) why their systems sounded WORST when their REW measurements look so much better and flatter and smoother than before.

We definitely should not be saying that all RC are nonsense and bad for you (or all AVR are trash and we should all put amps/DSP inside speakers ). If RC sounds better to YOU, then it is better for YOU, but not necessarily true for EVERYONE .

There are people who say that all RC are trash and there are people who say that everyone needs RC. So just keep in mind both perspectives, which is my only point.

 

[Golfx]

Corrected? No. However, the room is designed and treated to "sound good" and probably costs 10X more than any FOH line array in the world. Case in point:

(Not only is Nahre Sol an amazing pianist, she is a really good YouTuber and goes in depth on concert halls here.)
It seems like you benefit from a designated and designed listening space with as much attention given to architecture as equipment. That's awesome and I am jealous.
However, the vast majority of us do not and will need some type of room correction. RC is different than "house curves/EQ" but can incorporate both into a measurement. We track in as dead a room as possible while in studio to correct flaws during instrument recording. When we mix, it's generally more open/lively. Mastering is another story that requires a dedicated listening environment. All use some kind of RC. Can all three be done in the same room? Sure. Many are. But most professional recording is done in stages in different studios with different people on different gear. As Audioholics has pointed out many times, if you have "good" speakers and like the sound, limiting the RC to bass management is probably ideal. If you need to correct for other considerations like late-night listening or limit bass management due to neighbors, then RC is absolutely essential. I agree with PENG, if it's free, give it a shot. Can't hurt and only costs time/effort. If you like the "FREE" but think the "NOT FREE" will fix something, go free trial. If you are a complete geek-squad and LOVE tweaking for different presets/listening sessions, go all in and get the better mic, stand, and send your wife/husband/them/they to Target so you don't drive everyone nuts with test tones. (Tell them there's a free Stanley in it for them.)

So enjoyed the video. Makes me want to go.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

…the vast majority of us…. will need some type of room correction…

That’s your perspective, just like how @TLS Guy says the vast majority of us do NOT need RC is his perspective.

Our own perspective depends on what we’ve experienced with our own systems and the systems at our friends/relatives houses.

My perspective is that room acoustics (hard floors), speaker placements (too close to walls), and bass/subwoofer EQ (20-500Hz) is 100% more important than any RC for 500Hz-20kHz.

Again, YMMV.

 

[Nondemo01]

That’s your perspective, just like how @TLS Guy says the vast majority of us do NOT need RC is his perspective.

Our own perspective depends on what we’ve experienced with our own systems and the systems at our friends/relatives houses.

My perspective is that room acoustics (hard floors), speaker placements (too close to walls), and bass/subwoofer EQ (20-500Hz) is 100% more important than any RC for 500Hz-20kHz.

Again, YMMV.

"However, the vast majority of us do not and will **benefit from** some type of room correction **for a smother in room response**."

Better?

 

[Nondemo01]

So enjoyed the video. Makes me want to go.

Crazy right? The whole structure is on springs! That's isolation!

 

[Nondemo01]

Thanks. Multeq-x Pro is the same product as Multeq-X just with business/installer friendly licensing. I think I saw that video but will review again. I know some folks have had good results with importing REW/usb mic generated biquad filters into multeq-x. I think Matt did that too but can’t recall. I’m not sure I want to put that much time/work into it but certainly something to think about. If I can get better results with ARC or maybe Dirac/DLBC that’s appealing as it’s much less time on my end.

And here is something else to consider. If the bass seems too loud/soft it might not be YOUR room/gear issue. It may have been recorded that way:

The Elephant In The Control Room

One of the most misunderstood subjects in pro audio is control–room nearfield monitoring: the dos and don’ts, the problems and suggested remedies.

www.soundonsound.com

Yes, it's entirely possible that mix engineers overlooked the listening environment and you may need to "fix" what they missed.

 

[nicoleise]

Corrected? No. However, the room is designed and treated to "sound good" and probably costs 10X more than any FOH line array in the world.

Thanks for an interesting share (the video). And I concur, I remember DR Koncertsalen (shown briefly in the video) being built in Denmark.

The initial budget from 1999 was 600M DKK (86M US$) for the concert hall specifically, which was a part of a much larger project for the national broadcasting network involving head quarters, redactions, studios for radio and TV broadcasts, newsrooms, etc.

The total budget for the entire project was around 6x that, so in other words the concert hall was a very significant part of the project.

When all was said and done, in 2009 they opened the doors to a concert hall that had ended up costing 1.6B DKK (230M US$), some two-and-a-half times the original price tag.

If the news coverage at the time is to be believed, then this expense was in (small) part due to a small expansion of seating capacity and in (much larger) part due to the uncompromising nature of the architect and acoustician. So if that project is any benchmark, then certainly acoustics are very expensive.

That hall, like the Elb, is essentially built as a floating/damped structure on springs, within another structure. The acoustics were poorly reviewed when it opened however. An issue that was remedied by closing millions of very tiny holes in some of the acoustic elements, which made a huge difference. Today it is quite well regarded.

Amazingly there's a very active subway line above ground less than 25 m/75 ft from the concert hall walls. But once inside it's completely inaudible. I no longer remember the specifics, but I believe the designers even commented on that topic that a small earthquake could essentially pass by unnoticed to those inside the hall.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

"However, the vast majority of us do not and will **benefit from** some type of room correction **for a smother in room response**."

Better?

I would say “some”, not “vast majority” since we haven’t been in the vast majority of homes.

Some will like, some will not.

 

[TLS Guy]

I think it needs to be pointed out that even high-end recording studios will use room correction. I also think some make it out to be more difficult than it is. Sure, one can endlessly tweak with REW and tons of microphone positions but the vast majority will do it in less than an hour (if they do it at all.) I think the results speak for themselves. Every manufacturer includes some kind of room correction from basic to complex. I think it makes a big difference even above the Schroeder frequency for some listening. Personally, I preferred the Dirac calibration over ARC and both over Audyssey. However, I'd love to try DLBC, ARC Genesis, and Audyssey Pro but don't have a "theater" system anymore. My 2ch will use Dirac to better integrate 2 subs. I suspect I'll hire an integrator once I'm in my new place. Some things are better left to pros while I sip lattes at Starbucks.

I have been in quite a few recording studios in my time. And all have sounded pretty dreadful to me. I guess it is part and parcel of the pop culture.

As I said I have only tried Audyssey and it has made all my three systems objectively worse. In addition it degrades SNR which I really object to.

This is the room curve of my AV room all channels driven at the MLP, no RC and I am very happy with it. There is a little room gain on the last half octave, but that is not unpleasant. The impulse response did show that Audyssey did an excellent job of setting speaker distance though. So it was not all a wash out.

I'm really happy with the sound, so I leave it well alone.

 

[Nondemo01]

I have been in quite a few recording studios in my time. And all have sounded pretty dreadful to me. I guess it is part and parcel of the pop culture.

Really just depends on what the space is used for. I have no doubt an audiophile would not like the "sound" of the control room where 99% of tracking is done. These rooms are designed for hearing and fixing issues during the recording part. Musicians are primarily focused on their performance. Engineers on the sound. Producers have to worry about everything. What usually occurs next is another person is brought in or the files are sent out to have someone else mix. This is when the actual instruments get leveled, panned, placed in the mix. Lastly, mastering is done by another person in another space. All the mastering rooms I've been in have sounded amazing and included a very expensive 2 ch setup somewhere on the property. Few recordings of any genre are recorded and mastered in one place. That's why "artist intent" is such a fallacy as so many people are involved in the process and you have NO IDEA who added what plug-in to the instrument or when. And if you really want to hate modern music, google "beat detective" and "auto tune" or just subscribe to Rick Beato on YT and watch his reactions to Spotify top 10s. Hilarious.