What makes high end processors sound better (or do they?)

[danstahl]

So what I'm hearing is that if SINAD differences are transparent the difference between a 1K and 10K processor is entirely due to higher quality room correction.

 

[azzy_mazzy]

So what I'm hearing is that if SINAD differences are transparent the difference between a 1000K and 10000K processor is entirely due to higher quality room correction.

better DSP in general with more flexible options.

1000K and 10000K processor

i hope people aren't spending millions on a processors...

 

[FrantzM]

So what I'm hearing is that if SINAD differences are transparent the difference between a 1000K and 10000K processor is entirely due to higher quality room correction.

Yes...
The flexibility afforded by some of the highest processors and , perhaps, the HTP-1. allow you to extract the maximum and best from your speakers, within the room, TRINNOV, STORM and Lyngdorf are such examples. seems the HTP-1 is very good too,
Very early in the game of Science-based audio, I realized that an AVR with Pre-output and Audyssey is the building block of a music and/or HT system. The best example so far in my book, the Denon AVR-X3700H.

Peace

 

[azzy_mazzy]

also one thing that semi related is reliability. a lot of "mid range" processors seem to have way more issues than lower priced AVRs or TOPL processors.
nothing worse for sound quality than it not playing at all.

 

[danstahl]

I have a Emotiva MC 700 (pretty much the lowest end processor imaginable) but with a MiniDSP and a Umik I'm able to get essentially flat response even in a less-than-optimal room (basically square). I like the sound but I always wonder if I am missing something by not going higher end. The Lyngdorf's supposed ability to remove the room from the equation is tantalizing but I'm not sure how I could improve on an already flat response.

 

[JeffS7444]

I often hear subjective comments that more expensive processors create a more enveloping soundfield or provide greater detail.

I understand how this may be the case for proprietary high-end room-correction such as Trinnov and Lyngdorf, where less expensive processors use more common correction such as Dirac or Audyssey. However, this doesn't explain why someone prefers the HTP-1 over the latest Onkyo, which both use Dirac.

Is there something beyond DAC quality and room correction that could make a processor sound better than another?

In the case of Audyssey, it seems that the difference between the entry-level product and the flagship (XT32) is the number of filters available - 2 versus 32, IIRC. More filters = greater potential for more precise corrections.

Also, in the case of AVRs, you don't always have any control over the target frequency response. In the case of Denon/Marantz products, I think it's worthwhile to choose a model which supports the $20 Audyssey app for this very reason.

 

[azzy_mazzy]

it seems that the difference between the entry-level product and the flagship (XT32) is the number of filters available - 2 versus 32, IIRC. More filters = greater potential for more precise corrections.

actually i think there is a difference in the algorithm itself, IIRC that the lower end correction over corrects at the higher frequencies and doesn't do enough at the lower frequencies.

 

[dlaloum]

actually i think there is a difference in the algorithm itself, IIRC that the lower end correction over corrects at the higher frequencies and doesn't do enough at the lower frequencies.

You would be hard pressed proving that! - Other than in marketing decisions over the target curves to be applied (ie: voicing)

 

[dlaloum]

In the case of Audyssey, it seems that the difference between the entry-level product and the flagship (XT32) is the number of filters available - 2 versus 32, IIRC. More filters = greater potential for more precise corrections.

Also, in the case of AVRs, you don't always have any control over the target frequency response. In the case of Denon/Marantz products, I think it's worthwhile to choose a model which supports the $20 Audyssey app for this very reason.

I think when Audyssey first came out, there were cost differentials between AV processors (as in the DSP CPU's) - which limited how much power one could get in an AVR in lower price brackets - this led to differentials in number of filters, etc...

15+ years later - even the cheapest AV processor chips can handle the higher number of filters.... and the limitation now is pure market segmentation and marketing.... It's software, and even the cheapest chips have enough power now to drive it.

In the latest generation, I opted for Dirac rather than Audyssey, after having owned two generations of Audyssey, and found them disappointing ... yes it is possible that the latest generation with the app might have resolved the issues.... - I have not been disappointed by Dirac - it has finally achieved what previous attempts in my system and home merely promised.

 

[Sal1950]

That was a condescending comment.

If you read Amir’s conclusion paragraph, from the review that you just posted, he refers to modifications which Marantz adds to the same platform as Denon. He points out that it is Marantz that believes these modifications improve their sound. These added modifications result in more distortion and worse performance than comparably priced Denons. One of those prominent modifications is the addition of HDAMS. It was this added modification I was speaking of which helps contribute to an increased amount of distortion, worse performant and lower SINAD.

I thought the SINAD issue was more related to the DAC filter they chose to use?
I could be totally wrong.

 

[azzy_mazzy]

You would be hard pressed proving that! - Other than in marketing decisions over the target curves to be applied (ie: voicing)

Thankfully people tested that

this is the pre out measurements of what Audyssey XT VS XT32 trying to do, look at the amount of narrow corrections in the higher frequencies and the lack of it in bass with XT, not good.

 

[Dj7675]

I often hear subjective comments that more expensive processors create a more enveloping soundfield or provide greater detail.

I understand how this may be the case for proprietary high-end room-correction such as Trinnov and Lyngdorf, where less expensive processors use more common correction such as Dirac or Audyssey. However, this doesn't explain why someone prefers the HTP-1 over the latest Onkyo, which both use Dirac.

Is there something beyond DAC quality and room correction that could make a processor sound better than another?

Just a few thoughts
-High end processors don't necessarily sound better
-They may sound better due to proprietary EQ (Trinnov/Roomperfect), or Dirac with DLBC.
-High end processors generally have 16 channel capability. These extra channels in some rooms will sound better and can increase the sense of immersion. For example 6 tops, front wides, and/or 4 subs
-Many high end processors have other unique features that can help get the best sound out of your system. For example with StormAudio you can import speaker EQ's, do manual eq and do a/b tests by turning them on/off to test the effect of filters. You can create what storm refers to child theaters to re-route a stereo signal for example into ceiling speakers to test speakers, do rta measurements via the processor to any channel, create zones to downmix stereo to mono to do speaker comparison tests etc etc... I haven't used a Trinnov but I'm sure it too can do many similiar things. Basically more tools to use to try to get the best sound possible, in addition to automated EQ.
I roll my eyes when someone buys an expensive thing and then it is nigh and day better than what they had before. In the case of high end processors, they may or may not sound better. It will come down to the features they unit has, and they user/installers ability to get the best sound out of it. Either because that is their job (custom installer) or someone that has fun learning and using these kinds of things.

 

[u_squire]

There are a few things that make high end processors sound better.

Firstly, they tend to use higher quality components than lower end models.

This means that the audio signals passing through the processor will be of a higher quality, resulting in better sound reproduction.

Secondly, high end processors usually have more sophisticated algorithms than lower end models.

This means that they can more accurately process audio signals, resulting in better sound quality.

Finally, high end processors tend to have more powerful hardware than lower end models. This means that they can more effectively handle complex audio signals, resulting in better sound quality.

 

[jefny]

When I set up my first Home Theater, I was convinced by an Outlaw salesman that separates would sound best because of the size of my media room (15' by 21' with 8' ceilings). I purchased the Outlaw 770 amp with their 950 pre-amp for a 5.1 system. Would my setup sound the same with a mid-range AVR? 11 years ago I upgraded to a 7.2 system and needed a new pre-amp. My Outlaw amp was going fine but in looking for a new pre-amp the cost was at least equal to what I had paid for both my amp and Outlaw pre-amp. I finally settled for a Marantz AVR to be used as a pre-amp and I was quite happy with how everything sounded.

Ten years later (last year) I decided to upgrade my receiver and made visits to Best Buy and a local high end home theater store. Salesmen in both places stated I would get "superior sound" with a quality pre-amp. I was also looking for a receiver to use as a pre-amp and was beginning to consider the Denon x3700. One local store (Magnolia in Best Buy) was able to demonstrate both the pre-amp (a Marantz) and the Denon x3700, used as a pre-amp. I must mention I listen to movies 90% and music 10%. I could not hear a difference. The Marantz pre-amp cost two and a half times the Denon AVR. The second store sold another pre-amp brand (I can't remember the brand) that was more than 3 times the Denon x3700. Now I am not talking of real high end stuff that probably cost well over $5,000 or $6,000 but what is "better sound."

I did settle on the Denon and after tweaking with Audyssey I think my system sounds great. What am I missing?

 

[JSmith]

they tend to use higher quality components than lower end models.

This means that the audio signals passing through the processor will be of a higher quality, resulting in better sound reproduction.

One could have a pro that has the highest quality components... but poorly implemented. Or a pro that has cheaper components... but well implemented. Focusing on component quality only is not a sure path to "better sound reproduction"...


JSmith

 

[FrantzM]

There are a few things that make high end processors sound better.

Firstly, they tend to use higher quality components than lower end models.

This means that the audio signals passing through the processor will be of a higher quality, resulting in better sound reproduction.

Secondly, high end processors usually have more sophisticated algorithms than lower end models.

This means that they can more accurately process audio signals, resulting in better sound quality.

Finally, high end processors tend to have more powerful hardware than lower end models. This means that they can more effectively handle complex audio signals, resulting in better sound quality.

These things need to be addressed:

"Firstly" how do you define "higher quality components", I hope you don't mean more expensive? Now you know that past a certain level of performance say past a SINAD of 80 dB, most people on the planet, that includes you BTW ) won't/can't hear the differences. That is what we mean by "virtually" transparent? And it goes further , it is all in implementation. You could use DAC chip capable of 130 dB SINAD, in a processor and end up with 80 dB, resulting SINAD.. We've seen similar example here.. Not exactly but close. "audio signals passing though better components" doesn't automatically result in better sound ..
"Secondly" can be true at times ... and it is related to "thirdly"
"Thirdly": Could be true, but it is not a case of handling "more complex audio signals". The better , more powerful hardware results if care is taken, in better, more involved signal signal processing, in fact in better Digital Signal Processing so despised, loathed and scorned by the subjectivist.

M statements need also to be qualified:
We have come to see here in ASR, that there exist on the market, a handful of processors that truly can, in the right hands and with the right knowledge, results in better audio. Citing from the top of my head: Trinnov, Storm, Lyngdorf, perhaps the Emotiva HTP-1 when and if it becomes, again available .. These have been tested/reviewed here and in the case of the Trinnov, Storm and in my book a distant third, Lyngdorf, proven to be worth their weight in gold. On the other hand, all the higher end processors from the usual suspects, Marantz, Denon or others, did not offer any advantage over their lower ends counterparts AVR... In fact one of the best testing, perhaps the best measured processor, here at ASR is an AVR, the Denon AVR-X3700... The so-called "higher end" processors may offer a few desirable things like XLR inputs and outputs, a few more channels, better upmixing, not sure on that since the Denon 4700 and 8500 AVRs do it as well or better than their much more expensive "higher end" pre/pro sibling, else .. get a good middle of the road AVR and start building your audio system, I would advise anyone who entertain to build an audio system, be it 2-channel, Multi-channel audio or Home Theater to start with a Denon AVR-X3700 and the Audyssey smartphone APP.
In conclusion. higher End processor do not necessarily "sound better" than lower end.

Peace.

 

[Dj7675]

There are a few things that make high end processors sound better.

Firstly, they tend to use higher quality components than lower end models.

This means that the audio signals passing through the processor will be of a higher quality, resulting in better sound reproduction.

Secondly, high end processors usually have more sophisticated algorithms than lower end models.

This means that they can more accurately process audio signals, resulting in better sound quality.

Finally, high end processors tend to have more powerful hardware than lower end models. This means that they can more effectively handle complex audio signals, resulting in better sound quality.

The results of these things would show up in bench tests IMO. In addition to what I already posted… I would add some like Storm/Trinnov have support that is truly amazing. I was having an issue with the iPad app not launching for my StormAudio unit, and the next day got a call the next day. Had another issue and they remoted into my PC to troublesoot. Trinnov, same thing. For me and others I am sure, this is a very important part of the purchase.

 

[Vacceo]

So what I'm hearing is that if SINAD differences are transparent the difference between a 1K and 10K processor is entirely due to higher quality room correction.

Well, not only room correction. You also pay for features like having a phono stage and other forms of connectivity. You also pay for materials and manufacturing, design, form factor and brand factor, of course.

I´ll give you an example: the AVM70 from Anthem gives you a nice amount of channels, connectivity and room correction at a price similar to McIntosh MX100. Why is the second more expensive? Well, because McIntosh is never cheap. Which one is better? I´d say in pure technical terms, they are similar electronics-wise, but the connections and room correction are quite better in the case of the AVM70.

Just for the fun of it, check out the prices of the McIntosh MX180. Be sure not to have anything in your mouth...

 

[dlaloum]

So what I'm hearing is that if SINAD differences are transparent the difference between a 1K and 10K processor is entirely due to higher quality room correction.

SINAD differences are transparent once you get past a certain point... circa 70db... (a number of very well regarded classic amps are in the 70's db SINAD)

If the Sinad is below 70db there is a likely problem which may well be audible...

If the Sinad is over 90db - the device is effectively transparent....

In between there is some debate.... I set my minimum bar at 70 based on my experience with Quad current dumping amps - which when you do the sums to convert THD specs and SNR - you get SINAD in the 70's. (otherwise it is hard to tell where to logically set the bar !)

 

[dlaloum]

Some of the reliability problems in the 2000 to mid 2010's era, were universal - TI had a manufacturing problem with their widely used DSP chips.... - this made them highly prone to distortion due to heat.... if they weren't kept cooled (well below specified temperatures) - they would eventual twist and disconnect from their ball grid array....making the AVR into a boat anchor.
Because the cooling required was well beyond the original TI Chip spec, only devices which were over-engineered, and over-engineered in that specific area- overcame the issue..... Over-engineering costs money.

The GPU chips used through that era, were power hungry heat emitting beasts - put out a lot more heat than the power amp circuits did - and heat is bad for chips.... if the AVR wasn't well placed where it had plenty of air circulation - it would run very hot - reducing the life of the chips involved as well as surrounding circuits (caps!) - again there was room for resolving such issues with larger heatsinks, fans and smart design.... for most manufacturers though - this is an era of AVR's/Processors to avoid. (basically the first couple of generations of HDMI connected AVR's/processors).
In some cases, the flagship models (ie the expensive models!) had the more sophisticated chips - which put out more heat, and had more issues...

So what I am saying is that price alone is not an indication - for either sound quality, or reliability! - for reliability, a device that runs cool is a good indicator... one that runs hot, is a bad sign. (especially if it runs hot, when it is not even driving speakers).