Anthem AVM90 AV Processor Review

[amirm]

@amirm , the AVM90's list price is $7,499, not $6,375.

As noted, everywhere I looked it was on sale for the same price. This says the sale is endorsed by the company ("MAP").

 

[Spocko]

Unless you own a movie theater, why do you need a 15.4 channel processor?
Just seems a bit much for home theater to me.

15.4 is for larger homes where you need front wide channels to fill in the gap between your front L/C/R and your surround L/R plus in these larger homes you may have 3 rows of seating which means if you want the rear row to get overhead Atmos you'll need 6 overhead channels and of course in these bigger rooms you'll have 4 subwoofers placed strategically which leads to 9.4.6 aka 15.4. Most typical living rooms of modest size will do just fine with 7.2.2.

 

[Spocko]

First, this isn't an AVR, it's a processor -- there is no amplification! Jeesh

Secondly, nothing is being outdated in 2-3 years unless you happen to buy right before a massive hardware change (and even then, it might not actually affect you). This processsor should indeed be good for several years. I mean, is there just supposed to be no progress? In any case, people buying a $6k processor are in a position to upgrade as eeded.

I firmly believe that we are in a place where the current surround formats (DTS:X, Atmos, Auro3D etc.) are good enough to never be outdated unless the powers that be simply stop supporting these formats. As a matter of fact, any home theater with this level of 15.4 $6K processor and matching speaker/sub would sound BETTER than 99% of the movie theaters today being beaten only by the top tier Dolby Cinema and even then, having 4 channels of flagship 18" subwoofers in your theater will get you lower than any movie theater because they cannot pressurize the theater due to inadequate amplifier power - Dolby Cinema subwoofers cannot go lower than 40Hz (technically they can go lower but lack the power for the SPL to fill the theater) but instead give you the D-Box shaking seats so you think the subs are getting below 20Hz.

 

[jhwalker]

I'm confused, not being an AV enthusiast. Have a Sonos soundbase under my TV.

What are all the channels for? Who needs/uses 7 HDMI inputs and 4 subwoofer outputs???

People who have multiple HDMI devices (e.g., Blu-Ray player, cable box, DVR, 2x gaming consoles, etc.) and 4 subwoofers

 

[peng]

As noted, everywhere I looked it was on sale for the same price. This says the sale is endorsed by the company ("MAP").

Thanks, I guessed right then, it was on sale. Because I was only guessing, I need you to confirm it or say that it was a typo. Thank you very much.

 

[peng]

Thanks Amir. I would like to see more results for the XLR outputs. Even if only for comparison with the AVM70, which you published entirely based on XLR. But also because it’s a big part of the POD of AV processor units.

Good point.

 

[Descartes]

More like outdated in 2-3 years.

AVRs should be upgradable; why not keep the amplification part separate from the AV processing?

It is a processor!

 

[amirm]

Testing an AV products is already very time consuming. Doubling the time by measuring both interfaces is just not in the cards. I did provide some key measurements in both formats so you should have a very good idea of XLR performance.

The proper strategy here is to use RCA to your amps if they are next to it (using short cables) and then XLR for the subs. If you get ground loops, you can switch the former to XLR as well.

 

[Beershaun]

Same critique like I always have for AVR and AV processors: $6k for 10 years before it is outdated.

Great performance but for $6k, it's not something I would stand up to clap my hands for encore.

Anthem offers upgrade boards. I was able to upgrade my mrx1140 to the 8k HDMI board for ~$500 plus shipping. If Denon offered that for my x3100 I might not have had to buy a new AVR at all.

 

[Descartes]

… I did provide some key measurements in both formats so you should have a very good idea of XLR performance.

The proper strategy here is to use RCA to your amps if they are next to it (using short cables) and then XLR for the subs. If you get ground loops, you can switch the former to XLR as well.

Thank you for that review, what if the amplifiers are 30 feet away wouldn’t XLR be better?

Also between the Marantz AV10 and this Anthem which would you recommend and why?

 

[jimroge]

I cannot wait until Topping or Minidsp enter the preamp av market. I know minidsp can now do 7 channels but they need 11 or more and decode dolby and dts with 3rd party room correction like Dirac. I could see them beat these results at half the price.

 

[Newman]

Testing an AV products is already very time consuming. Doubling the time by measuring both interfaces is just not in the cards.

So few of them have both formats, though. This would be a very rare imposition.

Option: to save time on these rarest of occasions, instead of L and R channels, you could run L-RCA and L-XLR together, and I would feel far more illumined.

I did provide some key measurements in both formats so you should have a very good idea of XLR performance.

No idea what the optimal XLR output voltage is, or what maximum levels it can handle...

The proper strategy here is to use RCA to your amps if they are next to it (using short cables)

...AND IF our amps have consumer level inputs. I can't help thinking that I am not the only one who looks extra closely at XLR-capable processors specifically because of their XLR and pro level capability.

and then XLR for the subs. If you get ground loops, you can switch the former to XLR as well.

Let's face it: reviewing a 15.4 XLR AV processor as a 2-channel RCA preamp is difficult to defend, although much appreciated as an unpaid gift of time. Just for starters, I get the impression that the AVM90 has different electronic circuitry (not just separate, but different) for the centre and surround channels than for the L and R, so only testing L and R is leaving a fair bit to be guessed.

cheers

 

[Beershaun]

@amirm great to see that there is no noise penalty for HDMI!

 

[amirm]

So few of them have both formats, though. This would be a very rare imposition.

Option: to save time on these rarest of occasions, instead of L and R channels, you could run L-RCA and L-XLR together, and I would feel far more illumined.

No idea what the optimal XLR output voltage is, or what maximum levels it can handle...

...AND IF our amps have consumer level inputs. I can't help thinking that I am not the only one who looks extra closely at XLR-capable processors specifically because of their XLR and pro level capability.

Let's face it: reviewing a 15.4 XLR AV processor as a 2-channel RCA preamp is difficult to defend, although much appreciated as an unpaid gift of time. Just for starters, I get the impression that the AVM90 has different electronic circuitry (not just separate, but different) for the centre and surround channels than for the L and R, so only testing L and R is leaving a fair bit to be guessed.

cheers

What you saying? You want your money back?

 

[ob1]

How good is Anthem's room correction technology (ARC)?
Is it on par with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 or Dirac Live?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯​

Sorry, not quite what you asked for, and no measurements to support what I am about to state, so...

Experience:
-I have some experience with Acourate, ARC Genesis, Dirac Live (very limited) in a 2.0 and 2.1 configuration (2 different systems in 2 two rooms).
-I have been using Acourate for about 6 years. Very briefly compared with Audiolense, which I tend to think is equivalent to Acourate.
-I have had Dirac Live for a few months only and no experience with Audyssey.
-Have used ARC Genesis for about 6 months (MRX 710 which I no longer own)
-System A : Philharmonic BMR Monitor, Topping D30 Pro, Buckeye NC252 (open space, normally furnished living room, no acoustic treament, relatively high RT)
-System B: Revel M16, Rythmik L12, Topping D30 Pro, Buckeye NC252 (19X19ftX8ft basement, concrete floor, no acoustic treament, low RT and huge room modes, more challenging than A)
-Measurement mic used was Umik1 professionally calibrated by Cross-spectrum labs, except for ARC, which used its supplied mic.
If I recall correctly, ARC mic showed similar measured FR to calibrated Umik1, that I have also compared with a "regular" Umik 1 (two Umik1 owned, only one calibrated by CSL,) No obvious discrepancy over all mics, save for FR >16 kHz.

Conclusion:
I felt ARC was very easy to use, results were more than decent and felt improvements were easily achieved without any need to thinker/fiddle. Little time investment, yet it yielded satisfying results. Never made the sound worse than witout room correction. In a few words, it felt as dumb proof and managed to tame "wild" (read +20 dB) room modes. Correction was not very aggressive with mild to moderate compensation (attenuation).

I would subjectively rank Dirac Live a little behind compared to Acourate and Audiolense. However, it is not a fair comparison, since I have not invested enough time to really get a grasp of the interface. While it did provide improvements, it felt more difficult to use to its full potential than ARC. I honestly could not say whether ARC has and edge over Dirac Live, in part because I did not used it for a long time.

As for Acourate, the learning curve is really steep. After 6 years of using it, I have only scratched the surface of what it can accomplish. On the other hand, the calibration process is a breeze and you get to place the mic symmetrically and equidistant to the speakers very easily, within an error margin of less than 1-0.5cm cm if you're patient enough. I am confident this sole element contributes significantly to obtaining great results. After numerous iterations, one can attain very good results which felt quite superior to all other drc solutions I have used. Best results personnally obtained with quite taxing attenuation, say -6-8 dB. Probably room dependent.

In sum, ARC felt like it provided fair to good improvements after only a few tries. Not the best results achieved, but more than satisfying.

Acourate yields very good to excellent improvements, but does require lots of time and efforts. Not to mention you sacrifice headroom. At times and notably at the beginning, you can sometimes screw it all and compromise everything if you're overconfident in your ability. Even after a few years of using it, I have encountered problems that were long to resolve, yet in all instances, ended up being my own fault. Mic was clipping which ended screwing the whole correction, usb mic was at times lagging and corrupting obtained meaurements, overcorrecting excess phase induced by obsession to attain perfection, etc.

All in all, all softwares gave more than acceptable results and I could live with any of these.

-In sum, ARC Genesis definitely felt the most easy to use amongst those DRC. Still, I would tend to think that it would rank last in terms of how satisfying the end result was (compared to DiracLive, Audiolense and Acourate).
-Acourate was the most satisfying, but clearly the most difficult to use.
-DiracLive thus strikes a good balance, yet I have no regrets sticking with Acourate : once I manage to obtain good measurements, not always easy, I get to squeeze that last tiny bit of performance that gives me the impression that I am this close to perfection.

Unfortunately, my post will leave you with only vague impressions. Yes, I could post in-room measurments, but what will you compare them to? After all those years, I still haven't figured how to compare before and after in room measurements, only simulations. If Mitchco is right, according to his book, Acourate simulations of predicted vs measured (in REW) are absolutely accurate, being within margin of error of measurements.

Forgot to mention REW : I have nothing but best words for its measurements. As for room correction/eq, my attemtps were definitely not crowned with success. I am not blamig REW at all for this.

In an effort to provide not only words, here is a pic of before and after Acourate for my system B.
Please excuse me in advance for being very "green". I have only started posting on ASR after 5 years of being a member...

FWD 12/12 Acourate Psychoacoustic smoothing (Revel M16 Rythmik L12; FR uncorrected;corrected, phase uncorrected/corrected roughly calibrated to 75 dB at 1000 Hz at listening position, single measurement L/R)

 

[Descartes]

Unless you own a movie theater, why do you need a 15.4 channel processor?
Just seems a bit much for home theater to me.

I would love to have a 9.4.6 system

 

[Descartes]

Did you change link, the one you post earlier shows 8999 CAD. Maybe their site choose currency to show depending on your contry of origin lol..

It might have gone on BF sale not long ago, that might explain Amir using a lower number.

@amirm , the AVM90's list price is $7,499, not $6,375.

It is on sale on Crutchfield!

 

[Descartes]

I'm completely out of touch when it comes to home theatre/movies.

If you went all in, used all the channels and built a home theatre room; how much content is available that supports it. Is it available on streaming services, or do you have to buy physical media, blu-ray?

All of the above but for best sound I highly recommend 4UHD BluRays

 

[GWolfman]

It is a processor!

Yes it is.

 

[GWolfman]

First, this isn't an AVR, it's a processor -- there is no amplification! Jeesh

Yes.