Anthem AVM60 Review (AV Processor)

[Francis Vaughan]

Not according to Anthem, if you believe what they said. It does sound at least logical, to me anyway.

Well yes and no. They do admit that the balanced outputs are converted back from unbalanced. The logic they use is a bit, well, self serving, and technically inaccurate. The eventual result is that their balanced outputs perform worse than their unbalanced.
It isn't true that there is a need to convert to unbalanced. A proper balanced receiver does this without converting to unbalanced. But that is getting into the deep details.

At some point the signal must become single-ended, or interference can't be cancelled.

That is just plain awful. Where is the interference they are talking of coming from? The prime reason for using balanced connections is to reduce interference picked up in the cable. That can only happen in the balanced receiver in the amplifier, at the other end of the cable. And as above, there is no need to convert to unbalanced to cancel the interference. (In principle the conversion from balanced to unbalanced can be delayed until the loudspeaker, but this is mostly just a way of wasting money in any domestic audio.)

When I said the value of balanced is illusory, I meant that they get no advantage over their unbalanced outputs. The measurements show this. Now there is a lot of devil in the details. They could create balanced outputs with 4v capability and unbalanced outputs with 2v capability, and do so from an unbalanced internal signal whilst maintaining the performance capabilities of each. However this would require them to maintain a higher voltage unbalanced signal internally. And we know that this isn't what is done. They just take the existing unbalanced output and add a balanced line driver to it. It is just lazy. And what all the other AVR manufacturers that derive a pre from an AVR seem to do. Customers would be better served if they didn't get charged for the poor performing balanced outputs and instead of the pretty line of XLR connectors, there was just a blank. Drop the price another $500 and stop charging for illusory performance. User would actually get better performance for less.

 

[peng]

Can you not distinguish between any amp? Count yourself lucky, because I am unfortunate to be able to pick up distortion relatively easily.

As @amirm has made very clear, once above a SINAD of 115dB no human being can hear a difference, and that is the goal. Now, if 99% (my made up stat) can't hear anything above 90 db, that's not the point of this site. The point of this site is to be able to say a product is guaranteed to be transparent to 100% of potential buyers and that requires a SINAD of 115 dB.

Great point. As an aside, I wish there is a thread on such a topic on ASR (may be there is one already) that include a poll on how "loud" people listen to music and their room's noise floor. Then we can have better idea of why so many are not bother by SINAD <115 dB and so easily led to believe more expensive gear must sound better than AVRs even if the AVR measured 10 dB better.

I often wonder, that if my noise floor is >10 dB at any frequency within the audio band, and I never listen to music at >95 dB peak, then 90 dB SINAD or 115 dB SINAD should make no difference to me right? If yes, then may be that's what the high end and/or boutique brands have been counting on that they should focus on building their products to include features, components, technologies that their marketing team can hype up to attract people who are naturally more prone to expectation bias than by specs and measurements that they may not understand well enough? Doing it this way also allow them to jack up the profit margin. It may actually be easier to sell to the audiophile leaning and/or well to do subjective leaning group if the manufacturer lists the product at a higher price too.

Just look at how Marantz managed to achieve the "musical", "warmth" status, partially by including the so called HDAMs in the end of the preamp/DAC signal chain of their AVR/AVPs; and Benchmark on their feed forward technology, though to be fair, at least Benchmark includes bench test results that seem unbeatable so far but still, even if they only managed only 100 dB, there would be people thinking they "sound" better because of the technology, but be clear, this is all hypothetical), I just want to pick a random example of the magic of a component/part and a "technology feature", it could have been copper plate shielding, the middle feet, custom toroid, multiple separate power supplies etc..

 

[peng]

That is just plain awful. Where is the interference they are talking of coming from? The prime reason for using balanced connections is to reduce interference picked up in the cable. That can only happen in the balanced receiver in the amplifier, at the other end of the cable. And as above, there is no need to convert to unbalanced to cancel the interference. (In principle the conversion from balanced to unbalanced can be delayed until the loudspeaker, but this is mostly just a way of wasting money in any domestic audio.)

I also find their second point, about ...interference can't be cancelled really puzzling, I wonder if it was a case of lost in translation somehow, between the originator and the marketing group??

 

[SimpleTheater]

I just want to pick a random example of the magic of a component/part and a "technology feature"...

Remember, none of those magic components make any difference without cable risers and burning your cables in for at least 3 months. Then the magic happens, the veil is lifted and the music becomes transparent.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Why would you presume those of us who have invested in Purifi amps have not experienced an improvement in sound quality?

I am currently contemplating testing that assertion by trying a Hypex/Purify for my 2 channel setup, if I can find one in Germany.
I doubt I will be able to hear any difference though.

I mean I can't hear a difference whether I use my RME ADI-2 DAC as a source or the supposedly "crappy" internal DAC in my AVR.
Chances are that a better amp is wasted on my "wood ears" as well. :S

Remember, none of those magic components make any difference without cable risers and burning your cables in for at least 3 months. Then the magic happens, the veil is lifted and the music becomes transparent.

You forgot the most important thing: a sonic crystal placed on the amp.

Personally, I prefer a plush T-Rex myself. Whatever a crystal can do, a T-Rex can do better!

 

[respice finem]

It will work perfectly.... to a slightly lower spec.
Which rather mocks the word ‘perfectly’.

Exactly. And at least with higher priced gear, it isn't of relevance how much difference will be audible (which depends on too many factors anyway). If I buy expensive gear, I expect it to be better than cheap gear. Like, say, if I buy a Porsche I don't have to drive it crazy fast, but the car should be able to do that if I need/want to. This AVR ist, for me, a paramount example of "diminishing returns" in the home theater business.
There may always be some "sample variation", but with good QC, not that far-off the specs.

 

[Newman]

As @amirm has made very clear, once above a SINAD of 115dB no human being can hear a difference, and that is the goal. Now, if 99% (my made up stat) can't hear anything above 90 db, that's not the point of this site. The point of this site is to be able to say a product is guaranteed to be transparent to 100% of potential buyers and that requires a SINAD of 115 dB.

That is one of the more unbelievable claims I have seen here. Probably based on some self-inflating number-escalating logic, not backed up in the least by any evidence of anyone detecting, say, -110 dB.

 

[respice finem]

I am currently contemplating testing that assertion by trying a Hypex/Purify for my 2 channel setup, if I can find one in Germany...
...I can't hear a difference whether I use my RME ADI-2 DAC as a source or the supposedly "crappy" internal DAC in my AVR. Chances are that a better amp is wasted on my "wood ears" as well...

I've made the same experience (also RME ADI-2) with the DAC in my AVR and loudspeakers, but not with headphones. The "weakest part of the chain" in this comparison are my speakers I guess (or the headphone out of the AVR...). Maybe, as you already have the RME which is a DAC/balanced preamp/HPA, decent headphones and/or active speakers might be a better "upgrade path"?

 

[bigguyca]

Personally I think the unit was faulty, so I think best to err on side of caution about the results, hopefull anthem will send a working avm60 and do a fresh test.

So you want a golden unit from Anthem? Getting units to measure directly from the manufacturer is a really bad idea.

o The units may not represent typical production. Unless the manufacturer is a total idiot the unit provided will be better than an average unit.

o There is a favorable bias toward the manufacturer developed in ANY reviewer, whether the reviewer upstands this consciously or not, when a unit is provided by the manufacturer.

 

[Roland]

Can you not distinguish between any amp? Count yourself lucky, because I am unfortunate to be able to pick up distortion relatively easily.

As @amirm has made very clear, once above a SINAD of 115dB no human being can hear a difference, and that is the goal. Now, if 99% (my made up stat) can't hear anything above 90 db, that's not the point of this site. The point of this site is to be able to say a product is guaranteed to be transparent to 100% of potential buyers and that requires a SINAD of 115 dB.

I can distinguish between amps. There are 2 issues I’d like to better understand. One is the validity of the assertion based on measured performance that a Denon AVC-X3700 sounds better than a Denon PMA 2500ne (for example), because the 3700 has higher wattage output and lower sinad. Secondly, if some amplifiers sound better than others, what measurable factor is responsible for this. For example, does a Purifi amp sound better than a Yamaha RN-303d, and if so, why?

Perhaps those who have bought Purify amps for their AVRs could say whether they sound better than the internal amps and if so, in what way. If they do sound better, what do they think is responsible for the audible improvement (and how could we measure this)?

 

[diddley]

So you want a golden unit from Anthem? Getting units to measure directly from the manufacturer is a really bad idea.

o The units may not represent typical production. Unless the manufacturer is a total idiot the unit provided will be better than an average unit.

o There is a favorable bias toward the manufacturer developed in ANY reviewer, whether the reviewer upstands this consciously or not, when a unit is provided by the manufacturer.

That are bold statements without any proof.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/soncoz-sgd1-audio-dac-review.10295/

 

[SimpleTheater]

That is one of the more unbelievable claims I have seen here. Probably based on some self-inflating number-escalating logic, not backed up in the least by any evidence of anyone detecting, say, -110 dB.

The provable level of audible transparency in mid-frequencies is -115 dB. This is 0.0001778. Anything less and you are in gray area, requiring psychoacoustics analysis. I suggest reading more research on audibility of distortions such as this: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ity-and-reliability-of-abx-blind-testing.186/

View attachment 67555

View attachment 67556

And from Clark's paper quoted above:

View attachment 67557

Bottom line is that you have no data to base your doubts on. No way any researcher with straight face will say or accept that distortion in 2 to 3% is not audible.

 

[SimpleTheater]

That are bold statements without any proof.

"Our shoppers pay full retail and purchase all the products we test to generate our ratings from the same places consumers do; we accept no sample products for testing." -- Consumer Reports
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/about-us/what-we-do/research-and-testing/index.htm

"...in some cases, they reluctantly buy a machine directly from the manufacturer. "When we do that, we're kind of paranoid that we've gotten a gold-plated sample, so we go out and buy a retail model later on and check to see if it's the same," Peter Sawchuk said. In some cases, they have gotten souped-up machines with slightly more power than standard models."

This is the rationale for one of Consumer Reports' core principles: buying retail whenever possible.
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7537153/consumer-reports

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

I've made the same experience (also RME ADI-2) with the DAC in my AVR and loudspeakers, but not with headphones. The "weakest part of the chain" in this comparison are my speakers I guess (or the headphone out of the AVR...). Maybe, as you already have the RME which is a DAC/balanced preamp/HPA, decent headphones and/or active speakers might be a better "upgrade path"?

Not to stray off topic here but yes: with headphones the difference is blatantly obvious between the two. Especially with the Focal Clear.
That is due to the super high output impedance of my AVR, giving me a whopping +10dB peak at the Clears resonance frequency of 55Hz.

I observed the same effect with speakers, when my buddy tested his pioneer AVR vs a Cambridge Audio combo, although the differences were much less pronounced.
When it comes to electronics, output impedance is the only difference I am able to hear.

Perhaps those who have bought Purify amps for their AVRs could say whether they sound better than the internal amps and if so, in what way. If they do sound better, what do they think is responsible for the audible improvement (and how could we measure this)?

If I were to hazard a guess: output impedance.
Or in the case of AVR vs. AVR: Digital signal processing (especially the different room correction solutions).

Unless the amp is particularly noisy like my AVR and you try to pump up a really small digital signal, forcing you to run into the noise, I doubt many amps can be distinguished from each other in a double blind test.

 

[peng]

I can distinguish between amps. There are 2 issues I’d like to better understand. One is the validity of the assertion based on measured performance that a Denon AVC-X3700 sounds better than a Denon PMA 2500ne (for example), because the 3700 has higher wattage output and lower sinad. Secondly, if some amplifiers sound better than others, what measurable factor is responsible for this. For example, does a Purifi amp sound better than a Yamaha RN-303d, and if so, why?

Perhaps those who have bought Purify amps for their AVRs could say whether they sound better than the internal amps and if so, in what way. If they do sound better, what do they think is responsible for the audible improvement (and how could we measure this)?

We can agree, agree to disagree or disagree on anything, but I am curious to know if you agree that in order to be objective, comparison listening should be done with the test conditions clearly specified, the dut (devices under test) level matched, speakers, placement same, source material won't likely be the bottleneck, and then bias removed by not letting the listeners know which one they will be listening to?

If yes, then I think it would be a good way to find out if in fact an AVC-X3700H can sound different (better or not may be a subjective matter) than a PMA 2500NE. Actually one more required condition would be that during the test, it is important to make sure the dut won't be driven close to their clipping point, otherwise the one that clips may produce audible distortions.

If no, then I dare say anyone "can distinguish between amps", depending on what are being compared and how the comparison tests are done.

 

[respice finem]

Unless the amp is particularly noisy like my AVR and you try to pump up a really small digital signal, forcing you to run into the noise, I doubt many amps can be distinguished from each other in a double blind test.

This is true. Generally, a properly designed amp shouldn't have much sound of it's own. A special case are valve amps (which you may say are sounded by design due to their special distortion profile), or amps that are sounded on purpose, whatever the reason. https://www.hififorum.at/node/7080

 

[SimpleTheater]

We can agree, agree to disagree or disagree on anything, but I am curious to know if you agree that in order to be objective, comparison listening should be done with the test conditions clearly specified, the dut (devices under test) level matched, speakers, placement same, source material won't likely be the bottleneck, and then bias removed by not letting the listeners know which one they will be listening to?

If yes, then I think it would be a good way to find out if in fact an AVC-X3700H can sound different (better or not may be a subjective matter) than a PMA 2500NE. Actually one more required condition would be that during the test, it is important to make sure the dut won't be driven close to their clipping point, otherwise the one that clips may produce audible distortions.

If no, then I dare say anyone "can distinguish between amps", depending on what are being compared and how the comparison tests are done.

The cost to setup blind testing, ensure the listeners aren't just trained, but have excellent 20-20kHz hearing, creating a properly treated room, using only speakers that everyone reading will agree are the best of the best, etc., etc., would cost in the $ millions (and you'd still find someone complaining that something isn't quite right, or the listeners are somehow corrupt). And this is why ASR uses the 115 dB threshold, because it is beyond any human hearing and it costs way less than humans listening in a controlled environment.

I can distinguish between amps. There are 2 issues I’d like to better understand. One is the validity of the assertion based on measured performance that a Denon AVC-X3700 sounds better than a Denon PMA 2500ne (for example), because the 3700 has higher wattage output and lower sinad. Secondly, if some amplifiers sound better than others, what measurable factor is responsible for this. For example, does a Purifi amp sound better than a Yamaha RN-303d, and if so, why?

You're missing the point. No one is "asserting" based on measured performance that the Denon AVC-X3700 sounds better than a Denon PMA 2500ne. The assertion is that once a component CLEARS the 115dB threshold, NO ONE can hear the difference.

You might think its semantics, but its not.

 

[Roland]

We can agree, agree to disagree or disagree on anything, but I am curious to know if you agree that in order to be objective, comparison listening should be done with the test conditions clearly specified, the dut (devices under test) level matched, speakers, placement same, source material won't likely be the bottleneck, and then bias removed by not letting the listeners know which one they will be listening to?

If yes, then I think it would be a good way to find out if in fact an AVC-X3700H can sound different (better or not may be a subjective matter) than a PMA 2500NE. Actually one more required condition would be that during the test, it is important to make sure the dut won't be driven close to their clipping point, otherwise the one that clips may produce audible distortions.

If no, then I dare say anyone "can distinguish between amps", depending on what are being compared and how the comparison tests are done.

I’m not advocating any particular method for establishing whether amp A sounds better than amp B. I’m just asking whether two amps with inaudible levels of distortion at a given output sound the same (all things being equal)? Then I’m intrigued as to why people buy expensive kit, if there is no audible benefit in doing so.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Then I’m intrigued as to why people buy expensive kit, if there is no audible benefit in doing so.

Features
Peace of Mind (if it clears the thresholds)
Pride of ownership
Design
Supporting Companies that do it right

Take your pick.

Though, if you ask me, from what I have observed here, devices that perform equally but cost less are far more popular.

 

[respice finem]

...I’m intrigued as to why people buy expensive kit, if there is no audible benefit in doing so.

IMHO for many reasons, probably in the first place bias = they believe to have an audible benefit. Put two identical amps in different cases, one luxurious and one cheapish, and "everybody and his mother" will say the expensive-looking one sounds better. Another trick: one of both is 2dB louder. Or they believe the "marketing lyric". Others believe, more expensive stuff is more reliable (which may often be the case). Or they want luxury etc. etc. Some prefer non-neutral amps (as valve amps).
I guess in a typical untreated listening room, and with passive speakers, the room itself makes much more audible difference than an amp ever could. Look at pro gear with their (often bog standard) amp modules in the active boxes. These guys ain't deaf... (mostly)