Anthem AVM60 Review (AV Processor)

[Jim - where is The Abyss]

ARC, Audyssey and Dirac can all be tuned to sound identical if you know the exact room curve you prefer....

Identical? Is this really true? Considering all the parameters involved and the substantial signal processing/hardware required can the results really be identical when two different listeners can't even agree if one brand of speaker wire makes an audible difference compared to another?

 

[Newman]

@Jim - where is The Abyss although his use of the word “identical” was akin to painting a bulls-eye on his own forehead, if we read it as “very similar result” then I tend to think it is possible. And, if “very similar” is possible, then making the brand of EQ system a key purchase requirement becomes unnecessary.

Your wire analogy was very poor however, since that is an area where, unless the wire is deliberately broken by design to introduce colouration, or has the wrong LCR parameters for the way it is being used, or otherwise broken during construction or ownership or decay, then its contribution to sonic results will only ever happen during sighted listening ‘tests’ that allow the imagination to run riot and dominate perceptions. There would be no disagreement on audibility of properly-used, not-broken wires if listening tests were controlled to eliminate non-sonic factors.

cheers

 

[Chrispy]

I'm no fanboy, but thank God I don't use any of those three products you listed. I use YPAO which can correct for anything, better than any other product by far! And I should know, my ears are proof.

LOL

 

[Chrispy]

Identical? Is this really true? Considering all the parameters involved and the substantial signal processing/hardware required can the results really be identical when two different listeners can't even agree if one brand of speaker wire makes an audible difference compared to another?

Well if you count the speaker wire "listeners" then all bets are off anyways.

 

[peng]

Perhaps @amirm could measure that sort of IC volume control in isolation. If an integral aspect of AVRs is what limits their SINAD, then this mindset of telling the makers off for not measuring better is not warranted. But if it measures fine, then we know it is not the IC to blame.

That would be nice, but without the measurements, you can still compare the specs of such volume control ICs with the DAC ICs and you can see the DAC's such as the ES9006, AK4458's SINAD are not the bottleneck.

For example, the vol chip in the A-S801:
BD3473KS2 pdf, BD3473KS2 description, BD3473KS2 datasheets, BD3473KS2 view ::: ALLDATASHEET :::

0.0004 is the typical, and 0.02 "Max" (see page 7)

The DAC chip:

Using the critically acclaimed ESS patented Hyperstream DAC architecture and Time Domain Jitter
Eliminator, the ES9010K2M SABRE Premier DAC delivers a DNR of up to 116dB and THD+N of –106dB, a
performance level that will satisfy the most demanding audio enthusiasts.

-106 dB is 0.0005, that's THD+N

That's an integrated amp, the ES9026Pro used in the RX-A3070/80 has THD+N of -110 dB, or 0.0003% and the volume control LSI chip is a newer version of the one in the A-S801 but same THD spec.

 

[Jim - where is The Abyss]

@Jim - where is The Abyss...Your wire analogy was very poor however, since that is an area where, unless the wire is deliberately broken by design to introduce colouration, or has the wrong LCR parameters for the way it is being used, or otherwise broken during construction or ownership or decay, then its contribution to sonic results will only ever happen during sighted listening ‘tests’ that allow the imagination to run riot and dominate perceptions. There would be no disagreement on audibility of properly-used, not-broken wires if listening tests were controlled to eliminate non-sonic factors.

cheers

Yes, my wire reference was a bit awkward. I just find it hard to imagine that even if one person made so many adjustments that they got all the room correction solutions to sound the same to them that anyone else would ever agree.
As the owner of a new MRX1140 the discussion here re: Anthem being all hat and no cattle is an eye-opener.

 

[danzilla31]

One thing I've always disliked is room eq. I've never met a system I liked yet. I guess it's why I wanted to try Dirac on the Monolith. Never tried it yet. I always end up turning them off and using a laser ruler and meter and then just eq the subs and do room treatments. I don't know why I don't like the way they make things sound I just do. I wonder if anyone else feels the same way.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

One thing I've always disliked is room eq. I've never met a system I liked yet. I guess it's why I wanted to try Dirac on the Monolith. Never tried it yet. I always end up turning them off and using a laser ruler and meter and then just eq the subs and do room treatments. I don't know why I don't like the way they make things sound I just do. I wonder if anyone else feels the same way.

Going from Dirac off -> Dirac on is really jarring, I agree.
After a few minutes I do prefer it and the weird effect is gone.

Still, Dirac is fairly subtle in my system (aside of the bass correction). It mostly pushes the image back to the center, due to the asymmetric placement of my setup (wall close to my right speaker but not the left one).

 

[danzilla31]

Going from Dirac off -> Dirac on is really jarring, I agree.
After a few minutes I do prefer it and the weird effect is gone.

Still, Dirac is fairly subtle in my system (aside of the bass correction). It mostly pushes the image back to the center, due to the asymmetric placement of my setup (wall close to my right speaker but not the left one).

You make a good point maybe I just need to give it a chance to let my ears and my minds bias get used to one. Maybe I'll rerun Arc one of these days but it always gave me really weird readings boosting my subs and some trims to very high levels. Also the way it set distances was weird I remember every single speaker was 12 ft. No matter what. Maybe I just need to work with it more

 

[Chrispy]

You make a good point maybe I just need to give it a chance to let my ears and my minds bias get used to one. Maybe I'll rerun Arc one of these days but it always gave me really weird readings boosting my subs and some trims to very high levels. Also the way it set distances was weird I remember every single speaker was 12 ft. No matter what. Maybe I just need to work with it more

Those do sound like odd results.

 

[Newman]

Perhaps @amirm could measure that sort of IC volume control in isolation. If an integral aspect of AVRs is what limits their SINAD, then this mindset of telling the makers off for not measuring better is not warranted. But if it measures fine, then we know it is not the IC to blame.

That would be nice, but without the measurements, you can still compare the specs of such volume control ICs with the DAC ICs and you can see the DAC's such as the ES9006, AK4458's SINAD are not the bottleneck.

Hi Peng,

That was never what I meant to imply. I have assumed the DAC is not the issue. To me, the issue is whether the “well below separates” AVR results are easily avoidable by simply doing the engineering competently (the AVR maker’s fault), or are these results integral to the concept of the AVR with its IC volume control, multiple switched inputs, many power supplies and channels in close proximity, DSP circuitry, etc (not the AVR maker’s fault).

If it is not the AVR maker’s fault, then the best of them e.g. Denon 8500 should get the gold star accolades and the ‘knocked it out of the park’ pink panther, and so should anything within (say) 6 dB of the current benchmark. In fact I get the impression Amir allows 10-12 dB tolerance for ‘Tier 1x products. That would include AVRs that deliver 90 dB....

cheers

 

[danzilla31]

Those do sound like odd results.

Yeah but I've heard of others getting odd results like that as well. I need to refind and reread that thread I think they're was something that caused it you could fix.

 

[Chrispy]

Yeah but I've heard of others getting odd results like that as well. I need to refind and reread that thread I think they're was something that caused it you could fix.

Sometimes you just need to spend some time with something like that, multiple runs, patience, etc....

 

[Newman]

You make a good point maybe I just need to give it a chance to let my ears and my minds bias get used to one. Maybe I'll rerun Arc one of these days but it always gave me really weird readings boosting my subs and some trims to very high levels. Also the way it set distances was weird I remember every single speaker was 12 ft. No matter what. Maybe I just need to work with it more

I don’t see why you should limit yourself to just using the automated settings. It is not unusual for these algorithms to get things wrong such as the phase or size of a loudspeaker from the auto calibration. The DSP settings should also be tweaked if they seem to be intuitively wrong, and you haven’t got a rational reason to think that something counterintuitive might be the right thing for it to do.

Although making comparison of the automated settings of these room correction systems is a valid test to do, and tells people something about their sophistication, it is a bit like comparing cameras when the set to their auto everything mode. It doesn’t tell you for example what the auto focus system might do if you enter the settings and tweak them. Model A might beat model B on auto settings, but the ranking might be reversed when you start to tweak things.

To me the more advanced test of the systems is how they compare when properly adjusted by someone who knows what they’re doing.

cheers

 

[Mike-48]

One thing I've always disliked is room eq. I've never met a system I liked yet. I guess it's why I wanted to try Dirac on the Monolith. Never tried it yet. I always end up turning them off and using a laser ruler and meter and then just eq the subs and do room treatments. I don't know why I don't like the way they make things sound I just do. I wonder if anyone else feels the same way.

I don't feel the same way, but I can give a few comments. I've never been happy with any of the fully automatic results I've gotten from Dirac, ARC, or (years ago) the TacT 2.2X. After I run ARC, there are always six or eight iterations of adjusting parameters (using the same measurements) until I get the sound that way I like it, which can take days or weeks. It's not plug and play!

One reason it takes so long is that I use commercial recordings to do it; and every commercial recording is different. What I'm looking for are small changes that seem to improve a wide range of recordings.

If you are getting +12 dB boost for all speakers, you are hitting an ARC limit and have to adjust something so you don't get that. I have not had the problem, but I think that lowering the calibration level might help.

As to distance measurements . . . ARC doesn't set distances; you have to do that for yourself, then, with distances set, adjust phase after loading your corrections.

There are a few recordings on which I prefer no room correction; but usually the more even bass and sharper focused image of the corrected sound seems better to me.

 

[Newman]

maybe I just need to give it a chance to let my ears and my minds bias get used to one

A couple of things to remember on this point.

Floyd Toole notes how the human mind has an adaptation ability, which probably means that you have adapted to your existing straight audio system in a way that makes its failings okay for you. And suddenly having them removed might not instantly be seen as better.

Secondly, you have to make sure that your room correction is properly set up, as I described in my previous post. No point in giving ‘wrong’ room EQ an extended opportunity!

I found that after immersing myself into the room correction of my system, after properly setting it up, for a couple of months, then switching back to uncorrected was completely unacceptable. Especially in the bass.

Above the bass frequencies is another matter, because, if you have speakers that are exceptionally flat in their frequency response on the listening axis, then if the room equalisation system does anything to modify that, it is definitely doing the wrong thing. And, in that situation, they usually will do the wrong thing, because you have set a target curve for direct plus reflected sound, and it is trying to match that. It usually isn’t clever enough to realise that it is stuffing up an excellent axial frequency response, which is the most important thing not to stuff up. It is only if your speakers have frequency response aberrations in the mid range and treble frequencies, that there was any real justification for the room correction system to apply any corrections in those frequency ranges. And even then, you really want to monitor exactly what it has done and see whether that is the smartest thing to do, because, as I just noted above, they tend to look too much at the sum of the direct plus reflected sound, and attempt to meet a target curve.

cheers

 

[danzilla31]

I don't feel the same way, but I can give a few comments. I've never been happy with any of the fully automatic results I've gotten from Dirac, ARC, or (years ago) the TacT 2.2X. After I run ARC, there are always six or eight iterations of adjusting parameters (using the same measurements) until I get the sound that way I like it, which can take days or weeks. It's not plug and play!

One reason it takes so long is that I use commercial recordings to do it; and every commercial recording is different. What I'm looking for are changes that seem to improve a wide range of recordings.

If you are getting +12 dB boost for all speakers, you are hitting an ARC limit and have to adjust something so you don't get that. I have not had the problem, but I think that lowering the calibration level might help.

As to distance measurements . . . ARC doesn't set distances; you have to do that for yourself, then, with distances set, adjust phase after loading your corrections.

There are a few recordings on which I prefer no room correction; but usually the more even bass and sharper focused image of the corrected sound seems better to me.

I'm definetly down to give it another shot. I used advanced settings not auto and have done that with other room eq such as buying the Audyssey app. But it can't hurt to try again it gives me at the least an exscuse to play with the system
Could you elaborate on hitting an ARC limit and give me examples of what could be causing that? I've heard so many good things about ARC I'd really like to give it another try if correcting something like this could improve the results for me.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

When it comes to Dirac, the most important thing is that the measurement point distance is large enough.
Make it too small and the result will sound as if you put the performer into a tiny box. Completely dry and lifeless.

Other than that, Dirac doesn't give you many options for manual fiddling, I'm afraid.

 

[DuncanTodd]

I'm definetly down to give it another shot. I used advanced settings not auto and have done that with other room eq such as buying the Audyssey app. But it can't hurt to try again it gives me at the least an exscuse to play with the system
Could you elaborate on hitting an ARC limit and give me examples of what could be causing that? I've heard so many good things about ARC I'd really like to give it another try if correcting something like this could improve the results for me.

Like Mike-48 said, ARC doesn't measure (I think I read the new ARC is supposed to add that feature at some point). From what I've seen on the new models at least, there is an issue with the mic calibration volume on windows. Windows sets it well below what should be, which caused many folks to get +12 db on speakers. Not heard that about the old models though, but you could look into it. That may be the cause.

 

[Mnyb]

In my old Meridian processor the room correction is only active under 200-300 Hz something deliberately soo . In the other systems we have Dirac , ARC odyssey etc can they be made to only work in the bass ? Then i would just ad some manual tweak to the spectral balance if its sound dark/muddy or to bright that can be a function of listening distance and room.