AVR's take advantage of economies of scale (at least at the mass market level) - hence devices such as the X3800h provide huge value...So I promised to do some measurements and listening of Dirac ART in my living room 2ch setup (using my x3800H pinched from my home cinema).
For reference I am running Audio First Cadentia 3 Speakers.
No EQ:
View attachment 506372
View attachment 506373
With Dirac Live:
View attachment 506375
View attachment 506374
With ART:
View attachment 506376
View attachment 506377
As to how it sounds... F*cking nuts! With Dirac Live things are good, but the sound seems to stay at the front wall, and seems 'squashed' in comparison. When I switch between the 2 the difference is massive. It's like my speakers have grown and are 'set free'.
The other great news is that I really don't think I need any subs in my room to improve on this. Sooooooooo... Just need to wait for a 2ch device to come out with support for ART. Or go in for an AVR where I don't need the vast amount of the features... Hmm!
Although in theory, it would make sense that a 2 channel device would be better value - the economies of scale are such that a 16 channel device can end up competing directly with stereo devices....
Stereo devices with a full featured DSP used to be less common than "vanilla" stereo devices - surround by definition required DSP - so the processing power was there in every AVR by default (yes things are shifting in this space... but economies of scale still apply).
As a result it can be more economical to purchase a high value mass market AVR, to act as a 2.1 processor - with the other features (and channels) being a bonus that you may or may not use!
The only downside I can think of is that AVR's typically are more bulky than more compact 2.0 or 2.1 equivalents.