Anthem AVM90 AV Processor Review

[LeffetheAudiophile]

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

¯\_(ツ)_/¯​

How good is the audyssey program even in general? I use my room correction but i cannot for the life of me wanna be using the eq they provide with the test because it quite frankly makes the audio sound like complete crap!
This could be due to my crappy room and the instability of the acoustics in my cheap, crappy studio apartment.

 

[Beershaun]

How good is the audyssey program even in general? I use my room correction but i cannot for the life of me wanna be using the eq they provide with the test because it quite frankly makes the audio sound like complete crap!
This could be due to my crappy room and the instability of the acoustics in my cheap, crappy studio apartment.

To get a good in room response you'll need to purchase and use the app with it. My understanding is it tends to target a flat in room response which is not the right target. You want a response that is slightly sloped so the bass is higher and the treble is slightly lower.

 

[GXAlan]

How good is the audyssey program even in general? I use my room correction but i cannot for the life of me wanna be using the eq they provide with the test because it quite frankly makes the audio sound like complete crap!
This could be due to my crappy room and the instability of the acoustics in my cheap, crappy studio apartment

Audyssey in its default config might be OK for those home theater in a box products like this. The default curve doesn’t have enough of a bass boost and they have a midrange dip.

https://ask.audyssey.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347863-Midrange-Compensation#:~:text=Midrange%20compensation%20is%20an%20intentional,speaker%20goes%20through%20major%20changes.

https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=39358

Their research was that it was beneficial across the board in 2011 with the common speakers tested.

I think most enthusiasts with high quality speakers have preferred NOT to have this midrange dip. Buying the iOS app (and presumably the Android app) lets you turn this off and add the bass boost.

Third party freeware, known as Ratbuddysey, lets you take REW filters and apply your own PEQ. You are modifying the saved files from the app.

MultEQ-X offers much more power than the app and is a paid upgrade and highly recommended if you are unhappy with the app.

 

[hyfynut]

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.

$6000 in today's audio dollars is roughly equivalent to a $3500 product of just a few years ago.

 

[SuicideSquid]

It's not simple upscaling. There's a lot of processing that goes into units like the OSSC or RetroTINK. Your misconception is that this is a simple 1-to-1 process. There's no reason for an audio company to invest the money into accommodating a niche into an already niche item.

It's also not about speed running or competitive gaming, it's about appropriate image quality, in much the same way we're here for audio quality.

Take a look at the length of the RetroTINK 4K WIKI and then ask yourself if you actually expect an audio company to build in this kind of product for people mostly interested in movies:
RetroTINK 4K wiki

I know it's not a simple 1:1 process, but this is a $6,000 A/V preamp/processor. It has multiple HDMI inputs and is marketed to be the centre of a home theatre system - not just an audio product. I do think there's a midpoint between "nothing" and "super-niche high-end product" that Anthem could be covering here - the kinds of things that have been standard in more mainstream A/V receivers for years, for example.

 

[Descartes]

How often does Anthem update their processors? Every five years I believe!

Also frôm Anthem’s website

“ARC G enemies Version and Host Firmware Version should update overnight to 1.111.182 and HD.73 (AVM 90), completing the installation process the next time you power on your system.”

 

[pseudoid]

Upscale conversion is something I expect in a $6000 Pre/Pro.

I know we be not in video-forums but shouldn't the [video] upscaling/conversion be the ultimate responsibility of the TV rather than any AVR or pre/Proc, which may be within (middle) the video decode loop??

 

[SuicideSquid]

I know we be not in video-forums but shouldn't the [video] upscaling/conversion be the ultimate responsibility of the TV rather than any AVR or pre/Proc, which may be within (middle) the video decode loop??

For digital signals yes but I think in the case of accepting an oldschool analog input and then outputting a digital signal over HDMI, it makes sense to do this in the receiver.

 

[MacCali]

Hmmmm.. correct me if I am wrong here. I bought my AVM70 last year. The XLR performance(AVM90) is the same as both my XLR and RCA output. Only the RCA takes it by 3-4 db, but I paid less than half the sale price minus 1 or 2 features. Edit: Dynamic range takes a hit, and basically it’s 5 db difference. Also it’s relative sinad through the volume band is bit better

This is pretty disappointing and I’m certain this sale was pushed by the Marantz processor.

Seems fairly disappointing. Especially with all that about it’s far superior to the AVM70. This seems to me to be massive diminishing returns, and can probably doubt that it could make the AVM90 win in a dbt especially in multi ch

 

[peng]

Hmmmm.. correct me if I am wrong here. I bought my AVM70 last year. The XLR performance(AVM90) is the same as both my XLR and RCA output. Only the RCA takes it by 3-4 db, but I paid less than half the sale price minus 1 or 2 features. Edit: Dynamic range takes a hit, and basically it’s 5 db difference. Also it’s relative sinad through the volume band is bit better

This is pretty disappointing and I’m certain this sale was pushed by the Marantz processor.

Seems fairly disappointing. Especially with all that about it’s far superior to the AVM70. This seems to me to be massive diminishing returns, and can probably doubt that it could make the AVM90 win in a dbt especially in multi ch

If one doesn't need 4 subwoofers, the 70 is a better value, objectively speaking. About the DNR number you mentioned, the one Amir measured is an earlier model, so it might have the AKM DAC that has a little lower DNR.

The $7,500 (when not on sale) AVM 90's only 4 dB better than the AVM 70. So much for "implementation"! When you consider the ES9038Pro dac used in the AVM 90, that has DNR spec of a whopping 132 dB, measured 112 dB implies something got lost in implementation, and that is not debatable really.

It just shows that marketing info are often over hyped, including the case of the AVM 90 and AVM 70. Despite what people often would rush to point out implementation is more important than the chip used, I have not seen much evidence that using chips with lower specs dac resulted in better number than using chips with lower specs but claimed to implement better.

One obvious exception is D+M's X4800H, and the Cinema 40, those two obviously have excellent implementation schemes in their preamp/dac section. Whereas in the Anthem's case, the use of the top notch DAC doesn't really make any difference in terms of measured performance.

Objective measurements aside, in terms of their user's listening experience, Anthem seems very successful, as it seems that all of them (me included) reported excellent sound quality, versus just about any other AVP/AVR brand's. That's a highly subjective matter, and other brand's (Arcam, NAD, Emo etc.) loyalist/fan boys might take exception to their claims lol...

 

[Descartes]

If one doesn't need 4 subwoofers, the 70 is a better value, objectively speaking. About the DNR number you mentioned, the one Amir measured is an earlier model, so it might have the AKM DAC that has a little lower DNR.

The $7,500 (when no on sale) AVM 90's only 4 dB better than the AVR-X3800H. So much for "implementation"! When you consider the ES9038Pro dac used in the AVM 90, that has DNR spec of a whopping 132 dB, measured 112 dB implies something got loss in implementation, and that is not debatable really.

It just shows that marketing info are often over hyped, including the case of the AVM 90 and AVM 70. Despite what people often would rush to point out implementation is more important than the chip used, I have not seen much evidence that using chips with lower specs dac resulted in better number than using chips with lower specs but claimed to implement better.

One obvious exception is D+M's X4800H, and the Cinema 40, those two obviously have excellent implementation schemes in their preamp/dac section. Whereas in the Anthem's case, the use of the top notch DAC doesn't really make any difference in terms of measured performance.

Objective measurements aside, in terms of their user's listening experience, Anthem seems very successful, as it seems that all of them (me included) reported excellent sound quality, versus just about any other AVP/AVR brand's. That's a highly subjective matter, and other brand's (Arcam, NAD, Emo etc.) loyalist/fan boys might take exception to their claims lol...

To get 15.4 channels you need to spend a lot more than Anthem look at Trinnov and Storm Zaudio two to three times the price!

 

[Descartes]

I think the more correct naming convention for the kinds of layouts these processors can create is "Base level.Subs.Heights". So this particular receiver is a 9.4.6 rather than a 15.4.

Yes that’s what I meant!

 

[Sal1950]

We have waited a long time for AV products to break into our "green" level of performance and we finally have a couple of examples with AVM90 being one. So by standards of the category, AVM90 is an excellent offering. Couple of that with very responsive user interface and functionality and you have a very nice package. I hope company aims one grade higher in future products to close the gap further with music-only DACs.

Awesome!
We have mainly you and ASR to thank for the increased performance these AV products now offer....
You have to shine the light on the bugs before they'll disappear, that's just the way God planed it. LOL
Cheers my friend, thanks so much for all your work.
Sal

 

[Descartes]

It would be nice if someone from Anthem would participate in this discussion and see how they could upgrade ARC Genesis!

 

[Theriverlethe]

Why is the LFE low-pass set to 40Hz in the first photo? Shouldn't it be left at 120Hz to allow any content mixed into the LFE?

 

[peng]

Why is the LFE low-pass set to 40Hz in the first photo? Shouldn't it be left at 120Hz to allow any content mixed into the LFE?

Which photo, where?

 

[Theriverlethe]

Which photo, where?

The first photo at the top of Amir's review.

 

[peng]

The first photo at the top of Amir's review.

First photo, that's very easy to miss!
I don't know why, I don't remember if it defaults to 40 Hz, mine is at 120 Hz.

 

[Theriverlethe]

First photo, that's very easy to miss!
I don't know why, I don't remember if it defaults to 40 Hz, mine is at 120 Hz.

People often confuse that setting with the subwoofer crossover, but LFE is a discrete channel so there is no reason that I'm aware of to low-pass it.

 

[Deleted member 58670]

People often confuse that setting with the subwoofer crossover, but LFE is a discrete channel so there is no reason that I'm aware of to low-pass it.

The accepted industry standard is to low-pass the LFE channel at 120 Hz in the mixing and/or mastering process, but it's common do at the playback as well... just for safe keeping I guess?