Anthem STR pre-amp

[Sparky]

This interests me greatly. I'm looking to reduce my box count. How would this fare against the RME ADI2 DAC I currently own? I know they cheaped out on the DAC inside the STR Pre though.......

Still, looks like a good prospect.

 

[veeceem]

This interests me greatly. I'm looking to reduce my box count. How would this fare against the RME ADI2 DAC I currently own? I know they cheaped out on the DAC inside the STR Pre though.......

Still, looks like a good prospect.

In direct mode, I hear no difference when uses its DAC or Qutest or Topping DX7 pro. Also no difference using Anthem vs DX7 pro as preamp to feed NAD M22 v2 amp and Passlabs XA25 (to Tannoy Kengsinton GR)

In ARC mode, Anthem gives much better bass control, result in better overall sound. Btw, I only correct up to 500hz.
"Cheap out" or not, idk, but a preamp with better than -90dB in its ADC/DAC is good enough for everything, imo.

 

[Sal1950]

According to these measurements, the separated preamp is good for not-academic-purpose I think. Btw, I bought the preamp new for $2500 include tax/shipping

I've listened to the STR using it's ARC a couple times now and was quite impressed with it's sound. I don't know how you'd do any kind of bias controlled listening tests using ARC against the other DRC systems so all I can say is I didn't hear it doing anything obviously wrong.
I don't know my butt from a hole in the ground about DAC chips but I get the feeling that this 2014 TOTL AK4456VN DAC chip is well capable of delivering totally transparent sound if implemented correctly by the units designer.
How did you get one for $2500, hold a gun to the salepersons head?

 

[Wombat]

Bought this , plugged it in.. sounds at least as good as my belles statement pre .

It's got a ton of functionality, is less than half the price of my belles . In fact I might be able to sell my belles for the same price as I bought this new.

Although it's internally converting to 32/196 it suffers little detrimental effects I can hear over the pure analogue signal. There's a slight shiny sound possibly around 10K that needs more investigation.

I'm yet to run the room EQ and subwoofer integration software as I need a adapter for my phone to plug the mic into.

I believe it measured well, maybe the integrated version would be something @amirm could get his hands on to measure.

I actually think it sounds more detailed than my old belles and the imaging is more precise but regardless it's certainly no worse. Iv had a bunch of £10000 ish pre's through my hifi over the years and this as good as any sound wise and has abilities non of those far more expensive ones had.

I will up date when iv got the room software working .

https://www.anthemav.com/products-current/model=str-pre-amplifier/page=overview

Take some 1200 grit to that slightly shiny sound, you closet subjectivist, you.

 

[Spocko]

This interests me greatly. I'm looking to reduce my box count. How would this fare against the RME ADI2 DAC I currently own? I know they cheaped out on the DAC inside the STR Pre though.......
Still, looks like a good prospect.

I gotta be honest about this whole "cheap out" on the DAC chip sentiment by many here and elsewhere (and to be honest, I too have been guilty of this!). The actual chip itself (Sabre, AKM, BB, Wolfson, etc.) is so irrelevant compared to all the engineering required to draw out the chip's performance; you can take the cheapest 24 bit DAC currently available today and plug it into a well engineered design from RME, Benchmark, Matrix, Chord, and the performance would be likely indistinguishable from a flagship DAC in the same competently designed board. The reason DACs are upgraded is simply to keep up with newer and newer resolution/DSD formats. Hegel similarly has chosen a "lesser" DAC chip for its recent $6,000 H390 integrated amp because they didn't think there was any improvement in SQ when using "better" DACs - this is a $6,000 amp where an extra $100 for a better DAC could have easily been passed to the customer with zero push back. It's a sad day when DAC designers have to second guess themselves: "well this older/cheaper DAC clearly sounds better, but if word gets out that I'm using a "lesser" DAC, people will think I "cheaped out" and will not buy my DAC. Oh well, let's choose the more expensive DAC because marketing requires it."
Edit: In this case of the kettle calling the pot black, I just bought the new Topping D90 deploying the latest AKM4499 DAC just because I was dazzled by the specs of this "flagship" DAC. It was $700 and the ASR in me DEMANDED that I get the DX7 Pro for $100 less, but the engineering whore in me couldn't resist the curiosity and allure of the latest and greatest AKM chip - like a foolish moth to a flame. So believe me when I say I UNDERSTAND this desire for the best DAC - and I hate myself for it.

 

[Sparky]

I gotta be honest about this whole "cheap out" on the DAC chip sentiment by many here and elsewhere (and to be honest, I too have been guilty of this!). The actual chip itself (Sabre, AKM, BB, Wolfson, etc.) is so irrelevant compared to all the engineering required to draw out the chip's performance; you can take the cheapest 24 bit DAC currently available today and plug it into a well engineered design from RME, Benchmark, Matrix, Chord, and the performance would be likely indistinguishable from a flagship DAC in the same competently designed board. The reason DACs are upgraded is simply to keep up with newer and newer resolution/DSD formats. Hegel similarly has chosen a "lesser" DAC chip for its recent $6,000 H390 integrated amp because they didn't think there was any improvement in SQ when using "better" DACs - this is a $6,000 amp where an extra $100 for a better DAC could have easily been passed to the customer with zero push back. It's a sad day when DAC designers have to second guess themselves: "well this older/cheaper DAC clearly sounds better, but if word gets out that I'm using a "lesser" DAC, people will think I "cheaped out" and will not buy my DAC. Oh well, let's choose the more expensive DAC because marketing requires it."
Edit: In this case of the kettle calling the pot black, I just bought the new Topping D90 deploying the latest AKM4499 DAC just because I was dazzled by the specs of this "flagship" DAC. It was $700 and the ASR in me DEMANDED that I get the DX7 Pro for $100 less, but the engineering whore in me couldn't resist the curiosity and allure of the latest and greatest AKM chip - like a foolish moth to a flame. So believe me when I say I UNDERSTAND this desire for the best DAC - and I hate myself for it.

I guess that I too am guilty of what you're suggesting. I suppose it's human nature to want the latest and greatest. Of course, why would the AKM DAC in the Anthem be inferior to the AKM in my RME DAC? I'm sure a ton of R&D was done before the circuit was designed.

So, you've bought the latest AKM DAC chipset. Can you hear any difference between that and the previous DAC you used?

 

[Spocko]

I guess that I too am guilty of what you're suggesting. I suppose it's human nature to want the latest and greatest. Of course, why would the AKM DAC in the Anthem be inferior to the AKM in my RME DAC? I'm sure a ton of R&D was done before the circuit was designed.
So, you've bought the latest AKM DAC chipset. Can you hear any difference between that and the previous DAC you used?

Funny you should ask! I will be comparing the D90 to the latest RME ADI2 DAC FS as soon as I get it from RME sometime next month. As far as the inferiority of the Anthem DAC, keep in mind that the new RME DAC replaced the AKM4490 with the AKM4493 which is arguably "inferior" to more expensive chips from AKM. Here's RME angle in discussing the 4493/4497/4490 (posted 12 months ago!):
"Yes, the 4493 is a slightly improved version, but it is not fully compatible. The 4497/99 are forced replies to the ESS chips and their marketing efforts and success. But the 4497 did not cut the cake for various reasons. The new 4499 is much more promising due to its four channel architecture, and might get more popular than the 4497...in the long term, so far this chip is not yet available."
And here's RME's explanation as to what is improved in the new DAC (nothing related to the 4493 apparently):
"Objectively there is no audible sound difference in music playback between old and new DAC. Think about it: nobody heard noise or distortion on the old unit. Frequency response, feature set and other tech specs are unchanged, so how can the new unit sound different? Technical improvements must not be immediately noticeable to still make sense. Like the added 2.5 dB headroom for the volume control (my favourite in daily use), the increased intersample peak headroom when using the unit at 0 dB volume setting (peace of mind for scared listeners), or the 2 dB lower noise at the (already noise free) IEM output (just because we can...)."

I chose the new RME because improved IEM noise floor and equalizer function (which the last one also had).

 

[Sparky]

Funny you should ask! I will be comparing the D90 to the latest RME ADI2 DAC FS as soon as I get it from RME sometime next month. As far as the inferiority of the Anthem DAC, keep in mind that the new RME DAC replaced the AKM4490 with the AKM4493 which is arguably "inferior" to more expensive chips from AKM. Here's RME angle in discussing the 4493/4497/4490 (posted 12 months ago!):
"Yes, the 4493 is a slightly improved version, but it is not fully compatible. The 4497/99 are forced replies to the ESS chips and their marketing efforts and success. But the 4497 did not cut the cake for various reasons. The new 4499 is much more promising due to its four channel architecture, and might get more popular than the 4497...in the long term, so far this chip is not yet available."
And here's RME's explanation as to what is improved in the new DAC (nothing related to the 4493 apparently):
"Objectively there is no audible sound difference in music playback between old and new DAC. Think about it: nobody heard noise or distortion on the old unit. Frequency response, feature set and other tech specs are unchanged, so how can the new unit sound different? Technical improvements must not be immediately noticeable to still make sense. Like the added 2.5 dB headroom for the volume control (my favourite in daily use), the increased intersample peak headroom when using the unit at 0 dB volume setting (peace of mind for scared listeners), or the 2 dB lower noise at the (already noise free) IEM output (just because we can...)."

I chose the new RME because improved IEM noise floor and equalizer function (which the last one also had).

Any updates Spocko?

I'm still on the fence about this STR Pre-amp as I'm trying figure out how I'll integrate my AVR (which handles all my HDMI and audio decoding) with the STR and a pair of Purifi monoblocks.

 

[direstraitsfan98]

Any updates Spocko?

I'm still on the fence about this STR Pre-amp as I'm trying figure out how I'll integrate my AVR (which handles all my HDMI and audio decoding) with the STR and a pair of Purifi monoblocks.

I’d get the integrated, not the separates. Much, MUCH better value.

 

[Sparky]

I’d get the integrated, not the separates. Much, MUCH better value.

Really? How so? I would assume a stand-alone preamp would be better than the preamp contained within an integrated?

 

[KarVi71]

I was actually thinking about buying this, although it was somewhat out of my price range.

Having perviously had an Athem MRX300, which I really liked, mostly because of Anthems ARC room correction, which was the first room correction that I found to be able to actually improve my system, without negative side effects.

But I ended up buying a NAD C658, with Dirac room Correction. And I find it to be really fantastic. Dirac is far ahead of the ARC in the MRX300, which (to be fair) was/is also a rather old version.

I would really like a comparison review of ARC vs Dirac.

And also of both the Anthem STR and the NAD C658.

 

[pjug]

It is weird that the STR integrated costs just a little more than the preamp. Are the preamps of the two things the same?

 

[Sparky]

I was actually thinking about buying this, although it was somewhat out of my price range.

Having perviously had an Athem MRX300, which I really liked, mostly because of Anthems ARC room correction, which was the first room correction that I found to be able to actually improve my system, without negative side effects.

But I ended up buying a NAD C658, with Dirac room Correction. And I find it to be really fantastic. Dirac is far ahead of the ARC in the MRX300, which (to be fair) was/is also a rather old version.

I would really like a comparison review of ARC vs Dirac.

And also of both the Anthem STR and the NAD C658.

I own a Arcam SR250 which has DIRAC built in and I've also owned an MRX520 with ARC.
I, personally find ARC much much easier to use. It is very user friendly and pleasing on the eye as far as reading and understanding the interface.
DIRAC, on the other hand, is the opposite. I find it to be quite "old fashioned" in its execution and can be quite fiddly and cumbersome.
You're never quite sure if you're doing it right whereas ARC gives you confidence as it guides you well.

Apparently, the latest "genesis" version of ARC is a bit of a game changer.....

 

[Sparky]

It is weird that the STR integrated costs just a little more than the preamp. Are the preamps of the two things the same?

Agreed. The pricing is a bit odd.

 

[KarVi71]

I own a Arcam SR250 which has DIRAC built in and I've also owned an MRX520 with ARC.
I, personally find ARC much much easier to use. It is very user friendly and pleasing on the eye as far as reading and understanding the interface.
DIRAC, on the other hand, is the opposite. I find it to be quite "old fashioned" in its execution and can be quite fiddly and cumbersome.
You're never quite sure if you're doing it right whereas ARC gives you confidence as it guides you well.

Apparently, the latest "genesis" version of ARC is a bit of a game changer.....

Well, you had the 520 with a much never version of ARC.

The MRX300 came with an older version, that was not quite as straight forward. I was allways a bit sad that ARC wasn't upgraded on the MRX300.

I find the latest versions of Dirac fine to work with (note that Dirac got a major overhaul about a year ago), and the sound quality is very good.
Whether its as good as ARC genesis, thats another question altogether, that I cant answer.

I think both are valid choices.

 

[Sparky]

Well, you had the 520 with a much never version of ARC.

The MRX300 came with an older version, that was not quite as straight forward. I was allways a bit sad that ARC wasn't upgraded on the MRX300.

I find the latest versions of Dirac fine to work with (note that Dirac got a major overhaul about a year ago), and the sound quality is very good.
Whether its as good as ARC genesis, thats another question altogether, that I cant answer.

I think both are valid choices.

Ah, I didn't realise the MRX300 had an older version of ARC. You're right though, it's apples to apples really. I think both are great in their own right and I'm led to believe that DIRAC is releasing a "bass management" add on soon. Whether it's compatible with older units like my SR250 is anyone's guess.
My SR250 only has 1 measly measurement slot!

 

[KarVi71]

Ah, I didn't realise the MRX300 had an older version of ARC. You're right though, it's apples to apples really. I think both are great in their own right and I'm led to believe that DIRAC is releasing a "bass management" add on soon. Whether it's compatible with older units like my SR250 is anyone's guess.
My SR250 only has 1 measly measurement slot!

I'm looking forward to the bass management and it is already announced (but not released) for the C658. It will be interresting to see if it lives up to their claims, and the early reports. It does come at a price though ...
The C658 has 5 slots, making comparisons between target curves very easy.

 

[Sparky]

I'm looking forward to the bass management and it is already announced (but not released) for the C658. It will be interresting to see if it lives up to their claims, and the early reports. It does come at a price though ...
The C658 has 5 slots, making comparisons between target curves very easy.

I'm looking forward to it too. It's about time they developed a dedicated bass management section as bass is the problem area for all of us hifi/home theatre lovers. I never EQ above 500hz so it's a much needed item.

I'm jealous of your 5 slots!

 

[Sal1950]

I'm jealous of your 5 slots!

+1

 

[veeceem]

I've been using ARC Genesis with Anthem STR preamp for a few months, I also looked for info of integrated vs separates. Heres my thoughts:
- Price: ignored
- Specs: as of measured by 3rd party sites, they are very good.
- Power: separates for more power

And ARC Genesis:
- Noob friendly, even adding subs is very easy, phase is also auto adjust.
- Mostly auto, but if you want to customize, it has most of the settings needed.
- I dont think one needs more than what ARC has to provide.
- Read the manual on Anthem's website for more detailed guide