Arcam AV40 AV Processor Review

[Koeitje]

Relevant Video Interview

This is the standard of the performance they want, he even says it .

 

[bidn]

Linearity, IMD, ... I am shocked! Unbelievable how awfully broken such products are and how they can dare ask much more money for them than not so terrible products!

The audiophile ecosystem, with its magazines, internet sites and its reviewers who get paid (directly or through advertisements or through free expensive items) to delude customers in wasting their money on garbage is definetely corrupt, rotten to the core. Though when I see how much Schiit improved from terrible products to some recent very good ones thanks to Amir's reviews, there may still be some hope.

 

[TimoJ]

This is the standard of the performance they want, he even says it .

And those are very musical receivers, as he says. i.e. lots of harmonic distortion...

 

[Bjorn]

Unless there's something wrong here with either the unit or the measurements (not likely), Arcam has clearly shown their are prone to deceit, lies and misguidance.

It's great that this revealed but also sad and puts part of the industry (reviewers included) in shame.

 

[Krobar]

Unless there's something wrong here with either the unit or the measurements (not likely), Arcam has clearly shown their are prone to deceit, lies and misguidance.

It's great that this revealed but also sad and puts part of the industry (reviewers included) in shame.

Tough to say if it is deliberate or just incompetence. 90db is well short of the 100db claim so I would hope for at least a response form Arcam on this. To be honest after the AVR390 horror I was not expecting great things (I own one of these).

Spec sheet is here if people want to compare:
https://www.arcam.co.uk/ugc/tor/AV40/Specification Sheet/ARCAM AV40 Spec.pdf

 

[Bachemar]

@amirm is it possible the RCA outputs could measure differently? I’m wondering if there is different/better isolation around them reducing some of the problems?

 

[anmpr1]

Obviously this was designed first and foremost to give dealers something with a good markup. Then end user? As pitiful spec-wise as it is, if the goal is to blow up a Death Star in a living room then my guess is that most buyers won't care.

Why anyone might want to spend four and a half large when a much cheaper home theater receiver would do the trick for them is something I don't understand. DIRAC? OK. But a top of the line NAD AV receiver has that for two thousand dollars less. Sure, NAD doesn't look as nice, but the knob on the front panel will be placed in the usual spot, so it's got that going for it.

 

[markus]

Proof

Claiming all that on record without blushing, now that's "performance".

 

[markus]

Why anyone might want to spend four and a half large when a much cheaper home theater receiver would do the trick for them is something I don't understand.

I guess money doesn't make people brighter or less gullible.

 

[TimoJ]

Didn't these units have noise and digital interference problems with early firmwares? I guess they "fixed" it with just some software trickery and the ugly truth still comes thru with proper measurements.

 

[thefsb]

Actually I was always skeptic on all those audio equipment costing a car, but since reading this forum I am more than shocked to see so many renowned brands selling all this bloody expensive gears with such results, what are they remotely thinking of? It’s like selling sports car which can’t accelerate as fast as a Toyota Corolla

Not really because that would be so obvious on a test drive. It's more like selling a car with much worse fuel efficiency than advertised or allowed by law and that's poisoning us with exorbitant NOX outputs.

 

[tecnogadget]

Not really because that would be so obvious on a test drive. It's more like selling a car with much worse fuel efficiency than advertised or allowed by law and that's poisoning us with exorbitant NOX outputs.

Tell the Volkswagen executives to go and fit some Arcam gear in their cars haha perfect matching system then

 

[Dj7675]

Yet another disappointing example of an AV processor. They continue to show they are some of the worst values out there. Relatively poor performance for their cost and no amplification. They continue to hang their hat on Dirac. People have assumed excellent performance because of cost and marketing. It is amazing how a mid line receiver like the X3600 easily beats it in performance and includes good quality amplification.

 

[stunta]

Clearly, Amir is doing it all wrong. This is how reviews should be done: https://www.audioadvice.com/videos-reviews/arcam-av40-surround-sound-processor-review/

FTA:

Performance
Our first test was to find out how good the new DAC’s were inside the AV40 so we connected it up in a very revealing system normally reserved for audiophile listening experiences.

and there is this:

As you can see, the AV40 is a groundbreaking product, with its UK engineered heritage of great sound, coupled with more features than we have ever seen in a surround sound processor. While $4,500 is not cheap, it should be considered an amazing value.

 

[peng]

Linearity, IMD, ... I am shocked! Unbelievable how awfully broken such products are and how they can dare ask much more money for them than not so terrible products!

I can see from the graph linearity is poor, but in practical sense, why would it matter if it is bad at lower than -80 dBFS? Just curious,

 

[peng]

Yet another disappointing example of an AV processor. They continue to show they are some of the worst values out there. Relatively poor performance for their cost and no amplification. They continue to hang their hat on Dirac. People have assumed excellent performance because of cost and marketing. It is amazing how a mid line receiver like the X3600 easily beats it in performance and includes good quality amplification.

I am beginning to think that the logical explanation is, D+M and Yamaha have unlimited resources relatively speaking, relative to boutique brands like Arcam, Anthem, and to some degree NAD and Emotiva. So for mass produced products, they can do so good that their products may be the best bang for the $ by default. You may get some poorer performers from those big companies too but they would have a more solid baseline/firewall. Arcam, NAD, Anthem and the likes of, can do well in the analog department because in that domain, things are fully matured, almost saturated and have been in a steady state in terms of the science and technologies involved in their design and implementation.

 

[thefsb]

People have assumed excellent performance because of cost and marketing.

Also, in some cases such as this, brand reputation.

 

[anmpr1]

Clearly, Amir is doing it all wrong. This is how reviews should be done: https://www.audioadvice.com/videos-reviews/arcam-av40-surround-sound-processor-review/

And at the end of the sales pitch review you hit the 'buy it now' button. They do admit it's not as nice as the Mark Levinson or McIntosh. Why that bit of 'honesty'? Probably because they sell those brands too. LOL

 

[anmpr1]

I can see from the graph linearity is poor, but in practical sense, why would it matter if it is bad at lower than -80 dBFS? Just curious,

Because from a practical standpoint do you want to drop four and a half thousand dollars on this sort of overall performance? That's why it matters. If this was a four hundred dollar AV receiver it'd be a good argument because you don't expect much, and are willing to overlook a lot at that price point.

 

[anmpr1]

I am beginning to think that the logical explanation is, D+M and Yamaha have unlimited resources relatively speaking,...

Well, Arcam is part of Harman, which is part of Samsung. So there's resources somewhere in that supply chain. I think they just don't care.