• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Arcam AV40 AV Processor Review

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts

I think it would be worthwhile for a rebuttal or analysis by a tech experts on ASR.
Here is the conclusion:
Conclusion It was disappointing to see the manner in which Audio Science Review published data on the AV40 it reviewed. Unfortunately, it is not easy to carry out reliable measurements on complex AV type products without having a thorough understanding of the product’s architecture, design goals and limitations. We would have welcomed an approach by ASR prior to publication for the purposes of ensuring technical accuracy, as is the case with most reviewers. It is not in any way “underhand” for a reviewer to check their findings ahead of publication with a manufacturer and for the manufacturer to correct or show a valid explanation (as we believe we have done here).

They are clearly insinuating that ASR is lacking in "technical accuracy".
This is my summary of the response:
  • The product was "understood to be B-Stock"
  • ASR Vol 78 us 4V rms. design output is 2V rms XLR and 1V RCA
  • ASR fell into a ground-loop issue
  • 1kHz tone measured with limited 10Hz to 29 kHz bandwidth
  • Intermodulation Distortion -101 dB when bandwidth limited to 20 kHz
  • Jitter test issues are due to 16-bit not 24 bit test and ground-loop
  • DAC Reconstruction by design filter design for alleviate pre-ringing also, bandlimit to 22 kHz
  • 32 tone test is not representative of music because of high amplitude at high-frequencies. Using two-tone 19khz and 20Khz. Note: relatively high spikes are present 28 and 29 kHz.
It seems like this product output voltage has reduced to a relatively low 2V RMS XLR to achieve better results. This device is rated for 1 volt RCA and 2 volt XLR, this is ridiculous for a product at this price point. The answer, buy Arcam amps :p

The ground-loop is unproved and certainly not atypical of the real-word where multiple sources are normal. Normal is not a pattern generator and measurement from an analyzer.

Bandwidth limiting is used to improve the results. For some reason, 6 kHz was selected as an upper limit to improve the reported results.

Perhaps, this response would make sense if other >$4000 processors had 2V RMS XLR limits, bad reconstruction filters, and lots of out-of-band noise. The specifications appear to have been written after the design.

- Rich
 
Last edited:

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,615
Likes
5,168
I think it would be worthwhile for a rebuttal or analysis by a tech experts on ASR.
Here is the conclusion:


They are clearly insinuating that ASR is lacking in "technical accuracy".
This is my summary of the response:
  • The product was "understood to be B-Stock"
  • ASR Vol 78 us 4V rms. design output is 2V rms XLR and 1V RCA
  • ASR fell into the ground-loop Ground
  • 1kHz tone measured with limited 10Hz to 29 kHz bandwidth
  • Intermodulation Distortion -101 dB when bandwidth limited to 20 kHz
  • Jitter test issues are due to 16-bit not 24 bit test and ground-loop
  • DAC Reconstruction by design filter design for alleviate pre-ringing also, bandlimit to 22 kHz
  • 32 tone test is not representative of music because of high amplitude at high-frequencies. Using two-tone 19khz and 20Khz. Note: relatively high spikes are present 28 and 29 kHz.
It seems like this product output voltage has reduced to a relatively low 2V RMS XLR to achieve better results. This device is rated for 1 volt RCA and 2 volt XLR, this is ridiculous for a product at this price point. The answer, buy Arcam amps :p

The ground-loop is unproved and certainly not atypical of the real-word where multiple sources are normal. Normal is not a pattern generator and measurement from an analyzer.

Bandwidth limiting is used to improve the results. For some reason, 6 kHz was selected as an upper limit to improve the reported results.

Perhaps, this response would make sense >$4000 processors had 2V RMS XLR limits, bad reconstruction filters, and lots of out-of-band noise.
The specifications appear to have been written after the design.

- Rich

I think some of their points could be valid in practical sense but it does not excuse them for important points like 2V/1V output, and I don't know why the "B-Stock" is even mentioned, are they saying one can expect lower audio performance? I thought B-stock typically means no performance difference, but may be open box return, with or without very minor cosmetic issues such as light scratches.
 
Last edited:

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts
I think some of their points could be valid in practical sense but it does not excuse them for important points like 2V/1V output, and I don't know why the "B-Stock" is mention, are they saying one can expect lower audio performance? I thought B-stock typically means no performance difference, but may be open box return, with or without very minor cosmetic issues such as light scratches.

Apparently, the proper methodology includes insinuating that B-Stock and ground-loop someone explain the results.
They could have made the case that that the out-of-band noise was not indicative of performance which is something in the pervue.

- Rich
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,615
Likes
5,168
Apparently, the proper methodology includes insinuating that B-Stock and ground-loop someone explain the results.
They could have made the case that that the out-of-band noise was not indicative of performance which is something in the pervue.

- Rich

That ground loop thing is another potential smoke screen tactic imo. It seems to me it is a safe thing to say, that there is some sort of ground loop, for everything that cannot be explained, until they are properly explained.:D
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts
That ground loop thing is another potential smoke screen tactic imo. It seems to me it is a safe thing to say, that there is some sort of ground loop, for everything that cannot be explained, until they are properly explained.:D

Ground-loop is a common issue and, I thought, was one reason for balanced audio.

- Rich
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,615
Likes
5,168
Ground-loop is a common issue and, I thought, was one reason for balanced audio.

- Rich

Of course it is, that's the reason why I believe, it is often considered (by some) as a safe thing to say when one wants to just throw some probably cause of issues out there before all the facts are known.;)
 

dlinsley

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Messages
19
Likes
30
Location
Seattle, WA
Apparently, the proper methodology includes insinuating that B-Stock and ground-loop someone explain the results.

It should be perfect operationally. From https://www.arcam.co.uk/ugc/tor/AV40/USA Warranty/Arcam USA Warranty 2019.pdf

Harman International Industries, Incorporated (“Harman”) warrants to you that your Arcam product (the “Product”) will be free from defects in workmanship and materials for the corresponding period set forth in the table below (the “Warranty Period”).

A-stock (purchased from authorized resellers) B-stock (denoted with “-Z” at the end of the part number)
Product Category Warranty Period Product Category Warranty Period
Processors / Preamps 5 years Processors / Preamps 5 years
 

bigguyca

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
477
Likes
617
I think it would be worthwhile for a rebuttal or analysis by a tech experts on ASR.
Here is the conclusion:


They are clearly insinuating that ASR is lacking in "technical accuracy".
This is my summary of the response:
  • The product was "understood to be B-Stock"
  • ASR Vol 78 us 4V rms. design output is 2V rms XLR and 1V RCA
  • ASR fell into a ground-loop issue
  • 1kHz tone measured with limited 10Hz to 29 kHz bandwidth
  • Intermodulation Distortion -101 dB when bandwidth limited to 20 kHz
  • Jitter test issues are due to 16-bit not 24 bit test and ground-loop
  • DAC Reconstruction by design filter design for alleviate pre-ringing also, bandlimit to 22 kHz
  • 32 tone test is not representative of music because of high amplitude at high-frequencies. Using two-tone 19khz and 20Khz. Note: relatively high spikes are present 28 and 29 kHz.
It seems like this product output voltage has reduced to a relatively low 2V RMS XLR to achieve better results. This device is rated for 1 volt RCA and 2 volt XLR, this is ridiculous for a product at this price point. The answer, buy Arcam amps :p

The ground-loop is unproved and certainly not atypical of the real-word where multiple sources are normal. Normal is not a pattern generator and measurement from an analyzer.

Bandwidth limiting is used to improve the results. For some reason, 6 kHz was selected as an upper limit to improve the reported results.

Perhaps, this response would make sense if other >$4000 processors had 2V RMS XLR limits, bad reconstruction filters, and lots of out-of-band noise. The specifications appear to have been written after the design.

- Rich

A great idea. A response will take a lot of posts however from even one person, if lots of people contribute the response will cover may pages, but that seems fine. Chime in if you find I've made a mistake(s). Have the Arcam document open since you'll need to refer to it.

The response from Arcam is great fun and will provide days of entertainment since it is a target rich environment. Things were a little quiet so someone please send Arcam a thank you note.

Feedback on form of response:
  • Who wrote it, the person(s), organization and location?
  • Where's the email address for responses and questions? Amir is out in the open. The authors of the response don't give their names and contact information.
  • Why aren't the pages numbered and the document dated? Pure amateur hour.
Paragraph #1 (You were warned, this will be long!)

ASR is making measurements of the Arcam 40 based on criteria established by ASR. The ASR piece isn't a test to determine if Arcam meets Arcam's specifications, the piece is a set of measurements based on criteria ASR, with input from site members, has determined are important in an AVR/AVP.

For perspective: Sorry rookie, but this is the big's, you didn't see 95 mph fast balls down in AA or in college. If you want to stay in the show you'll have to excel at this level. There is no crying in baseball!

1V out from RCA's (single-ended, SE) won't most power amplifiers to full output. (1V into a typical power amplifier with a 28 to 29dB gain will only produce 100W). 2V from XLR's isn't' enough voltage to drive multichannel amplifiers from sources such as Marantz (example, MM8077), Parasound (example, A52+), and won't make the best use of XLR inputs from companies from Bryston to Benchmark.

Bottom-line 4V from XLR's, which normally means 2V from RCA is valid test benchmark. 1V RCA's, 2V XLR's is unacceptable regardless of whether the unit meets it. So there is no reason to test at 1V and 2V.

Concerning the multiplexer: The measurement isn't at 4V SE, the measurement is at 4V from an XLR (balanced, +/- 2V). Whether the internal architecture is balanced or SE internally, 2V per single line maximum is being handled assuming the DAC outputs 2V, or 2V after the I/V conversion if the current output mode is used from the ESS DAC IC. 4V balanced is 2 x 2V SE lines, otherwise a 2V SE drives a double opamp stage with a follower and an inverter stage to get 4V. Nothing in this signal chain is handling over 2V so the writer doesn't understand how any of this works. Hopefully the writer wasn't the designer.

Paragraph #2

There are excellent products, such as the OPPO BDP105 (and likely all OPPO's, I don't know) where both the digital outputs (HDMI, coax) and analog outputs (RCA, pin 1 of XKR) outputs are grounded to the case. This means the analog and digital grounds are connected. This connection exists in most D/M gear as well. In D/M gear the digital and analog grounds are connected at the DAC IC based on AKM specifications. Does this mean that OPPO's can't be used with the AV40 with both wired digital and analog outputs connected to the AV40, without the output of the AV40 being negatively affected by the ground loop that will be created according to the text in the Arcam response. If so, this is unacceptable.

In one older Yamaha AVR that I tested (RXV 3010), the digital and analog grounds aren't connected. This may be true for all Yamaha's AVR's of this series since they change little over the years. It appears this is true from the schematics, but I can't be sure. Do all Yamaha's have this ground loop issue when used with OPPO's? Anyone used that connection? Does this connection make a chattering noise?

Paragraph #3

Is the AV40 only usable in A/V systems that use Class 2 electrical safety? That is, are connected only with a two conductor power cable with no third, safety ground connection (Class 1)? If only Class 2 equipment is allowed then some of the best equipment in the world is eliminated. The AV40 must have a really amateurish electrical design if it can't be use in systems with Class 1 gear. Denon/Marantz and numerous other companies produce Class 2 equipment that can work without issue along side Class 1 gear.


That is enough for now. The response from Arcam is in many ways makes the AV40 appear worse than the ASR measurements IMO.
 
Last edited:

eduardw

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2020
Messages
111
Likes
40
Location
Netherlands
@Amir thanks again for measuring the Arcam AV40 for now your conclusion and some YouTube reviews stops me for buying one. I would love to have a new processor or even a receiver with xlr preouts which will also excel in stereo listening and has dirac live instead of audyssey at the price point of the arcam max 4000 euro’s.

I was thinking that this relatively new arcam was the way to go.



Eduard

The netherlands
 

danielpugh

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
Messages
12
Likes
5
Feedback on form of response:
  • Who wrote it, the person(s), organization and location?
  • Where's the email address for responses and questions? Amir is out in the open. The authors of the response don't give their names and contact information.
  • Why aren't the pages numbered and the document dated? Pure amateur hour.

Hi,

i uploaded the response which was sent to me by arcam support after i asked if they had seen it (Amir's Review) and if they had any response.
i also suggested it would be great if they could work with Amir as Denon did.

  • Who wrote it, the person(s), organization and location? - to quote from the email to me by arcam support
"If anybody requests the report they are free to have it, but nobody in the company is more qualified to speak on the matters than John, who wrote the report and founded Arcam"
  • Where's the email address for responses and questions? Amir is out in the open. The authors of the response don't give their names and contact information.
Arcam support email is on their website - i got a reply as i have an arcam amplifier (arv10 - going to upgrade to avr40 despite the poor review - maybe stupid but current amp when working well sounds many times better to me than any of the marantz and denon amps i have had - i have had 3 x 7xxx series. that said not particularly an arcam fanboy i would say normally). I raised a ticket with them as i have had (many) firmware issues - worth pointing out that there has been a huge increase in quality/reliablity since the firmware tested by Amir (it got much worse then much better more recently and combined with new version of dirac v3 and new features in the form of dirac live bass management). I am a big fan of dirac (+roon)!

[email protected]

  • Why aren't the pages numbered and the document dated? Pure amateur hour

It was sent to me as a word document - in order to upload it i had to convert to pdf using a pdf printer

I am not affiiated with arcam in any way, and have certainly had a lot of issues with the current range (and plenty of criticism as their team would confirm). Its worth noting that they are not the size of D&M (3 people in the support team). They have had 8 concurrent support tickets from me at any one time and i do believe they are simply over-run with work.

it is worth noting i do have an arcam power amp (p49) which has two settings for gain (switch 25/31 from memory - viewable in the manual which is online) i think one is the default arcam design for and the other a more standard setting so you can use with 3rd party pre-amps (guessing).
my other power amps are all hypex (nord dual mono, and hypex fusion amps (effectively ncxxxmp amps) - i use the hypex software to add extra gain from the default which may be a bodge but sounds pretty good to me!.
 
Last edited:

DLxP

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
82
Likes
71
Hi,

i uploaded the response which was sent to me by arcam support after i asked if they had seen it (Amir's Review) and if they had any response.
i also suggested it would be great if they could work with Amir as Denon did.

  • Who wrote it, the person(s), organization and location? - to quote from the email to me by arcam support
"If anybody requests the report they are free to have it, but nobody in the company is more qualified to speak on the matters than John, who wrote the report and founded Arcam"
  • Where's the email address for responses and questions? Amir is out in the open. The authors of the response don't give their names and contact information.
Arcam support email is on their website - i got a reply as i have an arcam amplifier (arv10 - going to upgrade to avr40 despite the poor review - maybe stupid but current amp when working well sounds many times better to me than any of the marantz and denon amps i have had - i have had 3 x 7xxx series. that said not particularly an arcam fanboy i would say normally). I raised a ticket with them as i have had (many) firmware issues - worth pointing out that there has been a huge increase in quality/reliablity since the firmware tested by Amir (it got much worse then much better more recently and combined with new version of dirac v3 and new features in the form of dirac live bass management). I am a big fan of dirac (+roon)!

[email protected]

  • Why aren't the pages numbered and the document dated? Pure amateur hour

It was sent to me as a word document - in order to upload it i had to convert to pdf using a pdf printer

I am not affiiated with arcam in any way, and have certainly had a lot of issues with the current range (and plenty of criticism as their team would confirm). Its worth noting that they are not the size of D&M (3 people in the support team). They have had 8 concurrent support tickets from me at any one time and i do believe they are simply over-run with work.

it is worth noting i do have an arcam power amp (p49) which has two settings for gain (switch 25/31 from memory - viewable in the manual which is online) i think one is the default arcam design for and the other a more standard setting so you can use with 3rd party pre-amps (guessing).
my other power amps are all hypex (nord dual mono, and hypex fusion amps (effectively ncxxxmp amps) - i use the hypex software to add extra gain from the default which may be a bodge but sounds pretty good to me!.

Sounds like it was written by John Dawson then. Shows how seriously Arcam took the ASR review.

https://www.soundstageglobal.com/in...9-2013/423-arcam-s-founding-force-john-dawson
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,615
Likes
5,168
i have an arcam amplifier (arv10 - going to upgrade to avr40 despite the poor review - maybe stupid but current amp when working well sounds many times better to me than any of the marantz and denon amps i have had - i have had 3 x 7xxx series. that said not particularly an arcam fanboy i would say normally).

You could have said thousand times better.............too and no one can dispute that because it is such a subjective thing.:) Measurements however, are objective, and would likely be much more reliable indicators of sound quality in terms of accuracy. Thank you very much for uploading that pdf document. Assuming everything in the doc is factual, while I don't think it is a valid as a "rebuttal" to ASR's measurements, I do believe for real world use it should be fine for most applications even if their could be additional noise if the users don't pay attention the potential "ground loops" in connecting their various gear. But I see no evidence that it would sound more accurate (better? sure, to some people who only trust their ears..especially those more prone to Placebo and won't bother doing any SBT let alone DBT) than even mid range AVRs such as Denon, Marantz, Yamaha and Anthems.
 

Krobar

Active Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2019
Messages
208
Likes
112
Summary of document:
DAC SINAD L/R - Dispute - 90dB vs 95dB
DAC SINAD Centre / Surround - OK - 95dB
DAC SNR - Dispute - 95dB vs 111dB
SINAD at Output Levels - Dispute - 88dB vs 100dB at approx 2V
IMD - Dispute - Around 20dB difference
Jitter - Dispute - Claim 16bit not 24bit Signal used
Linearity - Dispute - Claim 16bit not 24bit Signal used (I think Amir confirmed this)
DAC Filter - OK - Explain/Excuse
HDMI FFT - Dispute
32 Tone - OK
Dual Tone FFT - Dispute
Analogue AD - OK - Explain/Excuse - 2V to be used not 4V
Analogue Direct THD+N - OK
Analogue Direct SNR - OK
Analogue Direct Bandwidth - OK
 

danielpugh

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
Messages
12
Likes
5
You could have said thousand times better.............too and no one can dispute that because it is such a subjective thing.:) Measurements however, are objective, and would likely be much more reliable indicators of sound quality in terms of accuracy. Thank you very much for uploading that pdf document. Assuming everything in the doc is factual, while I don't think it is a valid as a "rebuttal" to ASR's measurements, I do believe for real world use it should be fine for most applications even if their could be additional noise if the users don't pay attention the potential "ground loops" in connecting their various gear. But I see no evidence that it would sound more accurate (better? sure, to some people who only trust their ears..especially those more prone to Placebo and won't bother doing any SBT let alone DBT) than even mid range AVRs such as Denon, Marantz, Yamaha and Anthems.

As a network/software engineer I agree entirely with evidence based technical approach. There is also some value to observation. I was able to observe and compare the difference between Marantz (7002 at the time) and adding Hegel h160 power amp. The difference was significant. Then I got a p49 power amp - it was good but not noticeably better. Then I upgraded marantz (7011) - basically the same quality (slightly better movies with audessey). Then I got avr550 and it was as compared by me similar for movies, but much better for stereo sound/music- specifically with Dirac - observable by on/off of the Dirac filter (again side by side with marantz). It was noticeable enough that my brother got a nad with Dirac.

In the same way I was able to test p49 Vs hypex (nc500/Nord) Vs nc500mp (fusion amp) - concluding that whatever people say about class D, it sounds fantastic to me.

With arcam I am not just buying because I like to burn cash on brand name safety, but because;
A) Dirac live is a winner IMHO
B) chromecast audio - I have a max, two mini, bluesound powernode with Chromecast dongle - i.e. using the technology (while house multi-room, grouped speakers, audio, casting from phone, e.g. SoundCloud etc
C) roon support - I have a lifetime subscription for years now and this meant I could ditch my faithful pi/digi-allo hat and add mqa support (used the 4month trial of tidal - looking forward to doing the same at some point in the future).
D) allows all pre-outs as moving to power amps across the board to allow freedom of movement in future between processors without having to worry about amplification quality/reliability/cost

The arcam provides a system (for all its faults,) does exactly what I want it to do, and I have yet to find an equivalent from a competitor.

My point is that I believe in both sides of the argument and that both sides need to understand both perspectives as otherwise

A) there is friction but no improvement i.e. I think it's great that Denon worked with Amir. Conversely it is terrible that arcam are not working closely together with Amir as a receivers could clearly be improved (from all manufacturers) and this is long overdue!

B) some systems measure well but sound ... Not so good musically. As Amir noted in this review Dirac may be covering up problems, maybe it was a duff unit, measuring systems on both sides may have issues as both pointed out, firmware, ground loops, cosmic rays who knows. What should be the case either via dialogue or third party - that measurements should be repeatable - otherwise it's just two groups of people saying that they are right.

As a user I would look like to know more, understand, and see improvement in AV receiver sound quality, and believe there is an improvement (noticeably clearer audio in latest range - perhaps purely down to Dirac improvement). Hopefully the good work of ASR will lead to further improvement.
 
Last edited:
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,390
Location
Seattle Area
"If anybody requests the report they are free to have it, but nobody in the company is more qualified to speak on the matters than John, who wrote the report and founded Arcam"
I am shocked. Truly shocked. John is a friend and knows me personally. To wit, when I retired from Microsoft, he invited me to come to Cambridge UK to give a talk at AES chapter there. I paid my own flight expenses to go because I respect him so much. It would be incredible if he wrote this and didn't know who I was.

His linkedIn profile shows him to no longer be working at Arcam:

1595106501322.png


I realize he may be consulting with them but still, strange that Arcam did not have anyone in-house to write this response.

I am just so disappointed that John would write this and not even want to talk to me about it. :(

Let's hope support people are wrong.
 

danielpugh

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
Messages
12
Likes
5
I am shocked. Truly shocked. John is a friend and knows me personally. To wit, when I retired from Microsoft, he invited me to come to Cambridge UK to give a talk at AES chapter there. I paid my own flight expenses to go because I respect him so much. It would be incredible if he wrote this and didn't know who I was.

His linkedIn profile shows him to no longer be working at Arcam:

View attachment 74067

I realize he may be consulting with them but still, strange that Arcam did not have anyone in-house to write this response.

I am just so disappointed that John would write this and not even want to talk to me about it. :(

Let's hope support people are wrong.
I have been conversing with all of the support and this specific engineer for some time, and he has been helpful and open re. issues, bugs and workload etc. Beyond that difficult for me to comment as i passed on as described, beyond noting that the document repeatedly refers to "We".

Totally guessing/speculating, but potentially John was bought in to write a technical report and then it went through some sort of internal review and editing process before being released.

The whole affair seems to be grating nerves all round, which i think is not anyone's intention.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,390
Location
Seattle Area
Just curious, is this review still in progress (the JBL SDP-55) or is it on hold pending responses from Arcam or JBL/Harmon?
No, it is just behind so much other gear that arrived before it.
 

Impossible

Active Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
147
Likes
49
How important are the tested results after you use Dirac? How much do the mean after.
 
Top Bottom