Arcam AVR11 why sound better?

[Jim Taylor]

Questioning why AVR10 from those has worst measurment but sound much better

A possible answer:

"Better", if not quantified, it's simply a personal preference. That can cover a lot of ground. However, when you come to a site like ASR, "better" has a more narrow meaning. It's measurable. If a new transmitter allows the Mars Rover to send a stronger signal to Earth, then it's "better". But that "better" is quantifiable; we can see it in signal strength and increased data transmission.
OTOH, you (or I) might say a certain whiskey is "better". Although the chemical composition can be analyzed, there's nothing there that pins down "better" compared to some other whiskey. It's simply a matter of personal preference.

We still find ourselves in a quandary regarding your opinion. You might have rock-solid certainty that the AVR10 sounds "much better". If you take a rigorously controlled DBT, that certainty might not be supported. People's subjective impressions have been proven false before ... and they will be proven false again. It happens. That was why I suggest you read the information that was posted. It explains why such things happen.
If you pass the test, then there are other explanations. Perhaps you like distortion ... some people do. Perhaps you like a more restricted frequency response ... some people do.

But first we need to know that you actually hear what you say you hear.

Jim

 

[DMill]

I’ve not heard the Arcam11 but if it measures like the 10 most of its weaknesses aren’t audible unless you have Golden Ears. And even then… I would highly doubt most could pick it out amongst the other AVRs mentioned. I would look at feature set, price, guarantee, etc. it’s by no means SOTA, but it does enough things right to be good enough. If you live next door to the airport, better than good enough

 

[truwarrior22]

Yeah, those who reported "huge difference" either heard it for potential reasons you cited, or they somehow didn't apply some sort of logical thinking so instead of asking about why, they should either accept what they heard without questioning, or starting questioning if their objectivity, i.e. effects of bias.

So, just out of curiosity, I sample a few customer reviews on the OP's subject AVR11 from the Crutchfield.com customer reviews, and the following probably tell us something obvious, that while they all feel good about what they bought, opinions varies. Again, that's expected.

customer 1:
Honestly, nothing special. I primarily bought this for music (not home theater). I have a few cheaper receivers and the music sounds just as good. I prefer the sound of Marantz...but in the end it is just personal preference.

Customer 2:
Really nice upgrade from an older Marantz SR6005. Wanted something a little more musical. AVR11 sounds fantastic, very happy with the improvement!!!


Customer 3:
a great receiver . It sound very natural .

To me, Customer 3's "natural" would be what I prefer, but then again, it's just his/her perception, to others who also "go by their ears" might say it isn't "natural" lol..

One can do the same by sampling Denon, Yamaha, Anthem, NAD and can expect similar variety of assessments based on users subjective reviews.

By the way, one BB customer reported that the AVR11's excellent sound quality, describing it as clear and bright. That, versus truwarrier22's reported "warm" sound, so much for diversity haha.

Oh Arcam doesn’t seem as warm as Marantz or probably even Denon. It’s probably some where between a Marantz and Yamaha. It’s on the warmer side though. I wish I heard an Onkyo, I read those are suppose to be brighter/energetic.

I will say it’s super easy to get the 1st DIRAC measurement slightly off center which makes for an awful stereo listening session…

So, yeah, there’s a lot of variables at play.

 

[rana_kirti]

have heard several avrs. nothing beats arcam/nad in musicality.

though overall Yamaha is the king of avrs. noone can match their deep experience with musical instruments which reflects in their avrs. it gives them an edge as they understand music and sound like no other.

above is personal experience. others could find something else better as our hearing tastes and perception are very different.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Oh Arcam doesn’t seem as warm as Marantz or probably even Denon. It’s probably some where between a Marantz and Yamaha. It’s on the warmer side though. I wish I heard an Onkyo, I read those are suppose to be brighter/energetic.

A competently designed amplifier does not sound "warm" or "bright" or "energetic". A properly designed amplifier simply passes an electronic signal with no other modification than gain. All other characteristics are below the threshold of human hearing.
If an amplifier has characteristics that are audible - which means they are above the threshold of human hearing - then the the amplifier is ipso facto either not competently designed or defective.
There are some amplifiers on the market that are designed (deliberately) to exhibit characteristics above the threshold of human hearing. Some people call those designs "affected". I call them incompetent, although if hard pressed, I would admit that those designs are offered by unscrupulous people.
Any belief on the part of a listener that different competently designed amplifiers have different audible characteristics - perceived under uncontrolled conditions - is totally spurious and unsupported. Only characteristics proven to exist by a statistically significant result in a double-blind test are supported.

have heard several avrs. nothing beats arcam/nad in musicality.

though overall Yamaha is the king of avrs. noone can match their deep experience with musical instruments which reflects in their avrs. it gives them an edge as they understand music and sound like no other.

Amplifiers are not "musical". Musical instruments are 'musical". Performances are "musical". Electronic circuitry is not 'musical".

Experience that companies have with production of musical instruments has no bearing on the design of amplifier circuits. That's like saying dairy farmers know how to manufacture engines in delivery trucks. Musical instruments produce music. If they are recorded by recording personnel, then amplifiers can re-produce (not produce, but re- produce) that signal accurately. If you listen to that reproduced signal, you will therefore hear a sound that is as close to the original performance as we know how to make it. Although some of the recordings of performances aren't all that great, it's the fault of efforts upstream of the amplifier or the fault of the speakers, but it's NOT the fault of a competent amplifier.

Jim

 

[kyuu]

though overall Yamaha is the king of avrs. noone can match their deep experience with musical instruments which reflects in their avrs. it gives them an edge as they understand music and sound like no other.

I'm sorry but that's utter nonsense. AVRs have nothing to do with musical instruments, nor does making musical instruments give one insight into "music and sound like no other". If I was building an AVR, I wouldn't go back in time and ask Antonio Stradivari his opinion about it even if I could.

On a side note, I play piano and have spent a lot of time with digital pianos. Yamaha's choices in the segment are actually pretty underwhelming compared to their competition, IMO.

 

[truwarrior22]

A competently designed amplifier does not sound "warm" or "bright" or "energetic". A properly designed amplifier simply passes an electronic signal with no other modification than gain. All other characteristics are below the threshold of human hearing.
If an amplifier has characteristics that are audible - which means they are above the threshold of human hearing - then the the amplifier is ipso facto either not competently designed or defective.
There are some amplifiers on the market that are designed (deliberately) to exhibit characteristics above the threshold of human hearing. Some people call those designs "affected". I call them incompetent, although if hard pressed, I would admit that those designs are offered by unscrupulous people.
Any belief on the part of a listener that different competently designed amplifiers have different audible characteristics - perceived under uncontrolled conditions - is totally spurious and unsupported. Only characteristics proven to exist by a statistically significant result in a double-blind test are supported.



Amplifiers are not "musical". Musical instruments are 'musical". Performances are "musical". Electronic circuitry is not 'musical".

Experience that companies have with production of musical instruments has no bearing on the design of amplifier circuits. That's like saying dairy farmers know how to manufacture engines in delivery trucks. Musical instruments produce music. If they are recorded by recording personnel, then amplifiers can re-produce (not produce, but re- produce) that signal accurately. If you listen to that reproduced signal, you will therefore hear a sound that is as close to the original performance as we know how to make it. Although some of the recordings of performances aren't all that great, it's the fault of efforts upstream of the amplifier or the fault of the speakers, but it's NOT the fault of a competent amplifier.

Jim

My reference is a Definitive WAMP. When I stream to the WAMP, it has a slightly more energetic tone. When I stream to the Arcam AV40 which uses the WAMP as the amp, it’s a slightly less energetic. What I mean by less energetic is when a singer hits a high note, streaming to the WAMP seems to extend slightly more in the treble but the Arcam may sound more natural, vocal is slightly warmer…? I’m really not sure how it should actually sound. Most probably won’t bother to notice. Tried to measure the difference with REW with a sweep but looks the same to me. Perhaps it’s just a sound queue which my brain happens to pickup the difference making me think the Arcam is a touch warmer in the vocals. Not really sure but to me they both sound good.

 

[Jim Taylor]

My reference is a Definitive WAMP. When I stream to the WAMP, it has a slightly more energetic tone. When I stream to the Arcam AV40 which uses the WAMP as the amp, it’s a slightly less energetic. What I mean by less energetic is when a singer hits a high note, streaming to the WAMP seems to extend slightly more in the treble but the Arcam may sound more natural, vocal is slightly warmer…? I’m really not sure how it should actually sound. Most probably won’t bother to notice. Tried to measure the difference with REW with a sweep but looks the same to me. Perhaps it’s just a sound queue which my brain happens to pickup the difference making me think the Arcam is a touch warmer in the vocals. Not really sure but to me they both sound good.

For the umpteenth time ... do a double-blind test. If the difference really exists, you'll be able to identify it in the test. If you can't identify it in the test, IT DOESN'T EXIST.

I’m really not sure how it should actually sound.

There is no ephemeral standard, circulating in the ether, that represents the magical "actual sound". The closest approach you could ever achieve would be to have been in the mastering room when the mastering engineer, the producer and the artists all signed off on the version that would be put up for sale. Even then, you wouldn't retain that impression for long, because your long-term memory isn't accurate.
We all want to approach that "intended" sound as closely as we possibly can. THE ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT IS TO USE EQUIPMENT THAT IS AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE IN REPRODUCTION OF THE ELECTRONIC SIGNAL THAT WE BUY.
And the only way to do that is to measure the equipment and test the equipment, understand the equipment, treat the listening room, equalize the equipment if necessary ... and then enjoy the result.

That's why tests and measurements are so important. Just as your long-term memory changes over time, so does your ability to discern sounds. If you use your ears (actually your brain; we hear in the brain, not in the ears.) what you THINK you hear one day will change the next day, or when your mood changes, when one or another bias becomes stronger, or when the background noise level changes, or when you become subject to someone else's suggestions.
But scientific tests don't change. The results that you get from a test or measurement made by electronic instrumentation is the same next year as it is today. It is the same in India or China or Albania as it is in the USA, or Britain or Australia. If you mix chlorine bleach and ammonia, you'll get the exact same results in all those places, today and tomorrow and next year and a hundred years from now.
That's called "reproducibility", and it's a linchpin of scientific experimentation. It's one of the reasons that science and logic can be trusted. SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS DON'T HAVE THAT. That's one of the reason that subjective opinions CANNOT be trusted. They are not reproducible.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you think that our eyes, our ears, our sense of touch or smell takes pre-eminence over scientific tests and measurements, try designing a communication satellite that works, or an MRI machine, or a cell phone, or even a simple lawnmower motor WITHOUT SCIENTIFIC TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS. Ain't gonna happen.

Use subjectivity where it is proper ... to form your own personal opinions, which do not apply to other people. Us science where it is proper ... to create reproducible things that work totally independent of opinion, which apply equally to all of us.

Jim

 

[voodooless]

Tested Arcam AVR11, Denon X4800, Onkyo RZ50, Yamaha 1070.

So, what was your test procedure? Please explain in as much detail as possible.

 

[rana_kirti]

A competently designed amplifier does not sound "warm" or "bright" or "energetic". A properly designed amplifier simply passes an electronic signal with no other modification than gain. All other characteristics are below the threshold of human hearing.
If an amplifier has characteristics that are audible - which means they are above the threshold of human hearing - then the the amplifier is ipso facto either not competently designed or defective.
There are some amplifiers on the market that are designed (deliberately) to exhibit characteristics above the threshold of human hearing. Some people call those designs "affected". I call them incompetent, although if hard pressed, I would admit that those designs are offered by unscrupulous people.
Any belief on the part of a listener that different competently designed amplifiers have different audible characteristics - perceived under uncontrolled conditions - is totally spurious and unsupported. Only characteristics proven to exist by a statistically significant result in a double-blind test are supported.



Amplifiers are not "musical". Musical instruments are 'musical". Performances are "musical". Electronic circuitry is not 'musical".

Experience that companies have with production of musical instruments has no bearing on the design of amplifier circuits. That's like saying dairy farmers know how to manufacture engines in delivery trucks. Musical instruments produce music. If they are recorded by recording personnel, then amplifiers can re-produce (not produce, but re- produce) that signal accurately. If you listen to that reproduced signal, you will therefore hear a sound that is as close to the original performance as we know how to make it. Although some of the recordings of performances aren't all that great, it's the fault of efforts upstream of the amplifier or the fault of the speakers, but it's NOT the fault of a competent amplifier.

Jim

please share a list of "COMPETENTLY" designed amplifier in this case AVR at different price points from : Top Price no bar to Bottom budget options so that we can all get to hear the Movie Soundtracks as "Intended" by the creators.

At what price point do "COMPETENTLY" designed AVRs start ?

Thanks.

 

[Jim Taylor]

please share a list of "COMPETENTLY" designed amplifier in this case AVR at different price points from : Top Price no bar to Bottom budget options so that we can all get to hear the Movie Soundtracks as "Intended" by the creators.

At what price point do "COMPETENTLY" designed AVRs start ?

Thanks.

Competently designed electronics are not sorted by price. Price is set by either manufacturing costs+margin or by the desire of the manufacturer to appeal to a certain demographic. It is incorrect to infer greater quality as associated by greater price; sometimes it's true, and sometimes it's not.

If you wish to find a number of AVRs that are competent, search through this list. It's a start.

Jim

 

[Oddball]

Lol, another one of those fly-by tests. It would actually take weeks to compare all those AVRs on semi-comparable basis. Comparing them in pure mode would not be that difficult, but then what’s it worth if one will actually use room correction.

When I shop for gear, my first box to be checked is reliability, so I guess that might be the reason why Arcam was only on my curtesy list. I can’t say that Arcam 40 I heard in decent audition system was bad, on the contrary. But then when I went on owners thread on forums it was pretty educational.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Lol, another one of those fly-by tests

Do you call x-rays "fly-by tests"? How about a cancer test? Are car airbag tests "fly-by"? What about strain tests on bridge cable? Your well-being (or your very life) may depend on these tests, and they take very little of your time. Does that make them "fly-by"?

It would actually take weeks to compare all those AVRs on semi-comparable basis. Comparing them in pure mode would not be that difficult, but then what’s it worth if one will actually use room correction.

I had been discussing amplifier characteristics, not the whole panoply of features inherent in AVRs. If you want to reduce the time it takes you to evaluate those tests, just click on one that is "not recommended" and read why, then go to another that is recommended, and read the difference. Keep doing that, and it won't take you long before you get the gist of the tests, over and above the issue of the feature set.

And while we're on the subject of tests and "getting the gist", I'd like to make my position clear as a member here.

I am not here to argue with you, like a little child on the playground arguing whether the Phillies are going to beat the Yankees. All I can do is point out information that I think is of value to you. No one knows everything ... not you, not anyone else here, and especially not me. If we are exposed to information that increases our understanding of the universe around us, we all benefit. That's the purpose of science.
In support of that, I point out videos, texts and articles that may be useful. If you refuse to use them to increase your knowledge, that's not my problem. I'm not your teacher; your teachers should have laid the foundation for your ability to learn long, long ago. Nor am I here to hold your hand. I am not so inclined, nor do I have the patience. I'm actually a grouchy, cantankerous old geezer.

Evaluation of electronic equipment is actually very simple when someone else does the hard work of running it through exhaustive tests. Please take advantage of the work that has been done for you (and our) benefit. It may not be as easy as those little lists of "Ten Best ..." or "50 Best ..." that you see in different places, but there's no need to make it harder than necessary either.

Good luck.

Jim

 

[Oddball]

Do you call x-rays "fly-by tests"? How about a cancer test? Are car airbag tests "fly-by"? What about strain tests on bridge cable? Your well-being (or your very life) may depend on these tests, and they take very little of your time. Does that make them "fly-by"?



I had been discussing amplifier characteristics, not the whole panoply of features inherent in AVRs. If you want to reduce the time it takes you to evaluate those tests, just click on one that is "not recommended" and read why, then go to another that is recommended, and read the difference. Keep doing that, and it won't take you long before you get the gist of the tests, over and above the issue of the feature set.

And while we're on the subject of tests and "getting the gist", I'd like to make my position clear as a member here.

I am not here to argue with you, like a little child on the playground arguing whether the Phillies are going to beat the Yankees. All I can do is point out information that I think is of value to you. No one knows everything ... not you, not anyone else here, and especially not me. If we are exposed to information that increases our understanding of the universe around us, we all benefit. That's the purpose of science.
In support of that, I point out videos, texts and articles that may be useful. If you refuse to use them to increase your knowledge, that's not my problem. I'm not your teacher; your teachers should have laid the foundation for your ability to learn long, long ago. Nor am I here to hold your hand. I am not so inclined, nor do I have the patience. I'm actually a grouchy, cantankerous old geezer.

Evaluation of electronic equipment is actually very simple when someone else does the hard work of running it through exhaustive tests. Please take advantage of the work that has been done for you (and our) benefit. It may not be as easy as those little lists of "Ten Best ..." or "50 Best ..." that you see in different places, but there's no need to make it harder than necessary either.

Good luck.

Jim

Not really sure what is the problem you have with my response.

I am definitely not a child and honestly don’t get any of the points you are trying to convey. I have provided some quite specific comments and you responded with something completely different and with a tone that seems to be undermining.

I definitely wish you good luck and hopefully we don’t need to cross pens over this or any other matter.

 

[CapMan]

though overall Yamaha is the king of avrs. noone can match their deep experience with musical instruments which reflects in their avrs. it gives them an edge as they understand music and sound like no other.

You're right - I have two Yamaha drum kits and I can see how that would trickle down into their AVRs

 

[Moonbase]

You're right - I have two Yamaha drum kits and I can see how that would trickle down into their AVRs

The money from sales filters down into research. Yamaha has done plenty of research relating to effects of room and concert halls on sound that will assist in designing avr’s etc.

 

[early rejecter]

Not really sure what is the problem you have with my response.

I was a bit taken aback by his reply as well, until I realized that he (I believe) mistook you for the OP, and was reading your post as if it were directed to him and not to the OP.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I was a bit taken aback by his reply as well, until I realized that he (I believe) mistook you for the OP, and was reading your post as if it were directed to him and not to the OP.

Subjectivist posts # 23 (@truwarrior22 ) and #24 (@rana_kirti ) are answered by me in post #25, which includes the phrase, "... competently designed amplifier." Subjectivist post # 27 (@truwarrior22 ) is answered in post # 28 by me.

Post #30 is again @rana_kirti asking ...

please share a list of "COMPETENTLY" designed amplifier in this case AVR at different price points from : Top Price no bar to Bottom budget options so that we can all get to hear the Movie Soundtracks as "Intended" by the creators.

At what price point do "COMPETENTLY" designed AVRs start ?

.. to which I replied in post #31, including a link to these tests. Immediately following in post #32, @Oddball posts ...

Lol, another one of those fly-by tests. It would actually take weeks to compare all those AVRs on semi-comparable basis.

... to which I replied in post #33, which is the post with which you seem to be having problems.

@Oddball: your post was toe-on-heel after my post, and referenced " ... all those AVRs ...", which I took to mean the tests to which I linked. Although other tests were mentioned in posts #s 7, 10 and 18, no link was provided. In the future, please use the "reply" link at the bottom right-hand corner of a post to provide continuity in your new post. It makes things much clearer.

If the reference to "fly-by tests" was not a comment on the ASR test results page linked in my post, then I made an attribution error. It changes the whole aspect of the post, and I apologize.

Jim

 

[Chrispy]

Hard to believe a properly operating Arcam unit would sound better in most circumstances. Not the most capable or powerful amp in any case, so what makes it "better" other than their marketing? No magic in Arcam that I've ever seen....

 

[Oddball]

Subjectivist posts # 23 (@truwarrior22 ) and #24 (@rana_kirti ) are answered by me in post #25, which includes the phrase, "... competently designed amplifier." Subjectivist post # 27 (@truwarrior22 ) is answered in post # 28 by me.

Post #30 is again @rana_kirti asking ...



.. to which I replied in post #31, including a link to these tests. Immediately following in post #32, @Oddball posts ...



... to which I replied in post #33, which is the post with which you seem to be having problems.

@Oddball: your post was toe-on-heel after my post, and referenced " ... all those AVRs ...", which I took to mean the tests to which I linked. Although other tests were mentioned in posts #s 7, 10 and 18, no link was provided. In the future, please use the "reply" link at the bottom right-hand corner of a post to provide continuity in your new post. It makes things much clearer.

If the reference to "fly-by tests" was not a comment on the ASR test results page linked in my post, then I made an attribution error. It changes the whole aspect of the post, and I apologize.

Jim

Many thanks Jim - all OK.