This is a review and detailed measurements of the AVR850 Home Theater Audio/Video Receiver (AVR). It was kindly sent to me by a member. The AVR850 was announced in 2016 and was recently discontinued. It costs US $6,000 but I see it discounted online by $1000 or more.
The design language is rather nice and unique although dated compared to new models:
Ironically, the on-screen display is more advanced than newer generation in that it shows a full screen menu rather than two lines. Otherwise, functionality is pretty similar with same set of buttons on the unit and remote.
Back panel shows modern take on AVRs:
There is a fan in the back as you see and two inside. I never heard either come on. Instead, there is an aggressive protection mode that shuts the unit down the moment you stress it. However, it let the unit get quite warm in testing. I suggest you give it ample cooling.
And oh, this one heavy AVR, clocking at nearly 40 pounds. If I get a hernia as a result of dragging it around, I will be sure to remember what device caused it!
AVR DAC Audio Measurements
AVRs today are basically a DAC, processing and amplification. So let's start with the DAC, driving the unit using HDMI, setting the speakers to large with no subwoofer:
Strangely, the volume control would max out not letting me get it up to nominal 2 volts I like to see from RCA preamp output. By chance I also tested the unit with the speakers set to small, and subwoofer on. None of this should matter as the test tone is at 1 kHz. But it made a huge difference:
If I now turn on the side, and surround speakers, performance increases even more!
What on earth are they doing inside these AVRs for heaven's sake???
One clue is that the moment you set the speakers to small, you can then keep increasing the volume from pre-out well past 2 volts even:
As luck would have it, most people will use this AVR with speakers set to small so I guess it is fine that it gets better there. Running with that number we still get "OK" ranking among all devices with DACs in them:
Withing AVR and AV processors however, this is a very good rating:
Amazing how much better it is than say, ARCAM AVR10 which is near bottom of the pile, despite being the new generation.
These variations make it a maddening task to measure this device. The combination of all the modes is huge! I tried to sort my way through it but it is obviously not a complete analysis.
Here is our dynamic range with all the speakers on and set to small:
Not bad.
Intermodulation+noise test using same setting shows mediocre performance at low volumes but gets much better at the limit:
The dashed orange line is a cheap little phone dongle by the way.
Linearity by desktop DAC standards is bad but by AVR standards is not horrible:
Jitter performance is not very good from engineering point of view:
But because the louder jitter components hug the main tone at 12 kHz, they are likely masked. And the spikes at the bottom are too low in amplitude to be audible. I expect far better performance though for such an expensive AVR from measurement point of view. Clearly noise is bleeding into the DAC for no good reason.
We see the same multitone problem as in other ARCAM AVRs and processors:
Notice the roll off due to speaker being set to small at low frequencies. Here is the same graph with them set to large with the problem remaining:
Something in the Arcam digital pipeline is broken, causing digital overflow and such.
Most surprising result is from THD+N (SINAD) versus frequency but with a wide bandwidth of 90 kHz instead of 22 kHz used in the dashboard above:
This graph normally goes up to 1% distortion but I had to rescale due to AVR850 popping the chart at 2.5% noise and distortion!
To see what all is adding up to that horrible figure, independent of frequency, we need to look at the spectrum of a sample tone:
Ah, we see a rapid rise in noise above 30 kHz or so. This is called "noise shaping" and is a technique by DAC chips to push audible noise into inaudible one. In modern DACs though, they resample and the noise is usually pushed up across wider spectrum and at higher frequency.
Strangely, turning up the sample rate made no difference which is very odd:
That is fair bit of noise to pump into the tweeter and ask the amplifier to produce even though we don't hear it. I wonder if the upsampling mode of the DAC is turned off.
Finally, here is our DAC reconstruction filter:
Typical default filter in DAC chips.
AVR Amplifier Audio Measurements
Given all the variations in the performance of the pre-amp/DAC portion, the amp tests are made more difficult. Let's start with the simple case of HDMI input, speakers set to large:
Switching the speakers to small+sub reduces the DAC distortion letting the amp shine more:
Now in CD Direct which bypasses the ADC and processing:
Strange. Expected this to be better than digital input. Could be due to interaction of volume control, input level, etc. Running with this one as our ranking we get:
Which is above average for all amps tested. Within AVRs we get similar status:
Using the best case scenario of HDMI and speakers to small, this is our dynamic range:
Can't figure out why it did not improve at max power. Perhaps it is limited by the DAC performance.
Frequency response is naturally much better in CD direct input:
Versus normal:
Thankfully the sample rate for the analog to digital converter is high (96 kHz) so we get a flat response in audible band. Other makers screw this up with much lower sampling rate causing response variations below 20 kHz even.
Staying with CD input for the rest of the tests so we don't get crazy, here is our power into 4 ohm:
You see the dramatic difference between digitizing the input versus not (CD Direct). Why in this day and age, in a $6000 AVR we can't get a transparent 2-channel ADC/processing is beyond me.
We have good bit of power here though especially for momentary peaks:
Granted, we are only driving two channels but we are getting 500 watts.
8-ohm picture is similar:
Crosstalk measurement was uneventful:
Conclusions
It is abundantly clear that the complexity of these devices has gone beyond the capabilities of the R&D and testing of these companies. Tons of odd behavior is observed such as setting speakers to small and performance of a DAC improving. It seems ever setup change modifies the noise and distortion level of the product likely to pipelines that are not designed to any standard of quality. No wonder we get nearly useless specifications with no statement of conditions under which they were gathered:
I like the statement that the 850 is "are audiophile products by any measure." No they are not. They are not even close to being competitive with $99 desktop DACs.
I was grumpy enough after spending two days to test this device to give it the headless panther (failing) grade. But at the end, it is a usable AVR with actually better performance than some of the new generation ARCAM AVRs so went with the "postman" panther.
But no, I can't recommend the Arcam AVR850. As with many other AV product companies, they need to go to a clean sheet of paper, set performance standards for full transparency in all pipeline modes to get my blessing. Until then, it is a pile of mess like many of their and competing products.
-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
It was hell testing this AVR as you see. It actually blew the limit on the number of pictures in a post and I had to up that limit to post it! So surely I deserve some overtime pay in the form of donation from you all: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
The design language is rather nice and unique although dated compared to new models:
Ironically, the on-screen display is more advanced than newer generation in that it shows a full screen menu rather than two lines. Otherwise, functionality is pretty similar with same set of buttons on the unit and remote.
Back panel shows modern take on AVRs:
There is a fan in the back as you see and two inside. I never heard either come on. Instead, there is an aggressive protection mode that shuts the unit down the moment you stress it. However, it let the unit get quite warm in testing. I suggest you give it ample cooling.
And oh, this one heavy AVR, clocking at nearly 40 pounds. If I get a hernia as a result of dragging it around, I will be sure to remember what device caused it!
AVR DAC Audio Measurements
AVRs today are basically a DAC, processing and amplification. So let's start with the DAC, driving the unit using HDMI, setting the speakers to large with no subwoofer:
Strangely, the volume control would max out not letting me get it up to nominal 2 volts I like to see from RCA preamp output. By chance I also tested the unit with the speakers set to small, and subwoofer on. None of this should matter as the test tone is at 1 kHz. But it made a huge difference:
If I now turn on the side, and surround speakers, performance increases even more!
What on earth are they doing inside these AVRs for heaven's sake???
One clue is that the moment you set the speakers to small, you can then keep increasing the volume from pre-out well past 2 volts even:
As luck would have it, most people will use this AVR with speakers set to small so I guess it is fine that it gets better there. Running with that number we still get "OK" ranking among all devices with DACs in them:
Withing AVR and AV processors however, this is a very good rating:
Amazing how much better it is than say, ARCAM AVR10 which is near bottom of the pile, despite being the new generation.
These variations make it a maddening task to measure this device. The combination of all the modes is huge! I tried to sort my way through it but it is obviously not a complete analysis.
Here is our dynamic range with all the speakers on and set to small:
Not bad.
Intermodulation+noise test using same setting shows mediocre performance at low volumes but gets much better at the limit:
The dashed orange line is a cheap little phone dongle by the way.
Linearity by desktop DAC standards is bad but by AVR standards is not horrible:
Jitter performance is not very good from engineering point of view:
But because the louder jitter components hug the main tone at 12 kHz, they are likely masked. And the spikes at the bottom are too low in amplitude to be audible. I expect far better performance though for such an expensive AVR from measurement point of view. Clearly noise is bleeding into the DAC for no good reason.
We see the same multitone problem as in other ARCAM AVRs and processors:
Notice the roll off due to speaker being set to small at low frequencies. Here is the same graph with them set to large with the problem remaining:
Something in the Arcam digital pipeline is broken, causing digital overflow and such.
Most surprising result is from THD+N (SINAD) versus frequency but with a wide bandwidth of 90 kHz instead of 22 kHz used in the dashboard above:
This graph normally goes up to 1% distortion but I had to rescale due to AVR850 popping the chart at 2.5% noise and distortion!
To see what all is adding up to that horrible figure, independent of frequency, we need to look at the spectrum of a sample tone:
Ah, we see a rapid rise in noise above 30 kHz or so. This is called "noise shaping" and is a technique by DAC chips to push audible noise into inaudible one. In modern DACs though, they resample and the noise is usually pushed up across wider spectrum and at higher frequency.
Strangely, turning up the sample rate made no difference which is very odd:
That is fair bit of noise to pump into the tweeter and ask the amplifier to produce even though we don't hear it. I wonder if the upsampling mode of the DAC is turned off.
Finally, here is our DAC reconstruction filter:
Typical default filter in DAC chips.
AVR Amplifier Audio Measurements
Given all the variations in the performance of the pre-amp/DAC portion, the amp tests are made more difficult. Let's start with the simple case of HDMI input, speakers set to large:
Switching the speakers to small+sub reduces the DAC distortion letting the amp shine more:
Now in CD Direct which bypasses the ADC and processing:
Strange. Expected this to be better than digital input. Could be due to interaction of volume control, input level, etc. Running with this one as our ranking we get:
Which is above average for all amps tested. Within AVRs we get similar status:
Using the best case scenario of HDMI and speakers to small, this is our dynamic range:
Can't figure out why it did not improve at max power. Perhaps it is limited by the DAC performance.
Frequency response is naturally much better in CD direct input:
Versus normal:
Thankfully the sample rate for the analog to digital converter is high (96 kHz) so we get a flat response in audible band. Other makers screw this up with much lower sampling rate causing response variations below 20 kHz even.
Staying with CD input for the rest of the tests so we don't get crazy, here is our power into 4 ohm:
You see the dramatic difference between digitizing the input versus not (CD Direct). Why in this day and age, in a $6000 AVR we can't get a transparent 2-channel ADC/processing is beyond me.
We have good bit of power here though especially for momentary peaks:
Granted, we are only driving two channels but we are getting 500 watts.
8-ohm picture is similar:
Crosstalk measurement was uneventful:
Conclusions
It is abundantly clear that the complexity of these devices has gone beyond the capabilities of the R&D and testing of these companies. Tons of odd behavior is observed such as setting speakers to small and performance of a DAC improving. It seems ever setup change modifies the noise and distortion level of the product likely to pipelines that are not designed to any standard of quality. No wonder we get nearly useless specifications with no statement of conditions under which they were gathered:
I like the statement that the 850 is "are audiophile products by any measure." No they are not. They are not even close to being competitive with $99 desktop DACs.
I was grumpy enough after spending two days to test this device to give it the headless panther (failing) grade. But at the end, it is a usable AVR with actually better performance than some of the new generation ARCAM AVRs so went with the "postman" panther.
But no, I can't recommend the Arcam AVR850. As with many other AV product companies, they need to go to a clean sheet of paper, set performance standards for full transparency in all pipeline modes to get my blessing. Until then, it is a pile of mess like many of their and competing products.
-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
It was hell testing this AVR as you see. It actually blew the limit on the number of pictures in a post and I had to up that limit to post it! So surely I deserve some overtime pay in the form of donation from you all: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/