Audiocontrol Hyperion Processor

[MKR]

I believe they mentioned in their video last year that Auro was in the works

Cool, I hope that’s true, as I would then definitely have some interest!

 

[PGAMiami]

Cool, I hope that’s true, as I would then definitely have some interest!

Would also be great if they made it Roon Ready like other Audio Control products. Even better if they can add Tidal, Quboz …. One can only hope.

I see they are still not Dirac certified and the receiver they were so proud of is not on the website, so their plate must be rather full.

 

[jhaider]

The APR-16 is limited to stereo in and out on Dante. As will the RCV-11.
The DPR-16 will have stereo in and 16 channel output.

Isn’t APR-16 slated to be substantially more expensive than DPR? Given that it really should be DPR with AES/EBU replaced by analog out.

I also watched the training video. Honestly the more I learn about these, the less interesting they seem.

Today among boxes using Dirac (I.e. excluding Trinnov and Lyngdorf) considering only audio functionality and audibly material audio performance factors, Storm is the clear gold standard and HTP-1 is a not-too-far-behind silver (clear gold for value, but silver excluding price).

As for the newer stuff right now on paper Tide-16 slots in at a fairly distant bronze, and this one is behind that, maybe tied and maybe ahead of Samsung A (Denon/Marantz) depending on the interplay between Dirac and PEQ. Samsung B (JBL Synthesis/Arcam) is TBD. Not sure why none of them can be bothered to beat or even meet the current category leaders with their brand new stuff.

 

[MKR]

Isn’t APR-16 slated to be substantially more expensive than DPR? Given that it really should be DPR with AES/EBU replaced by analog out.

I also watched the training video. Honestly the more I learn about these, the less interesting they seem.

Today among boxes using Dirac (I.e. excluding Trinnov and Lyngdorf) considering only audio functionality and audibly material audio performance factors, Storm is the clear gold standard and HTP-1 is a not-too-far-behind silver (clear gold for value, but silver excluding price).

As for the newer stuff right now on paper Tide-16 slots in at a fairly distant bronze, and this one is behind that, maybe tied and maybe ahead of Samsung A (Denon/Marantz) depending on the interplay between Dirac and PEQ. Samsung B (JBL Synthesis/Arcam) is TBD. Not sure why none of them can be bothered to beat or even meet the current category leaders with their brand new stuff.

What does the Storm do that the HTP1 cannot? They seem roughly equal to me, and I would even put the HTP1 above the Storm at least as far as the analog preamp section (which is just as good as any “audiophile” megabuck preamp, what’s audible anyway)

 

[jhaider]

What does the Storm do that the HTP1 cannot? They seem roughly equal to me, and I would even put the HTP1 above the Storm at least as far as the analog preamp section (which is just as good as any “audiophile” megabuck preamp, what’s audible anyway)

More channels, active crossovers. Maybe the HDMI shit I couldn’t personally care less about too, but that’s not an audio feature or performance issue so out of the scope of this ranking.

But I take your point. For the overarching majority of users (your humble narrator included), since the introduction of Dirac ART, there really isn’t any gap between the two. But for the most complicated or largest systems, one has to recognize that StormAudio is still the leader.

 

[MKR]

More channels, active crossovers.

But I take your point. For the overarching majority of users (your humble narrator included), since the introduction of Dirac ART, there really isn’t any gap between the two. But for the most complicated or largest systems, one has to recognize that StormAudio is still the leader.

Ah, indeed, I hadn’t thought about those additional benefits for more complicated systems, makes sense. But for us mere mortal “audiophiles” that happen to also do multichannel, I don’t think it gets better, especially given the value proposition vs the big guns.

 

[jhaider]

Ah, indeed, I hadn’t thought about those additional benefits for more complicated systems, makes sense. But for us mere mortal “audiophiles” that happen to also do multichannel, I don’t think it gets better, especially given the value proposition vs the big guns.

For me AirPlay 2 and auto-off after no play for a while would make HTP-1 even better even on the main system would be nice to be able to play music just by pressing AirPlay on a phone.

I solved those issues for the one in my office (running the desktop nearfield system) with a WiiM Pro — which obviously provides AirPlay 2 but also has auto off and a trigger out that works with HTP-1’s trigger in to provide auto-standby.

 

[MKR]

For me AirPlay 2 and auto-off after no play for a while would make HTP-1 even better even on the main system would be nice to be able to play music just by pressing AirPlay on a phone.

I solved those issues for the one in my office (running the desktop nearfield system) with a WiiM Pro — which obviously provides AirPlay 2 but also has auto off and a trigger out that works with HTP-1’s trigger in to provide auto-standby.

I also use Wiim Pro with optical into HTP1, control via Qobuz direct from my phone or tablet, works flawlessly. But agree those features would be nice on the HTP1. Maybe someday

 

[PGAMiami]

This is an APR-16 thread …

 

[PGAMiami]

Isn’t APR-16 slated to be substantially more expensive than DPR? Given that it really should be DPR with AES/EBU replaced by analog out.

I also watched the training video. Honestly the more I learn about these, the less interesting they seem.

Today among boxes using Dirac (I.e. excluding Trinnov and Lyngdorf) considering only audio functionality and audibly material audio performance factors, Storm is the clear gold standard and HTP-1 is a not-too-far-behind silver (clear gold for value, but silver excluding price).

As for the newer stuff right now on paper Tide-16 slots in at a fairly distant bronze, and this one is behind that, maybe tied and maybe ahead of Samsung A (Denon/Marantz) depending on the interplay between Dirac and PEQ. Samsung B (JBL Synthesis/Arcam) is TBD. Not sure why none of them can be bothered to beat or even meet the current category leaders with their brand new stuff.

Struggling to understand your point. If (big if) the Tide16 and APR-16 perform to spec, they may be the best measuring AVPs out there. They have the most elegant design except perhaps the latest Trinnov which we haven’t seen. Most recent processors, etc.

 

[welwynnick]

Struggling to understand your point. If (big if) the Tide16 and APR-16 perform to spec, they may be the best measuring AVPs out there.

Agreed.
More to the point, all AVPs to date (even the very expensive ones) have struggled to achieve even CD-level quality. If that's good enough, then fine.
The Tide16 and APR-16 look like matching the best cost-no-object recording studio equipment, like Antelope, Apogee, AVID, Benchmark, Grace Design, Merging, Prism Sound and RME.
I don't think that's bronze level.

 

[jhaider]

Struggling to understand your point. If (big if) the Tide16 and APR-16 perform to spec, they may be the best measuring AVPs out there.

So effing what?

Note that I wrote “audibly material audio performance factors” above.

They have the most elegant design except perhaps the latest Trinnov which we haven’t seen. Most recent processors, etc.

If you think they look nice, that’s fair.

 

[welwynnick]

So effing what?
Note that I wrote “audibly material audio performance factors” above.

So - Amir measured 103 / 104dB SINAD from the best AVPs, and are probably not audibly transparent, while the Tide16 and APR-16 are about 10dB better, and probably are.

How good is transparent?
Media Pros arranged some audibility testing of recording studio audio interfaces at Metropolis Studios in London.
They got a group of respected recording engineers to listen to four different audio interfaces.
The testing was accurately level-matched, performed double-blind, and reported in recording magazine Sound on Sound.
What they found was they all preferred the two interfaces that measured 110 and 117dB to the interfaces that measured 105 and 102dB.
While it's probably fair to say that you don't need to go over 120dB SINAD in order to achieve transparency, you probably do need more than 105dB.

 

[TimoJ]

So - Amir measured 103 / 104dB SINAD from the best AVPs, and are probably not audibly transparent, while the Tide16 and APR-16 are about 10dB better, and probably are.

Since Amir measures just 2 channels in pure DAC mode, nobody knows how good or bad AVP's really are decoding multichannel with room correction enabled.

 

[welwynnick]

Since Amir measures just 2 channels in pure DAC mode, nobody knows how good or bad AVP's really are decoding multichannel with room correction enabled.

I don't have any links, but I recall a few instances where he did measure the effect of engaging DSP, and sometimes that increased the noise floor slightly.

While it's probably fair to say that you don't need to go over 120dB SINAD in order to achieve transparency, you probably do need more than 105dB.

Come to think of it, DRC normally needs 10dB headroom to apply boost at room mode cancellation frequencies.
Therefore we DO need 120dB SINAD for full transparency!

 

[jhaider]

So - Amir measured 103 / 104dB SINAD from the best AVPs,

I’ll take your word for it. Couldn’t care less. Bottom line is that none of the boxes under discussion have broken conversion stages so it really doesn’t matter.

and are probably not audibly transparent,

BS — unless you can back that up with an actual controlled same/different listening test. Which you can’t, because your speculation has about as much merit as that someone who hears the difference between one “interconnect” and another. Really, SINAD cultists are in the same evolutionary pool as the wire mongers. And I also think it’s funny/sad when people obsess about the solved-by-the-1980s problem of digital audio conversion, but don’t even bother with the basic foundational stuff such as using the same three speakers in the same orientation at the same height for left center and right.

Again, I’m reminded of a discussion I had with an actual expert on digital audio, Dr. David A. Rich. He was disappointed that an expensive processor with superior features used very cheap DAC chips that was several steps lower than the best performance available at the time it was designed. (The company did spend money on top-tier analog audio parts.) But when I pressed him on it, he conceded that it wasn’t an audible difference. His point, which I think is fair, it was really that expensive audio equipment shouldn’t cheap out by using lower grade audio parts. None of the boxes I mentioned in my post above do that (today).

The testing was accurately level-matched, performed double-blind, and reported in recording magazine Sound on Sound.

That’s not a useful test and doesn’t really tell us anything. Read how it was conducted rather than just marveling at the results that happily confirm your biases.

There was a presumption of difference rather than an effort to answer the threshold question of whether a difference exists or not. One should should read a little bit more critically and with understanding of the actual issues at play.

 

[Mort]

SINAD shaming syndrome

 

[welwynnick]

Since Amir measures just 2 channels in pure DAC mode, nobody knows how good or bad AVP's really are decoding multichannel with room correction enabled.

Amir did some EQ measurements with the Topping D50 iii and got mixed results:

Topping D50 III Balanced DAC with EQ Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Topping D50 III balanced stereo DAC with support for parametric equalization. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $229. Sorry for the quality of the picture/display. It is quite dim compared to my photography light and when I tried to...

www.audiosciencereview.com

mdsimon2 did a variety of measurements:

DSP Measurements and Rising Noise Floor

In several threads related to DSP platforms I've seen requests for measurements with filters engaged. I thought it unlikely that implementing filters in a DSP would have measurable effect on noise / distortion other than the obvious change in the fundamental, however @Sokel recently mentioned...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Sometimes there was a measurable increase in noise floor, but it probably wasn't very significant.

 

[PGAMiami]

I’ll take your word for it. Couldn’t care less. Bottom line is that none of the boxes under discussion have broken conversion stages so it really doesn’t matter.



BS — unless you can back that up with an actual controlled same/different listening test. Which you can’t, because your speculation has about as much merit as that someone who hears the difference between one “interconnect” and another. Really, SINAD cultists are in the same evolutionary pool as the wire mongers. And I also think it’s funny/sad when people obsess about the solved-by-the-1980s problem of digital audio conversion, but don’t even bother with the basic foundational stuff such as using the same three speakers in the same orientation at the same height for left center and right.

Again, I’m reminded of a discussion I had with an actual expert on digital audio, Dr. David A. Rich. He was disappointed that an expensive processor with superior features used very cheap DAC chips that was several steps lower than the best performance available at the time it was designed. (The company did spend money on top-tier analog audio parts.) But when I pressed him on it, he conceded that it wasn’t an audible difference. His point, which I think is fair, it was really that expensive audio equipment shouldn’t cheap out by using lower grade audio parts. None of the boxes I mentioned in my post above do that (today).


That’s not a useful test and doesn’t really tell us anything. Read how it was conducted rather than just marveling at the results that happily confirm your biases.

There was a presumption of difference rather than an effort to answer the threshold question of whether a difference exists or not. One should should read a little bit more critically and with understanding of the actual issues at play.

So what then makes the Storm the gold medal winner, HTP-1 Silver, Marantz Bronze and Tide16/APR16 distant bronze? Is this about features, channels, value (performance/price) .., “On paper” I would rank them very differently. Trying to understand your logic

 

[welwynnick]

BS — unless you can back that up with an actual controlled same/different listening test. .......
And I also think it’s funny/sad when people obsess about the solved-by-the-1980s problem of digital audio conversion, ........
Again, I’m reminded of a discussion I had with an actual expert on digital audio, Dr. David A. Rich. He was disappointed that an expensive processor with superior features used very cheap DAC chips......
That’s not a useful test and doesn’t really tell us anything. Read how it was conducted rather than just marvelling at the results that happily confirm your biases.
There was a presumption of difference rather than an effort to answer the threshold question of whether a difference exists or not........

Please don't be rude, I know that's beneath you.
The point was that the Metropolis test showed that a converter measuring 105dB was not as good as the better ones, therefore 105dB is not transparent. I thought that was transparently (sic) clear and I didn't need to spell it out.
ASR is all about objectivity, and how subjective comparisons have to be done under controlled conditions where the listeners have no way of knowing what they're listening to.
That's what objectivists are always demanding, and these sorts of tests are few and far between, but that's exactly what Media Pros did.
Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean it should be ignored. That's about as perverse as Trump claiming that he won the 2020 election.
If the DA conversion problem was solved in the '80s, then the listeners would have said they all sounded the same.
Indeed, if there was any presumption about the result of the test, it would have been in favour of the very highly regarded Prism Sound.
Instead, the Prism Sound subjectively came last, which might not have happened with a sighted test. And funnily enough, it measured the worst as well.
The reason I like ASR is because there is indeed a correlation between what's measured and what's heard.
Its important - everything doesn't sound the same. Equipment that measures better DOES sound better.

Incidentally, I presume the "expensive processor" was the Bryston SP4, about which your review conclusion said:

Would Like To See

• .......
• Higher-spec DAC
• ......

Funny, that.