Audiocontrol Hyperion Processor

[jhaider]

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

Understanding, as any sensible person capable of critical listening does, that there will be no audible differences between any of these as AVPs due to the audio hardware, unless testing shows the implementation in APR-1 or Tide-16 to be broken. The other two are known fine. Here's my logic:

Gold - Storm
Pros: known stable, software regularly updated to keep it the leading edge, highest available channel count in ART-land, Auromatic + current DSU upmixing, allows application of PEQ conditioning to correct loudspeaker anechoic response prior to running ART, loudness compensation, allows for combination of multiple output channels fed by one input channel to create a one-processing-box active crossover system, available (included? Not sure) digital outputs for all channels (I believe AES as well as Dante). All units include ART.
Cons: no clear material audio performance or feature related deficiencies (not 100% sure about tone/tilt control)
Verdict: top dog in ART-land if cost not a factor.

(Close) Silver - HTP-1
Pros: known stable, Auromatic upmixing, allows application of PEQ conditioning to correct loudspeaker anechoic response prior to running ART, loudness compensation. (Others might add integrated BEQ and shaker support, and very flexible and useful tone/tilt control for those who like to adjust tonal balance for different recordings.) Active user community with core that has the trust of the manufacturer as well the technical competence to review and resolve any user bug reporting and prepare firmware updates for official release to benefit all owners.
Cons: no center height channel available in Auro, does not have the latest version of DSU upmixing, can’t do active xovers for main channels, 16 channel limit, analog output only for immersive. ART is a paid upgrade.
Verdict: obvious choice in ART-land if cost is a factor, or even if cost no object but you will not exceed 16 ch and you are using passive speakers or active speakers with integrated crossover/amplification

(Distant) Bronze - Samsung/A (Denon/Marantz)
Pros: known stable, Auromatic upmixing, Denon AVRs offer the least expensive entry to ART. Top Marantz one allows 9.1.6 with 4 subs.
Cons: Adding Dirac removes loudness compensation. No PEQ functionality to correct loudspeakers before running Dirac. Marantz AVPs units overpriced.

Not on podium - Tide-16:
Pros: allows application of PEQ conditioning to correct loudspeaker response, presumably includes current version of DSU upmixing, all units include ART. I believe the least expensive 16 channel box with ART.
Cons: no Auromatic (disqualifier), no loudness compensation. 16 output channel limit, analog output only for immersive. Seems to have a 4-sub limit for no clear reason. Stability TBD.
Verdict: promising, but a couple key missing features put it well behind the leaders.

Not on podium - APR-16:
Pros: presumably current version of DSU.
Cons: no Auromatic (disqualifier), no loudness compensation, 16 channel limit, vaporware to date, crippled Dante outputs, ART extra despite the high price and doesn’t appear will even be available at launch. Stability and PEQ/ART interplay TBD.
Verdict: hampered by poor decision-making/decontenting between initial disclosure and release version.

Not ranked: Samsung/B (JBL Synthesis/Arcam): Not enough information, vaporware to date, poor quality of previous models.

 

[jhaider]

The point was that the Metropolis test showed that a converter measuring 105dB was not as good as the better ones,

Wrong. The purported "test" never established any differences, and never even attempted to do so. It presumed audible differences, and that is why it is ipso facto worthless except as an example of how half-baked science-ish feeds propaganda that convinces people who want to be convinced. Further, from the text of the review it appears the 4 listeners were in the room together, and the text reads as if they even had some discussions about their "listening impressions" while the "test" was ongoing. That leads one to wonder about groupthink creeping in. If you find the video and watch it, let us know if that hunch about their conduct is accurate.

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.

I disagree with the first phrase: that sounds like an exceedingly tedious place.

Everything after the "and" is directionally correct but incomplete. Here's the missing part: and the testing has to actually support the proposition for which it is cited. Here. it does not, because audible differences were assumed rather than investigated. One might be cynical enough to add, because the parties conducting the purported test have a financial incentive to wish audible differences into existence.

To be meaningful, the test would have needed to demonstrate the listeners' ability to reliably, and independently, identify one box from another in a controlled same/different listening test (i.e. ABX or similar).

Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean it should be ignored.

The "result," regardless what it is, means nothing because the flawed test design blithely assumed away the threshold question that needed to be answered for the test to have any merit beyond fodder for a propaganda article and vid: is there an audible difference to hear in the first place?

If the DA conversion problem was solved in the '80s, then the listeners would have said they all sounded the same.

That's not what they were brought there, by a distributor of audio boxes, to do! There was clearly no interest in reaching the relevant question, is there a difference, because they assumed difference on the front end and went straight into imagining preference.

To be clear, the listeners were there (possibly unwittingly) to advocate for the superiority of the sponsor's product, which they dutifully did!
"UK Avid resellers MediaPros had arranged...All those present favoured, by a small margin, converters B or D...Converters B and D were universally praised...B was thought to have the best vocal reproduction...Converter B was revealed to be the Avid HD IO."

Surprise, surprise.

Its important - everything doesn't sound the same.

Some people always seem to want to find a way to reach for that asinine statement, as if it actually says anything.

Equipment that measures better DOES sound better.

• Equipment that measures "better" may sound better: but first a difference must be reasonably established to confirm we're not in the bucket immediately below!
• Equipment that measures "better" may sound the same as equipment that measures "worse," i.e., there is no audible difference resulting from the measured performance improvements. A substantial proportion of basic audio electronics, likely including those in the tested AVPs referenced in my post above, fall into this category.
• Equipment that measures "better" may actually sound worse, because of something not considered.
  • For example, let's assume arguendo that APR and Tide are shown to have higher measured SINAD than Storm/HTP-1, and are without any material performance deficiencies. Given the same ART target curve, at low volume APR and Tide will sound comparatively thin, while Storm or HTP-1 with loudness compensation engaged and level offset dialed in well will offer a fuller and more neutral perceived spectral balance. That is clear audible difference.

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

Funny, that.

Any edited writing reflects some degree of compromise between author and editors. and will often incorporate the learned feedback of highly respected experts. Sure, at that price point a fancier DAC is a reasonable ask regardless of audibility (which is not a factor). Yet, assuming that SP4 can be updated to current StormAudio software, would the DAC used give me any pause that it could be the limiting factor when plugging the box into a system with elite loudspeakers placed properly in a competent room?

None whatsoever.

The thing that would bother me about that box (unless subsequently addressed in firmware, as I understand the loudness compensation was) is flaky Harmony remote compatibility. And that fact, unlike the DAC, is mentioned in the "Highlights" and discussed in my subjective impressions within in the review. See the paragraph starting with "The SP4 sounded so good in our system that my biggest criticism is ergonomic: lingering incompatibilities with our Harmony remote."

 

[TimoJ]

Gold - Storm

Then again: limited loudness adjustments, limited tone adjustments, limited and slow adjustments via API/automations.

HTP-1 is way ahead in those categories. And still getting better...

 

[jhaider]

Then again: limited loudness adjustments, limited tone adjustments, limited and slow adjustments via API/automations.

HTP-1 is way ahead in those categories. And still getting better...

I understand Storm markedly improved their previously crappy loudness compensation (see measurements in Bryston SP4 review linked by @welwynnick above) to a more modern adaptive approach like HTP-1. (Though I doubt it offers 2 separate adaptive curves as HTP-1 does.) Likewise I understand Storm has bass treble and tilt controls, though HTP-1’s approach is IMO the smartest (as someone too lazy to use tone controls).

One other thing I missed is the signal generator offered by Storm and HTP-1, which allows for independent validation of each channel’s performance. I don’t think APR or Tide offer that, and Samsung/A also does not.

Regardless, there’s clear stratification between the market leaders (Storm, HTP-1) and everyone else.

 

[3ll3d00d]

"UK Avid resellers MediaPros had arranged...All those present favoured, by a small margin, converters B or D...Converters B and D were universally praised...B was thought to have the best vocal reproduction...Converter B was revealed to be the Avid HD IO."

I thought the conclusion to that article was more noteworthy than the earlier commentary, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of there being audible differences

Once again, though, it should be emphasised that the most notable feature of the entire test was the lack of difference between all four. Without repeated, careful listening within the sweet spot and repeated switching, the differences were all but inaudible.

 

[PGAMiami]

Understanding, as any sensible person capable of critical listening does, that there will be no audible differences between any of these as AVPs due to the audio hardware, unless testing shows the implementation in APR-1 or Tide-16 to be broken. The other two are known fine. Here's my logic:

Gold - Storm
Pros: known stable, software regularly updated to keep it the leading edge, highest available channel count in ART-land, Auromatic + current DSU upmixing, allows application of PEQ conditioning to correct loudspeaker anechoic response prior to running ART, loudness compensation, allows for combination of multiple output channels fed by one input channel to create a one-processing-box active crossover system, available (included? Not sure) digital outputs for all channels (I believe AES as well as Dante). All units include ART.
Cons: no clear material audio performance or feature related deficiencies (not 100% sure about tone/tilt control)
Verdict: top dog in ART-land if cost not a factor.

(Close) Silver - HTP-1
Pros: known stable, Auromatic upmixing, allows application of PEQ conditioning to correct loudspeaker anechoic response prior to running ART, loudness compensation. (Others might add integrated BEQ and shaker support, and very flexible and useful tone/tilt control for those who like to adjust tonal balance for different recordings.) Active user community with core that has the trust of the manufacturer as well the technical competence to review and resolve any user bug reporting and prepare firmware updates for official release to benefit all owners.
Cons: no center height channel available in Auro, does not have the latest version of DSU upmixing, can’t do active xovers for main channels, 16 channel limit, analog output only for immersive. ART is a paid upgrade.
Verdict: obvious choice in ART-land if cost is a factor, or even if cost no object but you will not exceed 16 ch and you are using passive speakers or active speakers with integrated crossover/amplification

(Distant) Bronze - Samsung/A (Denon/Marantz)
Pros: known stable, Auromatic upmixing, Denon AVRs offer the least expensive entry to ART. Top Marantz one allows 9.1.6 with 4 subs.
Cons: Adding Dirac removes loudness compensation. No PEQ functionality to correct loudspeakers before running Dirac. Marantz AVPs units overpriced.

Not on podium - Tide-16:
Pros: allows application of PEQ conditioning to correct loudspeaker response, presumably includes current version of DSU upmixing, all units include ART. I believe the least expensive 16 channel box with ART.
Cons: no Auromatic (disqualifier), no loudness compensation. 16 output channel limit, analog output only for immersive. Seems to have a 4-sub limit for no clear reason. Stability TBD.
Verdict: promising, but a couple key missing features put it well behind the leaders.

Not on podium - APR-16:
Pros: presumably current version of DSU.
Cons: no Auromatic (disqualifier), no loudness compensation, 16 channel limit, vaporware to date, crippled Dante outputs, ART extra despite the high price and doesn’t appear will even be available at launch. Stability and PEQ/ART interplay TBD.
Verdict: hampered by poor decision-making/decontenting between initial disclosure and release version.

Not ranked: Samsung/B (JBL Synthesis/Arcam): Not enough information, vaporware to date, poor quality of previous models.

Huge assumption that there are no audible differences between products that may have 20 or more db difference in noise and distortion. Using digital volume, every 6db of attenuation is like shifting your digital word one bit to the right and adding a zero on the left, so one bit drops off, so two DACs that sound identical at full volume may not when attenuated. Cascading DSP (pre Dirac DSP and then Dirac DSP) makes little sense to me. Of course new products come with some added risk of quality of execution and smaller installed base (that’s the price for innovation), question is whether the risk is compensated by the alleged improvements. Your subjective preferences for features (like loudness compensation, PEQ, etc) may have little value to some users.

 

[jhaider]

Huge assumption that there are no audible differences between products that may have 20 or more db difference in noise and distortion.

Why? The body of controlled subjective listening tests so far point to the conclusion that all of these are better than good enough, and there’s no audible difference between good enough and better-than-the-analyzer.

One can play with spec monkey if one wishes, of course. I prefer listening to music. Preferably on a device with real tools to optimize that experience.

 

[welwynnick]

Wrong. The purported "test" never established any differences, and never even attempted to do so.

The listeners universally agreed that the converter measuring 110dB sounded better than the converter measuring 105dB. Therefore there was an audible difference.
It's simple to understand and it's what you'd expect. There's no need to obfuscate the issue by debating whether it was presumed or not.
If you were to do an ABX DBT to establish an audible difference, you're presuming that there's a difference there too.
An audible difference was established under controlled conditions, where even the test operator didn't know which one was which.

There was indeed a general comment that the differences were small. Of course they're small differences. They were all high quality recording studio audio interfaces - better than CD quality - so small differences indeed. It suggests that the threshold of audibility is above 105dB SINAD, though not much higher.

However, if there was no audible difference between any of them, then each listener would have had different preferences, but they didn't, they were unanimous.
Did one of them try to influence the others? Possibly, but they're all experienced recording engineers and know their own minds and made their own notes.
Did the sponsor influence the result? That might have been possible if it was a sighted test. But it was a blind test.
The video isn't hard to find, and there was nothing to suggest it was anything other than a genuine attempt to get right answers.

 

[welwynnick]

Gold - Storm
(Close) Silver - HTP-1
(Distant) Bronze - Samsung/A (Denon/Marantz)
Not on podium - Tide-16:
Not on podium - APR-16:

It's funny how two pairs of eyes can look at the same painting and see completely different things.
Unless you really needed DSP crossovers, I would have put the order exactly the other way round.
When you take price into consideration, it's hard not to see the Tide16 cleaning up. We will see......

 

[PGAMiami]

In the end what matters is are you happy with how it sounds, does it have the features you need/want, can you afford it and is it reliable. Personally for movies and tv I believe my current Denon 4800h is more than good enough. But for 2 channel stereo, I miss my RME DAC and now that I’ve tried stereo with Dirac ART with four subs, it’s hard to go back to the RME. I rather not have a clunky AB switch to switch from tv to music. Given how fast technology moves, I rather buy a 2025/26 vintage, and I’d like DACs and output stages that measure as well as my RME did. This is why I focused on the latest Marantz, Tide16 and APR16. Personally I think buying now an AVP designed years ago is a mistake. Cascading DSP (pre Dirac and then Dirac) is also a mistake; at best it will do no harm, but it adds unnecessary complexity that can result in less than optimal results. What I won’t do hurl unnecessary rude replies to those that disagree.

 

[PGAMiami]

Why? The body of controlled subjective listening tests so far point to the conclusion that all of these are better than good enough, and there’s no audible difference between good enough and better-than-the-analyzer.

One can play with spec monkey if one wishes, of course. I prefer listening to music. Preferably on a device with real tools to optimize that experience.

it's clear that we just see things very differently

 

[jhaider]

The listeners universally agreed that the converters that were colored green sounded better than the converters that were colored blue. Therefore there was an audible difference.

Slight edits to illustrate how meritless your position is.

It's simple to understand and it's what you'd expect.

Agree - it's simple to understand that, because the test assumed that which needed to be established, it cannot be used to as "proof" for the underlying assumption. And without difference there cannot be preference, except for preferences due to other factors.

I do agree the real result is what a rational person would expect: the sponsor's product came out on top. That could be the only result given that the whole affair was transparently science-ish marketing bullshit.

If you were to do an ABX DBT to establish an audible difference, you're presuming that there's a difference there too.

I think you need to put in a little bit more thought into things before spouting off.

Obviously, that statement is wrong. In an ABX-type test, one is evaluating for potential differences. I.e., establish whether an individual was able to reliably differentiate box A from box B based solely on the sound. If the answer comes out consistently yes, that means there is a real, audible sonic difference.

You see, before anyone can characterize any so-called differences, one first needs to establish they are real. Just level matching and having some dudes sit in a room and banter is not a listening test!

An audible difference was established under controlled conditions,

No.

However, if there was no audible difference between any of them, then each listener would have had different preferences, but they didn't, they were unanimous...The video isn't hard to find, and there was nothing to suggest it was anything other than a genuine attempt to get right answers.

Do you buy a lot of “supplements” at GNC or Whole Foods etc? I ask because you seem very eager to fall for the traps that those kinds of marketers like to set.

 

[welwynnick]

At the risk of going too far down the rabbit hole and going off-thread, I think this probably is pertinent to the APR-16 because one of it's salient attractions is lower noise and distortion than any AVP that has preceded it. If that difference isn't audible, one may as well get an HTP-1 instead.

The argument about establishing difference is similar to my own perennial argument that you need to be able to hear the differences before you can be sure what is audible. There are many instances of a blind listening test where no difference can be heard, and which have concluded that there is no difference. The problem with that is the uncertainty - is the negative result due to the inadequacy of the test, or because there really was no audible difference? You just don't know. Hypothetically, you could perform a bad test, for example by comparing high quality preamps using a low quality power amp. The noise and distortion of the power amp will drown out the differences between the preamps, and the result will be that the preamps sound the same. Using an even worse power amp won't tell you that the limit of audibility is even lower than with the first one. Therefore you can't use the lowest negative result as your audibility discriminator.

Where you have a good test, for example with a good power amp and poorer preamps, you may be able to distinguish the difference between the preamps. In that case you now know two things - firstly that the test was good enough, and secondly that there was an audible difference. That's a positive result, and it gives you a high water mark. You could then repeat the test using a better preamp. If you can hear the difference, you have another positive result and higher watermark. If you continue and use an even better preamp, the difference may no longer be audible. The result is negative and the high watermark remains where it is. The final test hasn't changed anything.

Therefore my view is that the limit of audibility should be set by the highest positive result you can achieve, rather than by the lowest negative result. So it's true that you have to hear the differences that you're looking for in order to get a useful result. In the case of HD High Noon, the listeners were able to hear the differences. It was a positive result. However it doesn't actually tell you what the limit of audibility is, it only gives you a highwater mark. They found that a 110dB converter sounded better than a 105dB converter. That doesn't tell you that the limit of audibility - and the target that we could legitimately pursue - is 110 or 115 or 120dB. Its just a single data point that tells us that it's over 105dB.

Suppose that someone then came along and performed a controlled listening test between two converters measuring 110 and 115dB, there could be different outcomes.
First, they could get a positive result and identify the 115 converter as sounding better. That would hypothetically give us a new, higher, audibility highwater mark at 110dB.
Second, they could get a negative result, being unable to distinguish between the converters.
The highwater mark would stay where it was, but would that mean that the limit of audibility was above 105 but below 110dB?
No, the previous best result would stand, that the limit was at least 105. It's a negative result so it shouldn't count.
It's possible that someone else could come along with a better test and distinguish the two. If and only if that happened, would you be able to say the limit was over 110dB.
Will that ever happen? I've no idea.

 

[TimoJ]

I wonder how quiet room and how high playback level you need in order to actually enjoy those over 100dB SINADs..?
Some users are also confusing idle noise to this. That is another thing Amir is not measuring. It would be nice to see how well Tide 16 performs in this since it has no analog volume control.

 

[PGAMiami]

I wonder how quiet room and how high playback level you need in order to actually enjoy those over 100dB SINADs..?
Some users are also confusing idle noise to this. That is another thing Amir is not measuring. It would be nice to see how well Tide 16 performs in this since it has no analog volume control.

Actually since the AVPs are applying digital volume, you’re attenuating the signal effectively into the DACs noise. If most of the time you are applying 18 db of attenuation then what relevant is the DACs performance 18 db down. On the RME DAC they employ a hybrid approach so that every 6 db of attenuation a 6 db analogue attenuator is engaged so that at most you’re compromising 6 db of performance which is equivalent to one bit. To my understanding non of these AVPs have such a scheme, so some extra headroom in signal to noise is necessary.

 

[welwynnick]

I wonder how quiet room and how high playback level you need in order to actually enjoy those over 100dB SINADs..?

True, but remember that you won't actually see all of that, for a few reasons.

• There will be some noise in the recording.
• An immersive system can have 16 noise sources. You can turn down the volume, but the noise floor will still be there. 20log16 = 24dB.
• The AVP will have to reserve around 10dB for equalisation headroom.
• The amplifiers will also add to the noise. Even if they have better DNR than the AVP, they will still add noise.

 

[TimoJ]

Actually since the AVPs are applying digital volume, you’re attenuating the signal effectively into the DACs noise. If most of the time you are applying 18 db of attenuation then what relevant is the DACs performance 18 db down. On the RME DAC they employ a hybrid approach so that every 6 db of attenuation a 6 db analogue attenuator is engaged so that at most you’re compromising 6 db of performance which is equivalent to one bit. To my understanding non of these AVPs have such a scheme, so some extra headroom in signal to noise is necessary.

The HTP-1 has an analog volume chip after DACs. I think many other AVP's also have similar setups. Not sure why you think they all use digital volume.
The HTP-1 actually uses a hybrid volume setup and in certain cases also limits digital volume, for example when using loudness.

 

[PGAMiami]

The HTP-1 has an analog volume chip after DACs. I think many other AVP's also have similar setups. Not sure why you think they all use digital volume.
The HTP-1 actually uses a hybrid volume setup and in certain cases also limits digital volume, for example when using loudness.

You’re right on the HTP1 and also I believe on Storm. As I understand the HTP-1 have a similar scheme to the RME DAC. I should have specified “most” use digital volume. Digging into the details, the analogue output of the HTP-1 as tested by Amir seems very limited in output voltage, which makes it a less than optimal choice for someone using lower gain amplifiers.

 

[TimoJ]

Digging into the details, the analogue output of the HTP-1 as tested by Amir seems very limited in output voltage, which makes it a less than optimal choice for someone using lower gain amplifiers.

4V output voltage. Optimum SINAD around 2.4-2.6V setting. I use 2.4V and have no issues with Purifi amplifiers.

 

[PGAMiami]

Let’s agree, the HTP-1 offers a lot of value and is a proven stable platform. It has features some users consider very important. But this thread is about another product, that is just now hitting the market and offers on paper a significantly higher level of performance. Perhaps the difference is not audible at all, or to some, or in some systems. My 4800h also offers a lot of value especially at the $1899 price I paid for it two years ago. And I’m sure there are other examples.