Frankly, it's hell to choose an AVR

[tesseractASR]

I have similar preferences - and have seen very little analysis on how differing dispersion profiles affect ART

Although right now, with frequency limitation to below 150Hz - we are sticking with the omnidirectional frequencies....

This may only be an issue as later ART iterations start to move up into the midrange.

Seems physical acoustic treatment is still the most cost effective way.

 

[tesseractASR]

Yep, nothing beefy out there in the mass / mainstream price brackets.

Closest to it is the Onkyo/Integra/Pioneer RZ70/8.4/LX805 - although Denon might join that market segment with an X6800.... maybe... chances are that the X6800 will be more expensive.

Latest marketing blurb was from Pioneer claiming that they were taking their prices back to pre-Covid levels... 2019.

Whether that really happens is yet to be seen. (also of personal interest to me, is whether the Australian pricing follows the same trend.... often in AU prices are double the US$ prices.... )

On the other hand - I purchased an Integra 3.4 at a very good price, and paired it with my 440W Crown amps... end result is far more economical than an RZ70 while providing far more power where it is most needed.
But yes, with a replacement for my old Onkyo SR876, I would probably step down to an AVR only setup, for the sheer simplicity of it, and retire the power amp. (don't need that much power!)

Funny thing is, should I decide more power is needed, for me it will come in the way of flyweight Class D amplification.

 

[Verig]

I see a strong preference for Denon.
What about the sister company : Marantz and their new Cinema series ?

I havent't tried the Cinema series but had the series before that. Very good, nothing to complain about the amps and room correction works much better than Yamaha's. I've listened to Denon and while there are some differences I doubt I'd be able to tell Marantz and Denon apart (given comparable models in ranges) while watching a movie. I'm one to prefer a bit more flashy appearance and don't like Denon's "oh, it's a big black avr" look. Apart from that I'd say you can't go wrong with either. At least I haven't heard that Marantz made some changes to worse with the new series.

 

[Verig]

Seems physical acoustic treatment is still the most cost effective way.

Depends. I find that full spectrum room correction really works wonders if you need a cheap set.
I tried fully correcting a 5.1 set made with the original Elac Debuts. Pretty flawed speakers in many ways but nicely designed in that they don't sound broken, just muffled and messy. The result was very good.
"Cheap" may be stretching it, I realize that many people won't buy a mismatch of dirt cheap speakers and a 1000€ avr. But the total sum for the quality is still low and I argue much better experience value than picking a cheaper avr with low tier correction and a bit better speakers.

It gets tricky with markedly better speakers and if you want to listen to music with the same set.

 

[dlaloum]

Funny thing is, should I decide more power is needed, for me it will come in the way of flyweight Class D amplification.

My Crown amps are class D.... XLS2500 and weigh very little

 

[tesseractASR]

Depends. I find that full spectrum room correction really works wonders if you need a cheap set.
I tried fully correcting a 5.1 set made with the original Elac Debuts. Pretty flawed speakers in many ways but nicely designed in that they don't sound broken, just muffled and messy. The result was very good.
"Cheap" may be stretching it, I realize that many people won't buy a mismatch of dirt cheap speakers and a 1000€ avr. But the total sum for the quality is still low and I argue much better experience value than picking a cheaper avr with low tier correction and a bit better speakers.

It gets tricky with markedly better speakers and if you want to listen to music with the same set.

I'm talking about ART vs. treatment, seems the DRC limited to modals is less cost-effective than simple absorption panels. I've been using PEQs (and DRCs) to combat modal peaks and nulls for years. Will be interesting to see what ART brings to the table, though.

I'm using full-spectrum DRC as of now, but will start to play with curtains when I determine final speaker and listening position placement.

 

[tesseractASR]

My Crown amps are class D.... XLS2500 and weigh very little

I'll have to consider those should I get ESL speakers. I have a good friend that has been powering his ESLs with dual crown amps for years. He runs one channel from each, leaving the other channel disconnected. I have another friend using dual Sanders Sound amps in the same fashion.

 

[dlaloum]

I'll have to consider those should I get ESL speakers. I have a good friend that has been powering his ESLs with dual crown amps for years. He runs one channel from each, leaving the other channel disconnected. I have another friend using dual Sanders Sound amps in the same fashion.

Depends on the ESL - I used to run Quad's - and they don't have the dramatic impedance drops of some other designs....

 

[JoachimStrobel]

My impression is, that a lot of “bugs” that are reported with AVR are user problems. Reading threads about eARC and adding 4 subs and the this and that does not work in full moon gives me no good feeling. My NAD 778 works completely flawless, driving a 7.1.4 system. There was a bug with the HDMI EDID - and NAD fixed it! The bug was tricky and easily escaped testing. And yes, the potential for bugs caused by Hdmi cables and DHCP weighted protocols is huge.
The NAD has a screen to see what he is doing, it wakes up when I start a Roon output and all the kids can connect via Bluetooth in seconds. Dirac works great and has a slick interface. It consumes 100 watt 90% of the time and not listening to a chainsaw promotion. That counts. It is expensive and a Denon might be as good be or better for MultiSubs.

 

[Spkrdctr]

My impression is, that a lot of “bugs” that are reported with AVR are user problems. Reading threads about eARC and adding 4 subs and the this and that does not work in full moon gives me no good feeling. My NAD 778 works completely flawless, driving a 7.1.4 system. There was a bug with the HDMI EDID - and NAD fixed it! The bug was tricky and easily escaped testing. And yes, the potential for bugs caused by Hdmi cables and DHCP weighted protocols is huge.
The NAD has a screen to see what he is doing, it wakes up when I start a Roon output and all the kids can connect via Bluetooth in seconds. Dirac works great and has a slick interface. It consumes 100 watt 90% of the time and not listening to a chainsaw promotion. That counts. It is expensive and a Denon might be as good be or better for MultiSubs.

Lots of complaints about AVRs is operator error. Setting up a two channel is downright easy. 5 or 7.2.4 is a wee bit more work, but dang it is worth it. A good 5.2.4 setup will do the job for most people. Makes movies come alive. Then you can switch the AVR to two channel if you want to. I am amazed a how many people have two channel set ups. I last had a two channel setup in the 1990s I think. For me two channel is like vinyl, yes you can do it, but why? Well, I know most of our ASR people can afford both two channel and AVR surround sound. So in that respect, they have it all!

 

[tesseractASR]

Depends on the ESL - I used to run Quad's - and they don't have the dramatic impedance drops of some other designs....

It'll be either the ML ESL X or Classic ESL 9, with ESL C. I'll either go FX 2 or Emotiva towers for surround. One or two pairs of Emo upfiring modules or just use the Atmos Virtualization.

I'm considering just buying an Emo center, surround towers and 4 upfiring modules. Would be less expensive and I am quite happy with the Sundog L/R mains. I've spent considerable time in ESL theaters though and really want to try that for myself.

At any rate, I expect the Denon X4800H will be up to the task of the 85-95dB max that will be asked of it in this apartment system, as would the X3800H that I am sending back. I might passive biamp the front L/R mains, just to get my money's worth out of the built-in amps. I know the SPL increase would be minimal, 3dB textbook. Should my work contract land me in a more permanent residence, I'll have a good unit to power surrounds and Atmos speakers while feeding a beefy 3 or 5 channel amp for the front LCR and/or full 5.0 bed layer.

 

[JoachimStrobel]

It

Lots of complaints about AVRs is operator error. Setting up a two channel is downright easy. 5 or 7.2.4 is a wee bit more work, but dang it is worth it. A good 5.2.4 setup will do the job for most people. Makes movies come alive. Then you can switch the AVR to two channel if you want to. I am amazed a how many people have two channel set ups. I last had a two channel setup in the 1990s I think. For me two channel is like vinyl, yes you can do it, but why? Well, I know most of our ASR people can afford both two channel and AVR surround sound. So in that respect, they have it all!

Sourcewise we live in the 60s. The TV is the same as those big wooden boxes with radio, amp and speakers enclosed. Piping the TV audio back to the AVR through some back channel is an anachronism. The TV should be no more than a sink for video with the source coming from a box connected to the AVR - like one would build a stereo system.

 

[pedrob]

Look up retina resolution and you'll see that 8K is a huge waste of money and resources.

According to this chart, 8K isn't necessarily a waste of money and resources, even if you can currently only upscale 4k. You do need to be prepared to get up close to appreciate the detail. A bit like sitting front row at the movies, only better quality.

 

[pedrob]

I love my Denon AVR-X8500H and I won't be changing anytime soon. A lot of people seem to think Front Wide speakers are a waste of resources, but when sound moves between surround and front, it's terrific to have speakers that fill the gap. There might not be any available sources, but the processing is more than adequate.

 

[dlaloum]

I think the Denon 3800 getting Dirac bass control in the near future and having 4 independent subwoofer outputs makes it the most competitive product hands down this year.

I would not know why anyone would buy anything else.

$1700 for the X3800, then $850 for DLBC multi sub - now you are looking at $2550 ... But you still have a mass/mid market AVR, rather than a premium product.

It will be competing with the Onkyo RZ70, where you have a more upmarket level product (at the level of the X6800... which is due soon!) - with substantially more "brawny" amplification, and Dirac built in (to be fair, it will be an additional $500) - so the choice becomes mass market AVR with weaker amps at $2550 vs premium AVR with more powerful amps at $3350.

The decision is complicated by the fact that the RZ70 has 2 sub outs.... so for some people, opting for the X3800, and adding external amplification will end up the more logical choice over the RZ70 at roughly the same price.

For others where dual sub is as far as they are likely to go, the RZ70 (and its siblings) will provide traditional all in one receiver benefits.

And then there is the question of whether any of these AVR's will get Dirac ART.... according to Dirac they should all be capable of it, so it comes down to Denon and Onkyo as to whether they will enable these for ART.

To my thinking - ART will be far more important than DLBC.... and ART, with full range mains and a pair of subs, is highly likely to provide better results than Quad sub DLBC, in many (most?) cases.

But ART pricing..... who knows?

 

[dlaloum]

According to this chart, 8K isn't necessarily a waste of money and resources, even if you can currently only upscale 4k. You do need to be prepared to get up close to appreciate the detail. A bit like sitting front row at the movies, only better quality.

It's a nice theory... but in my case... I am viewing and listening to a 65" screen at a distance of around 2.5m.

Most of my family considers this too close - and the couch frequently gets moved to a distance of 3m to 3.5m from the screen.

My preferred location (2.5m from screen), is effectively listening to my setup in "near field" for the speakers.... and places the screen right on the margin between 1080p and 4K.... - I have experimented with both, and have yet to note a substantive difference (difference between different movies and they way they are mastered seems far more substantial than the resolution difference!!)

The rest of my family prefer watching at 3.5m.... and at that distance from a 65" screen, we are approaching the point where 720p would be enough!

Also it is worth considering that what is sufficient resolution for someone with average vision (even 20:20) would be insufficient for the "golden eyed" - that minority of the population that have very keen eyesight.

But for me, in my use case.... 4K is already overkill - there is no purpose whatsoever for 8K.
(HDR, brightness / contrast is a whole different matter)

 

[Abe_W]

Currently I have a Yamaha RX-A2060 for home theater and a Primare stereo amp for music.
Due to lack of space, I would like to replace both of them with a new Home Theater AVR.

It's really hard to make the right choice. When I go to listen to an AVR, it is each time in different conditions (room and speakers).
In these conditions, it is difficult to compare.

When I read the posts of others, I see that I am not the only one in this situation.

As I am satisfied with my Primare stereo amp, I looked at the AVR Primare SPA-25. To tell the truth, it's quite expensive and it doesn't support 8K (I don't need it now but there might be more 8K content in 5 years).

Then I saw a good opportunity on an Arcam AVR20, even on the AVR30 (currently, with the release of the new AVR 21/31, the “old” AVR20/30 are much cheaper than the primare). Lots of positive reviews but it seems pretty buggy compared to models from Marantz/Denon, Yamaha, etc...

Then there is also the Nad T778 which seemed to have good qualities. Like the Arcam, a lot of bugs.

Then I see a thread on this forum where an Arcam and compared to a Denon. According to Amir, you can't go wrong with a Denon.

In short, I don't know what to think anymore.

The key to higher fidelity is ditching the AVR and going with a separate prepro and poweramps. You improve nothing by going with another AVR.

 

[Dobbyisfree]

It's a nice theory... but in my case... I am viewing and listening to a 65" screen at a distance of around 2.5m.

Most of my family considers this too close - and the couch frequently gets moved to a distance of 3m to 3.5m from the screen.

My preferred location (2.5m from screen), is effectively listening to my setup in "near field" for the speakers.... and places the screen right on the margin between 1080p and 4K.... - I have experimented with both, and have yet to note a substantive difference (difference between different movies and they way they are mastered seems far more substantial than the resolution difference!!)

The rest of my family prefer watching at 3.5m.... and at that distance from a 65" screen, we are approaching the point where 720p would be enough!

Also it is worth considering that what is sufficient resolution for someone with average vision (even 20:20) would be insufficient for the "golden eyed" - that minority of the population that have very keen eyesight.

But for me, in my use case.... 4K is already overkill - there is no purpose whatsoever for 8K.
(HDR, brightness / contrast is a whole different matter)

Agree.

We have a 65" at ~4.3m. My wife and I call 720p "blurrovision". And can't watch it.

Although, I don't believe included in the chart, we have to consider all of the other aspects of the picture (frame rate, bit depth, chroma etc etc) and that these tend to be better with content the higher the definition.

 

[dlaloum]

The key to higher fidelity is ditching the AVR and going with a separate prepro and poweramps. You improve nothing by going with another AVR.

And your basis for saying this is?

In the 1990's I used a Lexicon processor as my preamp (first DC1 and later MC1) - at the time, the lexicon was on a par with many pre's and DAC's in performance...

When it came time to update to a HDMI based setup, the later MC12 was far too expensive for my pocket, and I looked at other PrePro's - but found that pretty much universally, prepro's were the same circuit boards as flagship AVR's, with the amps removed. For the priviledge of removing the amps, the price was then increased by at least $1000 (often more)

The AVR's and Prepro's of that era, had a universal problem - they suffered from substantial Jitter issues on their HDMI inputs, Toslink and SPDIF performed on a par with good quality DAC's - I ran audio through Toslink.

From around 2006 to circa 2015, the circuit boards in many AVR's were identical to those in AVP's.

We are entering a new generation now (over the last 2 years) with the 8k HDMI chipsets, new DSP, spread of Dirac etc...

The previous issues with HDMI jitter appear to be ancient history now, and even audiophile DAC's / integrated amps are starting to use HDMI as a primary input.

Whether the previous practice of AVP's and AVR's being the same bar the amps continues is yet to be seen. Current (quality) AVR's have performance that is at the same level as TOTL DAC's of 10 to 15 years ago, not state of the art today - but well beyond "threshold of audibility" difference levels.

I choose to use an AVR as a prepro - driving my external amps, because the AVR's internal amps are inadequate for my speakers... I don't feel I am missing out by this strategy, quite to the contrary, I save a substantial amount of money in the process.

 

[Dj7675]

I have similar preferences - and have seen very little analysis on how differing dispersion profiles affect ART

Although right now, with frequency limitation to below 150Hz - we are sticking with the omnidirectional frequencies....

This may only be an issue as later ART iterations start to move up into the midrange.

During the Storm Dirac video when the guy from Storm asked about ART movie past 150hz, I can’t recall the exact response but it was far from for sure Dirac was going to move up beyond 150hz. Thought it was interesting as they were concerned about audiblility.