• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

IOTAVX AVX1 Vs Yamaha CX-5100

Sprint

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 19, 2019
Messages
329
Likes
200
I currently have Genelec 8340 as LCR, 8330 as surrounds run with 2 SVS subs and a AVR Yamaha RX-V775. I use the pre-outs of my Yamaha using XLR-RCA cable. Though it is working good, I want to go for a cleaner set up with a AV processor with XLR or AES/EBU out with a decent bass management (for room measurement I will continue to use GLM).

Does anyone has experience with IOTAVX AVX1? How does it fare compared to Yamaha CX-5100 especially a decent 5.1 Dolby digital decoding and Bass Management? Has anyone done AB comparison? The price for IOTAVX is super attractive 800 Euros Vs 1500 Euros eBay used for Yamaha. Or are there any other alternatives? Storm Audio, Trinnov way above my budget. Amirm has also measured CX-5200, Emotive XMC-1/RMC. But are these worth more money than IOTAVX?

Appreciate your help!
 

rccarguy

Active Member
Joined
May 9, 2020
Messages
284
Likes
92
Nothing around the iotavx, new, next most affordable is marantz av7705.

No specs on the iotavx, pre out voltage, or review how good or bad the room eq is. Probably not as good as Denon/marantz. No Atmos or auro3d either.

I'm looking for a good 7.2 av pre amp also, still using lexicon mc-8.
 

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,409
Likes
1,820
@Xulonn here has the IOTAVX and seems happy with it.

The Outlaw Model 976 seems to be a more "fortified" version of the IOTAVX (likely the same OEM) but with a more robust power supply, Burr Brown Dacs for LCR instead of the older 8-channel Cirrus Logic on the IOTAVX. But otherwise identical in function and set up. It might be too expensive for Europe though.

Neither have many reviews to rely on. I don't think these units sell well, with people opting for an all-in-one AVR instead.

There aren't many choices in AVRs with balanced pre-outs for multi-channels in this price range.
 

Dj7675

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Messages
1,171
Likes
1,377
I currently have Genelec 8340 as LCR, 8330 as surrounds run with 2 SVS subs and a AVR Yamaha RX-V775. I use the pre-outs of my Yamaha using XLR-RCA cable. Though it is working good, I want to go for a cleaner set up with a AV processor with XLR or AES/EBU out with a decent bass management (for room measurement I will continue to use GLM).

Does anyone has experience with IOTAVX AVX1? How does it fare compared to Yamaha CX-5100 especially a decent 5.1 Dolby digital decoding and Bass Management? Has anyone done AB comparison? The price for IOTAVX is super attractive 800 Euros Vs 1500 Euros eBay used for Yamaha. Or are there any other alternatives? Storm Audio, Trinnov way above my budget. Amirm has also measured CX-5200, Emotive XMC-1/RMC. But are these worth more money than IOTAVX?

Appreciate your help!
XMC1 would be interesting. Measures well, bass management and the bonus would be DIRAC if that is something you are interested in. There are a couple of forum members here that use the XMC1 for their main system. I think Emotiva offers refurb (people that traded in their XMC1's new units) units for $999 I think which seems ike a pretty good deal for what it offers.
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,411
Likes
4,000
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
@Xulonn here has the IOTAVX and seems happy with it.

So far, the IOTAVX 7.1 4K / HDR has been it's robust and reliable. I like the design and performance - clean and as simple as possible with all of the basics well implemented.

IOTAVX AVP.jpg


By their nature, multichannel AVP's are much more complex than stereo preamplifiers, so I had to resort to reading the manual to get up and running, but it was actually quite straightforward. In my tiny office/media room, I'm only running L/C/R with no subs or rear speakers (a 3.0 configuration) with a stereo power amp and a mono amp for the center, which has a front-mounted switch so I simply turn it off for listening to music in stereo. Wth my new Wharfedale 2xD320 plus a D300c, it sounds very good to me. I still may add a sub, because I enjoy synthesizer music that plumbs the depths of the audio spectrum, and it is nice to have a subtle, but deep sonic foundation with many music and video experiences.

Buying any expensive audio gear and having it shipped to an expat retirement location like mine in the mountains of Western Panama is a risk, but the IOTAVX turned out to be excellent choice for me. I hope that someday Amir can test both the IOTAVX AVP and at least one example of the Wharfedale D300 series speakers, but even if they are technically not top-tier performers according to measurements, they work for me.
 

rccarguy

Active Member
Joined
May 9, 2020
Messages
284
Likes
92
If it's based on similar chipset to outlaw, it may have bass management bug when using room EQ
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,411
Likes
4,000
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
If it's based on similar chipset to outlaw, it may have bass management bug when using room EQ

Sounds like unverified and baseless speculation - and the internet seems to be unaware of this "bug". What is your evidence? Is it a firmware bug? Has it been acknowledged? Please enlighten us with more info and/or links.

The Outlaw Audio 976, unlike the IOTAVX 7.1 is a full-on preamplifier with an AM/FM tuner and multiple analog RCA stereo inputs (four vs two for the IoOTAVX), and it supports 10 REW EQ filters, while IOTAVX does not have REW EQ filter support. Even with those few differences, both seem like good choices for a budget 7.x channel AVP/P for those who want XLR audio output.
 

rccarguy

Active Member
Joined
May 9, 2020
Messages
284
Likes
92
Sounds like unverified and baseless speculation - and the internet seems to be unaware of this "bug". What is your evidence? Is it a firmware bug? Has it been acknowledged? Please enlighten us with more info and/or links.

The Outlaw Audio 976, unlike the IOTAVX 7.1 is a full-on preamplifier with an AM/FM tuner and multiple analog RCA stereo inputs (four vs two for the IoOTAVX), and it supports 10 REW EQ filters, while IOTAVX does not have REW EQ filter support. Even with those few differences, both seem like good choices for a budget 7.x channel AVP/P for those who want XLR audio output.
Yes it has do a search for outlaw 976 review
 

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,409
Likes
1,820
If it's based on similar chipset to outlaw, it may have bass management bug when using room EQ
Yes it has do a search for outlaw 976 review

This is a rather good way of spreading bad information. If you had read the review and knew what this was about, then you should give the context to see if "bug" is the right take. If you hadn't read it and just repeating another paraphrasing, then you are propagating falsehoods. Weeks or months later, someone else will be repeating the same falsehood without understanding what that was about and everybody will assume something is broken in that device. It doesn't do anybody any favors.

The review from which this propagated is likely this
https://www.avnirvana.com/threads/outlaw-audio-model-976-7-2-surround-processor-review.3778/

The relevant section is:
Earlier, I referenced a certain quirk inherent in the TI DA808 chipset. The problem is the signal flow path that TI has chosen and what this does to the final product. The way in which the chip operates, the PEQ is applied to the discrete 7.1 channels before bass management. After EQ is applied, bass management is applied, which redirects a portion of the signal to other speakers. Here in lies the problem: you are EQ-ing the source, not the speaker, and that isn’t intuitive since the EQ’s purpose is to correct the speaker and room. This is problematic because if you are trying to remove the effects of room modes in the low frequencies, intuitively you would select the subwoofer or LFE channel to apply EQ. However, problematic low frequencies are likely coming from the main channels and being redirected to the subwoofer. Consequently, you need to apply that cut to the main left and right channel. This process can be a bit confusing at first, but once you understand how it works, applying EQ is very simple and very effective. This quirk would certainly not keep me from recommending this product (or owning it myself).

Once I identified the problem, I was able to make great use of the EQ, but I can absolutely see this non-sensical signal path causing problems for other end users. While talking with Ben, he indicated he was working on an EQ instruction document for owners, designed to ensure they make better decisions than I initially did. In my case, it turned out to be an invaluable tool. I only wish that TI would move the EQ filters after the bass management so that the EQ is being applied to the speaker, not the incoming signal.

First of all this isn't a bug nor is it literally characterized as the reviewer as a bug. Second, EQing upstream of bass management and EQing downstream of bass management are both valid techniques and practically in use. The reviewer is mistaken in stating that as non-sensical being used to one particular way of doing this himself.

Anyone who does Dirac on a PC with a downstream AVR doing bass management is doing Dirac EQ upstream of bass management. To do this correctly you need to measure with the bass management engaged. What this effectively does is to make each crossed-over speaker look like a full range speaker to the EQ system and this works just fine.

Since the reviewer's experience and preference earlier has been to measure each speaker separately without bass management, he was confused by the Outlaw applying the filters generated with bass management being done downstream. In that kind of a measurement, you would need to have the bass management be upstream of EQ application. But that isn't the only way to do it. This is where the reviewer is off-base.

It isn't a problem as long as it is clear what is being done and therefore the measurements are done with that in mind (as the reviewer admits above).

What you want to avoid is the following scenario:

Do the measurements without bass management in place downstream but apply the filters generated downstream of bass management in use. This is exactly the wrong thing that happens if, for example, you use say JRiver to do bass management in the player but use a Dirac plugin to do Dirac EQ (the measurement tones get generated by the plugin downstream without bass management in place) downstream.​

I suspect all AVRs that allow bass management separately from EQ (especially if they do crossovers in analog) do bass management downstream of EQ. So, it is far from being non-sensical or even unusual.

In my set up described here where all of this is done in software, I can do either with a click and drag and have chosen to do bass management downstream of EQ. The reason has to do with bass management being more than just crossovers. It includes channel balance between sub and mains as well as phase alignment between sub and mains. If the balances and phases are out of whack an EQ system that does not have its own bass management inside will generate incorrect or sub-optimal filters if you measure without bass management in place to correct those. But as long as your measurement set up is consistent with the order of those, it works fine. There are some theoretical pros and cons to both but in practice, it doesn't really make a difference which one you use as long as the measurement is consistent with order.

I don't own any of the equipment being discussed here but have recommended them to people.
 
OP
Sprint

Sprint

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 19, 2019
Messages
329
Likes
200
Nothing around the iotavx, new, next most affordable is marantz av7705.

No specs on the iotavx, pre out voltage, or review how good or bad the room eq is. Probably not as good as Denon/marantz. No Atmos or auro3d either.

I'm looking for a good 7.2 av pre amp also, still using lexicon mc-8.

Thanks! I wish Amirm has a chance to review the AVX1.
There are some German websites who have given very good reviews for https://www.likehifi.de/test/test-iotavx-avxp1-7-kanal-endstufe-vorstufe-avx1/ or https://www.areadvd.de/tests/test-iotavx-avx1-vorstufe-preis-leistungs-meister-fuer-799-eur/.

I do not plan to use the room eq as I have GLM from Genelec for EQ and Room measurements.
Since it is a living room set up, I do not need Atmos or auro3d as I am not planning to set speakers in ceiling.
 
OP
Sprint

Sprint

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 19, 2019
Messages
329
Likes
200
XMC1 would be interesting. Measures well, bass management and the bonus would be DIRAC if that is something you are interested in. There are a couple of forum members here that use the XMC1 for their main system. I think Emotiva offers refurb (people that traded in their XMC1's new units) units for $999 I think which seems ike a pretty good deal for what it offers.

Thanks! I will not use DIRAC as I have GLM of Genelecs. Also XMC1 Gen 2is super expensive in Europe - 3360 Euros. Also it is imported from US, I am wondering on the service and customer support for 3600 Euro product. But it looks like EMOTIVA, NAKAMICHI, IOTAVX are looking same from inside for e.g BASSX MC and IOTAVX look same from inside. There was a post on the net. So I am wondering why not saving money with IOTAVX and then when the market opens for balanced outs and more options are available, then make another upgrade.
 
OP
Sprint

Sprint

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 19, 2019
Messages
329
Likes
200
So far, the IOTAVX 7.1 4K / HDR has been it's robust and reliable. I like the design and performance - clean and as simple as possible with all of the basics well implemented.

View attachment 81258

By their nature, multichannel AVP's are much more complex than stereo preamplifiers, so I had to resort to reading the manual to get up and running, but it was actually quite straightforward. In my tiny office/media room, I'm only running L/C/R with no subs or rear speakers (a 3.0 configuration) with a stereo power amp and a mono amp for the center, which has a front-mounted switch so I simply turn it off for listening to music in stereo. Wth my new Wharfedale 2xD320 plus a D300c, it sounds very good to me. I still may add a sub, because I enjoy synthesizer music that plumbs the depths of the audio spectrum, and it is nice to have a subtle, but deep sonic foundation with many music and video experiences.

Buying any expensive audio gear and having it shipped to an expat retirement location like mine in the mountains of Western Panama is a risk, but the IOTAVX turned out to be excellent choice for me. I hope that someday Amir can test both the IOTAVX AVP and at least one example of the Wharfedale D300 series speakers, but even if they are technically not top-tier performers according to measurements, they work for me.

Thanks a lot! I was waiting for your post. You have been one of my main motivation to look into this product. Based on your experience, I am getting confidence to go for it. since I live in Europe, it should be easy for me to buy and try it. I will then compare it with my Yamaha AVR RX-V775 and share my experience. I wish AMIRM reviews IOTAVX and gives his recommendation. On the other hand, two - three good German websites have given very good reviews for IOTAVX products (link in a post above).

Couple of additional questions:
- Is the Remote IR based or WIFI/Network based?
- How is the dolby digital decoding for your 3.0 set up?
- How is the product with 2.0 ch stereo? Is the SQ good? I wanted to get an opinion on its internal DAC.
- Does IOTAVX allow bass management without EQ. the reason for this question is that I will be using GLM room measurements / EQ for my Genelecs speakers and the measurements are stored in the speaker itself. I just need IOTAVX to do bass management without applying any EQ to the signal.

Thanks again.
 
Last edited:

Kal Rubinson

Major Contributor
Industry Insider
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
3,360
Likes
5,189
Location
NYC/CT
Anyone who does Dirac on a PC with a downstream AVR doing bass management is doing Dirac EQ upstream of bass management. To do this correctly you need to measure with the bass management engaged. What this effectively does is to make each crossed-over speaker look like a full range speaker to the EQ system and this works just fine.
The only issue is whether the device under test will permit that strategy.
Anyone who does Dirac on a PC with a downstream AVR doing bass management is doing Dirac EQ upstream of bass management.
Yes, under that particular system configuration OTOH, some who do Dirac on a PC also do bass management there as well.
 

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,409
Likes
1,820
The only issue is whether the device under test will permit that strategy.
Not sure I understand. Do you mean systems that allow bass management only in conjunction with their own room eq, not otherwise? As far as I know, AVRs allow bass management (crossovers, channel balances, delays, etc) independent of their own room eq if they have it. What is an example of where this would not be possible?
Yes, under that particular system configuration OTOH, some who do Dirac on a PC also do bass management there as well.
I didn't imply otherwise, did I? I currently do both on the PC as well but that is independent of which is done upstream of the other.

I think your experience is primarily with doing bass management and both Dirac directly within some application like JRiver, yes? In such a case Jriver will take care of how they work together, but Dirac will only be available for JRiver, so that is is just one special use case within a PC that you are referring to. That trivially satisfies the consistency. :)

You can also run Dirac as an independent VST plugin that works for all sources going through the PC. You can do bass management for this upstream of this in JRiver say but that would be the wrong thing to do since the measurement via the plugin when you run Dirac Live will use generated tones via the plug-in and not involve JRiver. So, when you use those filters, content going through JRiver will be under bass management but going through filters downstream that have been generated without bass management. And that would not be optimal. This is one of the problems I pointed out above.

Like I do, you can also use bass management downstream of the Dirac VST Host using Equalizer APO or some other software even though all of them are being done on the PC.

My only point is that the measurement be done consistent with which order you will be running them (which is trivially satisfied if JRiver is handling both just as it is trivially satisfied if a Dirac enabled AVR is doing everything inisde it). If you do that the order does not matter for all practical purposes. This is what the reviewer of the Outlaw 976 missed in his pre-conceived view of how it should be done.
 

ace_xp2

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
57
Likes
54
Does the IOTAVX actually do surround processing? A look through the manual mentions prologic 2x and neo:6 as decodable, but nowhere are there descriptions of the operation of either.
 

Kal Rubinson

Major Contributor
Industry Insider
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
3,360
Likes
5,189
Location
NYC/CT
Not sure I understand. Do you mean systems that allow bass management only in conjunction with their own room eq, not otherwise? As far as I know, AVRs allow bass management (crossovers, channel balances, delays, etc) independent of their own room eq if they have it. What is an example of where this would not be possible?
There have been such devices in the past which, with inbuilt EQ would run execute the EQ upstream of BM and yet defeat bass management during the measurement phase. Rare.
You can also run Dirac as an independent VST plugin that works for all sources going through the PC. You can do bass management for this upstream of this in JRiver say but that would be the wrong thing to do since the measurement via the plugin when you run Dirac Live will use generated tones via the plug-in and not involve JRiver. So, when you use those filters, content going through JRiver will be under bass management but going through filters downstream that have been generated without bass management. And that would not be optimal. This is one of the problems I pointed out above.
I am not sure this is an issue any longer. With the latest DL, you install DL into JRiver first and then run the calibration through JRiver. In addition, Jriver permits placement of the VST before or after BM (or both if there's a reason for that).
My only point is that the measurement be done consistent with which order you will be running them
Agreed.
As an aside, what do you think about implementing DLBC? The multiple independent subwoofer channels do not exist before bass management.
 

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,409
Likes
1,820
As an aside, what do you think about implementing DLBC? The multiple independent subwoofer channels do not exist before bass management.

I have zero experience with DLBC to have any opinion on it or know how exactly it works with DLP or with the measurements. I am still waiting for Dirac to send the beta links for the DLBC within DLP implementation at which time I would be able to play with it.
 
Top Bottom