JBL SDP-55 Audio/Video Processor Review

[Grandzoltar]

Forthcoming Integra Drc-r1.3, Drx-r1.3, Drx-7.3

 

[HTNut1975]

Loop antennas are efficient in a passband based on their physical layout. If the loop is detuned to 60Hz and/or the fields present aren't strong in 60Hz, it might not show up while other frequencies may still be there.

This sure seems a sign of a less than optimal design. It seems like they'd want it to be a bigger secret when they practically admit the quoted specs are only possible under ideal lab conditions and not as users would typically be using the device.

Where do they say this? I've read the Arcam response.

 

[maverickronin]

I would be very surprised if even the best movie sound tracks consistently had useful information below the 14th bit.

How often does stereo music even have that though?

 

[Count De Money]

To be frank you can forget about about Onkyo/Integra. There is nothing else to test. The HTP-1 is where it's at or Denon if the room correction fits your needs or HDMI 2.1 is important to you. I think I can say with confidence that this is the case.

possibly . Probably

but for 7 channels or less and for people who cant be bothered placing speakers in their ceiling , sofa , butt crack or wherever this Atmos scam ends , the bryston sp3 still reigns supreme for DTS-hd master audio and Dolby true HD

Atmos and the like were another scam to con people into upgrading receivers , buy more speakers etc .To keep us looking over our shoulders
where will the “object based” insanity end ? 54 channels ?

 

[peng]

I'm not sure what I consider low but as low as you can get it But sitting in a moving car or in a living room with a busy street outside I would not consider low. I've not seriously measured my current rooms noise floor but with an SPL meter it's 32dBA which is probably not that impressive because I've had another room that actually felt really quiet...but I did quite a lot to that room.

Thank you for sharing, below are mine, no smoothing vs 1/48th smoothing, 2-5 kHz (supposedly our ears are most sensitive to).
Noise level increased gradually from above 6 kHz and peaked to about 40 dB (no smoothing) at about 15 kHz. My normal volume position for movie watching is -20 to -15, probably about 70 dB spl with peaks up to 90-95 dB at the most. So from my understanding, even CD's 96 dB is more than adequate for my practical use. Likewise, I doubt 75 or 95 dB SINAD would make any audible difference to me. Regardless, I won't buy an gear that does worse than say 65 dB SINAD (for worse case scenario, that is, no worse than that under any "normal listening" conditions and up to rated output), or DR less than 100 dB.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

How often does stereo music even have that though?

Well done.
Not all that often.

 

[Dj7675]

possibly . Probably

but for 7 channels or less and for people who cant be bothered placing speakers in their ceiling , sofa , butt crack or wherever this Atmos scam ends , the bryston sp3 still reigns supreme for DTS-hd master audio and Dolby true HD

Atmos and the like were another scam to con people into upgrading receivers , buy more speakers etc .To keep us looking over our shoulders
where will the “object based” insanity end ? 54 channels ?

From my experience Atmos is far from a scam.. adding sound above completes the experience in my opinion but putting you in the middle of a 3D sound bubble. In most rooms 4 speakers is all that is needed. 7.1.4 I would think would be all that would be needed.
In regards to the Bryston... no room EQ at all?

 

[audioBliss]

I still think it would be worth while to test a Lyngdorf MP50/MP60 or McIntosh MX170. It addition the new a new Marantz line as well.

There have been basic SINAD measurements and such posted on avsforum for the Lyngdorf MP50 or was it 60 I dunno but it was not groundbreaking in any way even though it was better than average. Isn't McIntosh basically a Marantz rebadge like this JBL is an Arcam? Both are super expensive and I'll eat my hat if they have good software support.

Forthcoming Integra Drc-r1.3, Drx-r1.3, Drx-7.3

Aren't Integras basically rebadged Onkyos and as far as I know Onkyo has a terrible track record in terms of reliability and quality.

 

[Dj7675]

There have been basic SINAD measurements and such posted on avsforum for the Lyngdorf MP50 or was it 60 I dunno but it was not groundbreaking in any way even though it was better than average. Isn't McIntosh basically a Marantz rebadge like this JBL is an Arcam? Both are super expensive and I'll eat my hat if they have good software support.



Aren't Integras basically rebadged Onkyos and as far as I know Onkyo has a terrible track record in terms of reliability and quality.

SINAD would just be part of the equation for me. Amir tends to find other things that are broken or sometimes incorrectly implemented. I could see some paying a premium for something like a Lyngdorf MP50/60 if it had a reasonable SINAD, didn’t show anything broken, the and the platform itself was stable. We won’t know that until it gets thoroughly tested. In addition the Lyngdorf has Roomperfect.
Also, the MX170 has Roomperfect as well. Isn’t it based on the MP50 or MP60? I know the MX122 is based on the Marantz but I thought the MX170, since it has RoomPerfect is based on a Lyngdorf model.
Edit: I will add that I had a TDAI 3400 and it was really great to use in regards to stability, ease of use, etc.

 

[audioBliss]

possibly . Probably

but for 7 channels or less and for people who cant be bothered placing speakers in their ceiling , sofa , butt crack or wherever this Atmos scam ends , the bryston sp3 still reigns supreme for DTS-hd master audio and Dolby true HD

Atmos and the like were another scam to con people into upgrading receivers , buy more speakers etc .To keep us looking over our shoulders
where will the “object based” insanity end ? 54 channels ?

There is no way you have actually listened to a properly calibrated Atmos sound system. We already know the current limitation of the home variant which is 24.1.10 with 10 beds and 118 objects so until we have products that can do that I suspect they will keep coming(so that's where it ends for now). The same sound track will scale to whatever your current system supports which is nice.

If you watch any content at all from streaming services you'll want an Atmos setup or you'll basically get DD 5.1 with DVD bitrates from the 90s. I'm not even going to get into a deeper discussion about it since it's obvious that you've not properly investigated the difference yourself. Reading what you are saying sounds just like hardcore 2-channel people that say the same about the 5.1 surround scam and that nothing more than 2-channel is needed etc.

 

[Dimifoot]

2 channel DACS are scam to make us buy more speakers.
1 channel is enough

 

[KMN]

Where do they say this? I've read the Arcam response.

You quoted quite a bit there so not sure if your question is related to antennas or lab conditions, but if the second one.... my comment was in response on something Amir mentioned in the review.

"They said that they test using a portable HDMI signal generator that is operated on batteries. "

As Amir points out this is not how most people are going to use the equipment and potentially breaks ground loops involving the PC. Perhaps my use of the term"lab conditions" was a bit overly dramatic but at the same time spec testing in a way which is similar to the more typical real world usage of the equipment would be the more honest approach.

 

[HTNut1975]

You quoted quite a bit there so not sure if your question is related to antennas or lab conditions, but if the second one.... my comment was in response on something Amir mentioned in the review.

"They said that they test using a portable HDMI signal generator that is operated on batteries. "

As Amir points out this is not how most people are going to use the equipment and potentially breaks ground loops involving the PC. Perhaps my use of the term"lab conditions" was a bit overly dramatic but at the same time spec testing in a way which is similar to the more typical real world usage of the equipment would be the more honest approach.

Ok I get you. I don’t think their position is that the device works with a low noise floor only if used with their HDMI sound generator. Their position is that there are noise issues specific to this unit that occur when inputs and outputs are mutually connected from the Arcam to the measuring box (and vice versa). Amir’s hypothesis is that it is likely that since their HDMI source is less noisy, it’ll likely emit less noise, and that’s probably the reason for the lower noise floor in Arcam’s paper. Unfortunately, Arcam went silent after that.

 

[PeteL]

You quoted quite a bit there so not sure if your question is related to antennas or lab conditions, but if the second one.... my comment was in response on something Amir mentioned in the review.

"They said that they test using a portable HDMI signal generator that is operated on batteries. "

As Amir points out this is not how most people are going to use the equipment and potentially breaks ground loops involving the PC. Perhaps my use of the term"lab conditions" was a bit overly dramatic but at the same time spec testing in a way which is similar to the more typical real world usage of the equipment would be the more honest approach.

I do agree with this, altough, I do also believe that unfortunately, any transmission system is a inter manufacturers responsability, or ultimately, it's a standard comitee responsability. I am no expert, but the HDMI standard consist of a set of rules, cables must past the test, there are restrictions of distance, etc. I am not saying that JBL is not at fault, but I am wondering why is it that would make such a difference. PC ports, HDMI AND even USB seems to have very variable performance. PCs, to have a HDMI port, should be HDMI compliant. So is it that the rules are too loose, or is it that PC manufacturers just don't care and sell un compliant device. Are there actual rules in the standards that sets a treshold on noise products (ground related or not) appearing on the HDMI data ports of any devices, not only device manufactured with audio reproduction in mind? I don't have the answer. Maybe someone knows, but there definitely SHOULD NOT be such debate about "What's the source" You are either compliant, or you aren't. Maybe this demonstrate that it's too easy, or maybe it's good enough and I'm too optimistic to expect better since HDMI as not been brought up with the audiophile in mind. But noise can ALSO hurt video performance. You just have to go by a good margin further than the recommended distance to see it. We have guidelines about the distance, but if there arent guidelines on the port themselves, this is not worth much.

 

[KMN]

I don’t think their position is that the device works with a low noise floor only if used with their HDMI sound generator.

I didn't interpret it that way either. Just that personally I get annoyed often when equipment I own has a characteristic where sound quality gets altered based on how the associated equipment's I/O gets connected or not. This is something which seems very common with equipment I've owned in the past but I can't even think of a single instance where the manufacturer talks about it or even issues a warning. Having manufacturers admit that users may not be able to haphazardly connect all the available I/O, and expect rated/spec'd performance, seems unusual and fantastic and maybe a step in the right direction. Not that I think admitting to it is the solution. The solution is making the problem vanish by design, obviously. It's only too bad they didn't stick around to receive the scolding they deserve. Oh, well. Vote with your wallet.

 

[KMN]

I do agree with this, altough, I do also believe that unfortunately, any transmission system is a inter manufacturers responsability, or ultimately, it's a standard comitee responsability. I am no expert, but the HDMI standard consist of a set of rules, cables must past the test, there are restrictions of distance, etc. I am not saying that JBL is not at fault, but I am wondering why is it that would make such a difference. PC ports, HDMI AND even USB seems to have very variable performance. PCs, to have a HDMI port, should be HDMI compliant. So is it that the rules are too loose, or is it that PC manufacturers just don't care and sell un compliant device. Are there actual rules in the standards that sets a treshold on noise products (ground related or not) appearing on the HDMI data ports of any devices, not only device manufactured with audio reproduction in mind? I don't have the answer. Maybe someone knows, but there definitely SHOULD NOT be such debate about "What's the source" You are either compliant, or you aren't. Maybe this demonstrate that it's too easy, or maybe it's good enough and I'm too optimistic to expect better since HDMI as not been brought up with the audiophile in mind. But noise can ALSO hurt video performance. You just have to go by a good margin further than the recommended distance to see it. We have guidelines about the distance, but if there arent guidelines on the port themselves, this is not worth much.

I agree with what you are saying. I think that my point, as the consumer would be: I don't want to have to care. Manufacturers who care about this stuff could figure out what a worst case user implementation is, play with that setup during new product development and ensure any new products are sufficiently immune to the types of systems and inter connectivity within which many of us would like to use our equipment, especially if they want it to do well in independent testing like this. Not that I necessarily think that the noise levels shown in Amirs plots is something I'm going to readily consciously be able to hear but I still don't like seeing it in the captures. I would probably keep looking for something else if I knew it was there....

 

[gags11]

Would sure like it if someone sent a DDRC-88A in for testing by Amir.

I have sent my DDRC-88A unit a while back to Amir. Hopefully he can review it soon.

 

[Vasr]

I didn't interpret it that way either. Just that personally I get annoyed often when equipment I own has a characteristic where sound quality gets altered based on how the associated equipment's I/O gets connected or not. This is something which seems very common with equipment I've owned in the past but I can't even think of a single instance where the manufacturer talks about it or even issues a warning. Having manufacturers admit that users may not be able to haphazardly connect all the available I/O, and expect rated/spec'd performance, seems unusual and fantastic and maybe a step in the right direction. Not that I think admitting to it is the solution. The solution is making the problem vanish by design, obviously. It's only too bad they didn't stick around to receive the scolding they deserve. Oh, well. Vote with your wallet.

I agree with you in principle but don't think it is pragmatic from a manufacturer's perspective. Both marketing and legal would not allow them to state (for justifiable reasons) anything definite about things that they have not tested with or under their control and it would be impossible for them to test it with every possible device out there, especially those that are likely to have user replaceable/serviceable parts inside like a PC. Without testing against every graphics card out there with HDMI, they can make no definite claims one way or the other. Nor could they be expected to spend resources to test it that way.

Otherwise, their units would need to have documentation and testing that looks like the HCL of motherboards and even that would not be complete.

Audio manufacturers have a target market in mind. This unit is expected to be used with other non user-serviceable devices like a blu-ray player, a gaming console, a streaming device with HDMI like Apple TV, Roku, etc. A deficiency with any of these is a legitimate knock against the manufacturer. But the ability to handle anything with a HDMI out will be far beyond any practical capability of a manufacturer to design or to test. That is not a very reasonable thing to expect.

 

[HTNut1975]

I didn't interpret it that way either. Just that personally I get annoyed often when equipment I own has a characteristic where sound quality gets altered based on how the associated equipment's I/O gets connected or not. This is something which seems very common with equipment I've owned in the past but I can't even think of a single instance where the manufacturer talks about it or even issues a warning. Having manufacturers admit that users may not be able to haphazardly connect all the available I/O, and expect rated/spec'd performance, seems unusual and fantastic and maybe a step in the right direction. Not that I think admitting to it is the solution. The solution is making the problem vanish by design, obviously. It's only too bad they didn't stick around to receive the scolding they deserve. Oh, well. Vote with your wallet.

I hear you, but I think their position is that this would only occur in this instance and not any other instance, so it wouldn’t be a problem unless you hooked it up to measurement in that kind of loop. This is a falsifiable claim, though. But the burden really should be on Arcam to counter Amir’s simple explanation.

 

[Vasr]

The PC computer industry has firmware down good. No reason they can't poach some software personnel.

Yes and no. The PC software industry has some good software people but they would be useless for the embedded systems like this. The companies who have embedded software/firmware - motherboard, router/switch, etc., have a terrible record when it comes to firmware quality unless it has evolved over a decade or so with frequent bug fixes if at all Part of it is the constraints of the embedded system programming, part of it is availability of good talent for this specialized niche.

But to your point, the problem with most of these companies isn't getting talent but the legacy culture that is more comfortable with hardware and distrusts software and under-spends or avoids any advances in that area within the company. Parasound is a good example of this. So far, their product range has tried to avoid any use of processors and software development (which is why you don't see any menus and everything is controlled/configured by buttons). When you are doing amps and pre-amps that may work but not for the new breed of applications for audio.