Onkyo TX-RZ50 Review (Home Theater AVR)

[Blumlein 88]

This AVR misses on enough performance parameters it should be getting the Carver 275 treatment. But who are we gonna yell at? ONkyo is just a big old company.

Of course I used to call them Oinkyo for some bad past products.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

A future $20 Goodwill find.

 

[Chrispy]

It's not as bad as the Carver by a long shot on claims....and still a better amp it seems. Then again of course it could be better, or you could use external amps etc or play the precious hires on special 2ch rigs instead of just enjoying the music....

This AVR misses on enough performance parameters it should be getting the Carver 275 treatment. But who are we gonna yell at? ONkyo is just a big old company.

Of course I used to call them Oinkyo for some bad past products.

 

[MC_RME]

I can only guess that we see specialized processing chips in all these units that are totally outdated. There need to be new versions which can do the same processing at least at 96 kHz, better 192 kHz. Technically that should not be any problem. So why are those chip makers not doing this? Is the fault with Denon and all others, because they don't demand these? Or with the licensing parties (Dolby etc), because their whatever licensing schemes prevents technical improvement? Not sure we will ever find out...

That said I am (once again) very disappointed. Mediocre performance as this I can get for less than half the money. Listen, if you want my money you have to deliver!

 

[ThatM1key]

A future $20 Goodwill find.

Scratches, big dents, broken banana speaker jacks, worn out HDMI ports, mostly dim display with some bright spots, no remote, etc.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Scratches, big dents, broken banana speaker jacks, worn out HDMI ports, mostly dim display with some bright spots, no remote, etc.

That's what a disappointed buyer does to a poor performer he pays $1500 for. It'll get there, give it time.

 

[PeteL]

BTW, there is a "free" way from them to do this. When someone plays just two channel audio, up the sample rate. There is a ton of computing power here spread to 9+ channels. Lower that to two channels and sample rate can be much higher. Indeed, I have advocated that these companies have a proper, 2-channel mode which gets rid of a ton of assumptions they make about the format. SNR, SINAD, etc. can all be improved substantially in this mode.

I do not have solid knowledge of how these DSP chip operate, how the algorythms are designed, how different “mode” can be saved and recalled. So it is possible that you have the expertise on this so you may be right. But normally, nothing is free in development, I would think that if the chip allowed to simply up the sample rate when 2 channel are used and maintain the same processing pipeline, they would? It’s rarely such a simple rule of three, enough processing power don’t equate easy to implement. how it theats audio streams, what are the filtering algorythms, etc, those are off the shelves solutions, they operate a certain way. I can’t think of a manufacturers that would say « this feature cost nothing and it would bring us above the competition, but will not do it just because… »

 

[Helicopter]

That's what a disappointed buyer does to a poor performer he pays $1500 for. It'll get there, give it time.

Hit it with some Krylon and it will be ready for the garage or shop.

I am disapointed but not surprised. Dirac and the price and channels is a great target, but performance is not there.

I will continue to recommend the best Denon AVR for your budget, especially with external amps.

 

[Xyrium]

Hit it with some Krylon and it will be ready for the garage or shop.

I am disapointed but not surprised. Dirac and the price and channels is a great target, but performance is not there.

I will continue to recommend the best Denon AVR for your budget, especially with external amps.

Agreed 100%. Denon not only outclasses products twice their price (Anthem I believe was one) but also has the integrity to go back and attempt to address any shortcomings discovered in these reviews.

BTW, that things looks huge! Is it class AB?

Amir, that was a lot of dashboards that you posted; kudos to you for being so darned thorough!

 

[DonR]

Agreed 100%. Denon not only outclasses products twice their price (Anthem I believe was one) but also has the integrity to go back and attempt to address any shortcomings discovered in these reviews.

BTW, that things looks huge! Is it class AB?

Amir, that was a lot of dashboards that you posted; kudos to you for being so darned thorough!

It's a shame Denon doesn't sell the processing guts of an X3700 as a standalone unit. I think smaller systems are becoming more and more popular like the Marantz NR line and this Onkyo is moving in the other direction. It looks like a bloated pig and that is surprising given that the rear connectivity isn't all that spectacular for its size.

 

[chris719]

You are drawing the wrong conclusion. People who play high res music pay extra for that and like to know that their system is playing such. To the extend this AVR can't, then the work-around is as I suggested: build your system around full-range speakers. Then you are not missing anything. Your solution neuters high-res music and is just not acceptable. I have thousands of dollars worth of high-res music that I own. I want to play them that way. Period. I am not bending over to what this AVR wants to do.

Your suggestion says to get something as basic as bass management, I have to give up sample rate. And with it, give a pass to these manufacturers. So they will never up the sample rate. They have been doing this for decades now. Maybe 10 years ago they could justify keeping rates this low but not anymore, and not in something that costs $1,500.

These DSPs just can’t implement all of the functionality and retain the same filter performance above 48 kHz. The software complexity is significantly increased when you have to support subsets of functionality and new sets of coefficients per sample rate. There’s a reason these DSPs have integrated ASRC IP. A better part could probably do fixed 96 kHz but for what benefit? There is still no widespread agreement that high-res is noticeably better and the DAC/amp performance is mediocre anyway.

I’m not disagreeing with you that we should be able to do better in 2022, but what I wrote above is probably the rationale of the manufacturers. The cold hard truth is that, in the real world, no one even notices if you downsample to 48 kHz.

 

[Keened]

Well that explains my mildly underwhelment. Good to know there isn't much more I can do to push better results out of it.

My unit also likes to click the relays 'randomly' and is giving me a rather difficult time connecting a docked laptop (difficulty passing signals, both video and audio on an HDMI 2.1 capable cable directly and through an DP->HDMI2.0 adapter). Oddly enough the DP path, when it works, is capable of passing 4K@60hz with HDR turned on and the HDMI path won't go above [email protected] non-HDR.

On the whole, would I recommend this? Yeah, I still probably would since it's such a pain to get Dirac in the middle of an HDMI AV path without paying a fortune.

But I'm going to go back to actively exploring alternatives at this point. It's a bit annoying that @Okto Research has gone radio silent, I would have gone that way instead. Had it in my cart and everything.

 

[a|F]

I don't think I ever built one. Is there one off-the-shelf?

I'll send you a pair that I have laying around.

 

[chris719]

I can only guess that we see specialized processing chips in all these units that are totally outdated. There need to be new versions which can do the same processing at least at 96 kHz, better 192 kHz. Technically that should not be any problem. So why are those chip makers not doing this? Is the fault with Denon and all others, because they don't demand these? Or with the licensing parties (Dolby etc), because their whatever licensing schemes prevents technical improvement? Not sure we will ever find out...

That said I am (once again) very disappointed. Mediocre performance as this I can get for less than half the money. Listen, if you want my money you have to deliver!

Exactly. They are limited by the AD SigmaDSP or Cirrus product that’s the core of the device. You could do better with a SHARC+ or TMSxxx but they just don’t want to spend the money and maybe they won’t pay enough for AD or Cirrus to justify improving the DSP in the parts they use.

 

[Tks]

Surly someone here has talked to a AVR designer/engineer at one point? Is it all the features (like all the hardware required to get all that rear I/O functionality) that basically necessitates these devices perform so bad on the performance front?

Like can I tell someone:" AVR's just in virtue of all the features they have, make it a literal impossibility with current tech, to produce an AVR on the market that measures higher than 115dB SINAD."

It's so weird how massive the divide is between desktop audio devices, and these AVR type devices.

 

[Rottmannash]

I think you are making quite a jump/conclusion, that something would sound "poor" based on some certain measurements.

If you were to say, "Not measure great", I might agree, but having actually heard some of the AVRs tested here, and actually having extensive listening also, I can tell you with certainty, no AVR I have heard, has sounded "Poor" in any way.

You are making the assumption that a high Sinad guarantees great sound and a mediocre Sinad means poor sound. Simply not true.
In actual listening, I would wager, you would probably not be able to tell one from the other under almost all circumstances.

I say all of this NOT to defend AVRs or yamaha AVRs in particular, but due to me thinking the same way. "They must sound mediocre and horrible". When after actually hearing one, and then getting two used ones, found it just not even remotely true.

I have to agree-I have this AVR and have nothing negative to say about its features, SQ or power output. However I'm using a Purifi for my L/R and a Buckeye for the 2 rears and the AVR powers the center and heights. I've not noticed any power issues, even w/ John Wick 3 at deafening volumes. I may hook up all speakers to the AVR and test it. Maybe then it will show signs of neutering. Btw, Dirac Live is a game changer for HT use.

 

[chris719]

Surly someone here has talked to a AVR designer/engineer at one point? Is it all the features (like all the hardware required to get all that rear I/O functionality) that basically necessitates these devices perform so bad on the performance front?

Like can I tell someone:" AVR's just in virtue of all the features they have, make it a literal impossibility with current tech, to produce an AVR on the market that measures higher than 115dB SINAD."

It's so weird how massive the divide is between desktop audio devices, and these AVR type devices.

It’s relatively easy to make a well-measuring 2 channel device with no features. It’s much harder to do it in a box packed full of switching regulators, processors, power amplifiers, etc. It can be done, but these things are built to be as cheap as possible and have short product development cycles.

 

[Tks]

It’s relatively easy to make a well-measuring 2 channel device with no features. It’s much harder to do it in a box packed full of switching regulators, processors, power amplifiers, etc. It can be done, but these things are built to be as cheap as possible and have short product development cycles.

There is an appreciable price difference between AVR's. Yet their performance is virtually all sub satisfactory. Like if you want to say, all AVR's target the mainstream consumer irrespective of price (meaning whether it's a $3,000 or $10,000 AVR, these are both prices targeted at mainstream HT users), then I can understand your point. Though I have trouble swallowing such pill, especially seeing as how many multi-channel people spend quite serious amounts of money on some of their setups.

So to hear by implication, such folks, and their potential demand for better performance goes utterly unaddressed, feels intuitively tough to accept.

 

[Beershaun]

I think you are making quite a jump/conclusion, that something would sound "poor" based on some certain measurements.

If you were to say, "Not measure great", I might agree, but having actually heard some of the AVRs tested here, and actually having extensive listening also, I can tell you with certainty, no AVR I have heard, has sounded "Poor" in any way.

You are making the assumption that a high Sinad guarantees great sound and a mediocre Sinad means poor sound. Simply not true.
In actual listening, I would wager, you would probably not be able to tell one from the other under almost all circumstances.

I say all of this NOT to defend AVRs or yamaha AVRs in particular, but due to me thinking the same way. "They must sound mediocre and horrible". When after actually hearing one, and then getting two used ones, found it just not even remotely true.

You are jumping to conclusions. Please refrain from explaining to me what I do or don’t know. I read the reviews and understand full well that sinad is just one Measure of many. They definitely don’t all sound the same and it’s not subtle. I have a NAD T778 and and Anthem mrx1140 in my home theater right now and the Anthem is superior at driving mid bass and woofer response at much higher levels than the NAD at the same 70 to 75db avg listening range.

 

[Rottmannash]

This is a YT review of the RZ810 (which I also own) which outputs more than its rated power and I have to assume the amps are very similar, if not identical to the RZ50's. Strange huh?