Onkyo TX-RZ50 Review (Home Theater AVR)

[chris719]

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.

I think, unfortunately, they are lazy and designing a single platform that encompasses the entire range of products. The higher priced AVRs are not good value, I agree.

 

[voodooless]

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.

From what I found in interviews, they use a new processing platform for these new Onkyo, Integra and Pioneer lines. This platform should last about 10 years. One would think that somewhere down the line higher sample rate would become mainstream. Possibly not all computing power is already used at the moment. Or the platform is flexible enough to upgrade power along the way..

On the other hand, we’ve been stuck with 48 kHz processing in mainstream AVR’s for decades now as well, so why would they change their ways. Same goes for analog performance.. “meh” is “good enough” it seems.

 

[DonR]

From what I found in interviews, they use a new processing platform for these new Onkyo, Integra and Prioneer lines. This platform should last about 10 years. One would think that somewhere down the line higher sample rate would become mainstream. Possibly not all computing power is already used at the moment. Or the platform is flexible enough to upgrade power along the way..

On the other hand, we’ve been stuck with 48 kHz processing in mainstream AVR’s for decades now as well, so why would they change their ways. Same goes for analog performance.. “meh” is “good enough” it seems.

In the specs game though all it takes is for one mainstream maker like Denon or Sony to include the feature and then everyone else will have to scramble to catch up.

 

[amirm]

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.

First of all, that is not hard. Memory is cheap these days (both flash and DRAM) and having multiple tables for each sample rate coefficient is dead easy. As is switching between them.

Second, our job is not to make excuses for manufacturers just because something is "hard" for them. We need to make it clear what we need and their job is to compete to deliver.

Third, this is a matter of transparency and proper advertising to the user. Here is a bit of the spec from the manual:

And top level feature list in the product datasheet:

Don't you think it should say that anything over 44.1/48 kHz would be converted down if bass management is on? And not mislead the customer into thinking it handles those sample rate like a stand alone DAC? Surely I need this more than "anti-resonance heat-sink," don't you think?

As I explained, it has literally been decades with internal sample rate being 48 kHz. If they could fit it in computationally then, it is time that they step up to something higher given all the buzz around high-resolution audio with them promoting it just as well.

You as an individual can choose to not care. You could have said smartphones are too complex to build compared to feature phones for example. But me as someone who understands what they have to build and see the consequences of taking a short-cut, choose to point these things out.

 

[dezza]

I think this power limiting thing when the 4ohm selecter is used, has been going on for some time.
I don't know how many brands and models are affected but Audioholics have been going on about it for years.

Here is an article that Gene DellaSala wrote a number of yrs ago.

I think it is related to this review.

https://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/impedance-selector-switch-1/what-is-ul-csa-actually-testing\

 

[amirm]

I think this power limiting thing when the 4ohm selecter is used, has been going on for some time.

That has been. But this is new: no matter what you set that to, the amplifier on its own decides to power limit. You can mess with that setting all you want and it won't make a difference.

 

[valerianf]

Thus 2 points need to be improved if Onkyo wants to propose a top level AVR:
A 96khz Dsp capable platform.
Some analog power amps that does not go to limp mode as soon as the speaker impedance reach 4 Ohms or below ( i.e. similar to car audio amps that are driving 2 ohms speakers).

We may be dreaming, but it would be a big step to higher sound quality.

 

[Putter]

Thus 2 points need to be improved if Onkyo wants to propose a top level AVR:
A 96khz Dsp capable platform.
Some analog power amps that does not go to limp mode as soon as the speaker impedance reach 4 Ohms or below ( i.e. similar to car audio amps that are driving 2 ohms speakers).

We may be dreaming, but it would be a big step to higher sound quality.

The former is unlikely to have any effect on sound quality while the power amp issue is apparently a software problem. What bothers me about the review and some other AV reviews by Amir is that the effectiveness of the implementation of the Room Eq system (Dirac in this case) will have a much greater impact on sound quality than even the limitations of the power amps, but that is not actually evaluated.

 

[amirm]

The former is unlikely to have any effect on sound quality while the power amp issue is apparently a software problem. What bothers me about the review and some other AV reviews by Amir is that the effectiveness of the implementation of the Room Eq system (Dirac in this case) will have a much greater impact on sound quality than even the limitations of the power amps, but that is not actually evaluated.

That is a constant between systems and doesn't need me to measure it. The evaluation is also very time consuming and will be specific to my situation. You all can do the measurements yourself.

To that end, speakers make a big difference as well. How much time do you want me to spend on an AVR instead of moving on to measure a speaker???

I have measured Dirac by the way in a Paradigm smart amplifier so if that is all you want, it is done.

 

[dlaloum]

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?

The RZ50 also put out more than its rated power - into 8ohm with 2 channels running. (136W where it is rated for 120W)

Where things get hairy, is continuous output into 4ohm - lots of current

 

[TimoJ]

It is a processor. It modifies the signal in the digital domain so it is prone to the same performance limiting bottlenecks as AVR's.

The list should contain only AVRs/AVPs, not units without HDMI inputs and multichannel decoding. If only requirement is signal modification in digital domain, then you can start to put almost everything to the same list... @amirm

 

[dlaloum]

Some analog power amps that does not go to limp mode as soon as the speaker impedance reach 4 Ohms or below ( i.e. similar to car audio amps that are driving 2 ohms speakers).

We may be dreaming, but it would be a big step to higher sound quality.

I have had 2 previous generation Onkyo/Integra AVR's that handled difficult speaker loads without complaint... TX-SR876 and DTR 70.4 - both of these were rated at 140W/ch@8ohm - with 2 channels, they have been measured at 170W@8ohm.

They also weigh around 50 or 60lb's - and worked well with speakers that drop down to 1.6ohm (my Gallo's)

The current RZ50 is a relative lightweight - and with most of the weight being in the transformer, I think it is power/current constrained.

The RZ50 seems more like their previous/past generation midrange AVR's - not a flagship model.

Perhaps this will be the upcoming RZ70/90?

 

[dlaloum]

That has been. But this is new: no matter what you set that to, the amplifier on its own decides to power limit. You can mess with that setting all you want and it won't make a difference.

Didn't you have similar issues with the Pioneer LX303 and LX504 you tested? - I think this is an issue that has been around within their badge engineered family for some years!

 

[Ralf Stocker]

Quite a disappointment for the buyer. Just resell on ebay. You can see that the more electronics are installed in such a box, the more difficult it is to maintain quality. In addition, the components are not selected and measured. Just mass production. Has nothing to do with hi-fi.

 

[amirm]

The current RZ50 is a relative lightweight - and with most of the weight being in the transformer, I think it is power/current constrained.

I meant to comment how light this AVR is relative to its size in the review but forgot. The transformer is also small.

 

[voodooless]

Second, our job is not to make excuses for manufacturers just because something is "hard" for them. We need to make it clear what we need and their job is to compete to deliver.

Simple solution: don’t give them any money. Talk is cheap, not spending money even more so . As long as mediocre sells nothing will change.

Third, this is a matter of transparency and proper advertising to the user. Here is a bit of the spec from the manual:

View attachment 186300

Well, no lies there? It will play audio input with all those sample rates, won’t it.

And top level feature list in the product datasheet:
View attachment 186301

They all do this. I do agree it should be called out, but essentially, no lie here as well.

Don't you think it should say that anything over 44.1/48 kHz would be converted down if bass management is on? And not mislead the customer into thinking it handles those sample rate like a stand alone DAC? Surely I need this more than "anti-resonance heat-sink," don't you think?

Yes! Most consumers don’t understand anyway. That is exactly what they are relying on. We can call it out all we want, but as long as no brand comes out with the iPhone of AVR’s, nothing will change any time soon.

Personally I don’t mind the 48 kHz processing too much. 96 kHz would possibly be a bit better. What I do mind is the lack of innovation. Processing power of a DSP should have grown by several orders of magnitude over the past two decades. Very little has been done with this potential. All these companies do it license technologies to add a few more stickers on the boxes they sell, with very little own innovations. And what is there, is often badly done.

 

[KMO]

Second, our job is not to make excuses for manufacturers just because something is "hard" for them. We need to make it clear what we need and their job is to compete to deliver.

Right, but can we be consistent? This product gets (rightly) criticised for doing all its DSP processing at 48kHz.

But the MiniDSP Flex got a total pass on that.

But I guess the issue was that the MiniDSP Flex under test reviewed didn't have the Dirac, so was operating at 96kHz - but if you pay extra money for the Dirac then you get 48kHz, same as the Onkyo. (Although I don't know if it switches dynamically based on Dirac being enabled).

And do any of the leading Room EQ system do 96kHz? Not Dirac, not Audyssey... (At least in real implementations)

I myself have a Denon AVR that can do other functions at 96kHz, but Audyssey only at 48kHz, but I rarely feel like turning off the Audyssey just to let the hi-res through. Bass correction vastly outweighs hi-res. If this Onkyo could do 96kHz bass management without Dirac, I couldn't see myself turning the Dirac off to get it. 96kHz processing without room EQ is not a particularly compelling feature.

And if the tests had shown the Onkyo running at 96kHz without Dirac, that would have been a bit misleading, as the vast majority of users would have the Dirac on, and wouldn't get those results. You could argue that having it always do 48kHz led to a more honest review...

 

[GWolfman]

Some of you have been looking at using external DACs as a way to improve performance of these AV Products. There, you would be feeding the amplifier up to 2 volts in unbalanced mode so I decided to test that condition.

Thanks!

 

[abdo123]

But the MiniDSP Flex got a total pass on that.

Because MiniDSP is transparent about resampling

And do any of the leading Room EQ system do 96kHz? Not Dirac, not Audyssey... (At least in real implementations)

The Trinnov 16 does 96KHz, the 32 does 192KHz and that's using processors from 2014.

 

[valerianf]

As some HD streaming services are providing 24 bit/96khz and even higher on some music, a modern AVR should have a dsp that do the process at 96 kHz.
Is the DTS HD MA ( 96/24) from a blue ray disk downsampled to 48khz by the DSP?
I do not think so.
Same remark regarding the Dolby True HD.