I think especially for AVR reviews, there are so many other important features that just looking at it's pure audio performance through measurements will not tell you the whole story. ASR is great for providing those measurements, but you need to balance them with all the other features provided, and also to what extent some measurements are even audible in normal use.
In an AVR, reliable video performance, good HDMI ports, good codec support, good RoomEQ software will be much more important considerations to me than the ultimate audio performance (to be fair though, I have a dedicated 2ch setup that offers close to that ultimate performance with a >110db SINAD DAC, and a >100db SINAD amp, so really don't care as much for ultimate audio performance for movies).
I'd have no qualms about buying a RZ50. And in fact, I almost came close to pulling the trigger as I want to replace my Yamaha, but am at this point waiting for a RZ70/RZ90 instead (I can live with the Yamaha a while longer).
I'll cosign this. There's a very narrow focus on performance in the reviews here and I'm glad there is because that's hard to find elsewhere. The market for AVRs is not centered around demanding engineers seeking to eek out the last 5% of performance in SINAD when many decent ones can minimize harmonic distortion and noise to one part per 10k. I've always asked myself: which would I be more likely to notice - 10-15 dB swings in bass response in a room due to room modes or the difference between one part per 10k and one part per million in harmonic distortion? Similar question relating to quality of recording in terms of mastering, mixing, production, etc., versus SINAD differences. Yet another question relative to the listener's audiogram where most people over 20 can have significant hearing loss. These sorts of things are acknowledged in the reviews here with statements to the effect of, "it's a shame that _____ suffers because the designer didn't pay enough attention to _____, but it doesn't matter because thankfully it's inaudible."
Things that would weigh more heavily in my attraction to an AVR would include:
- CODECs
- Room EQ
- Bass management/EQ of multiple subs
- Can it interoperate with stream from a 3rd party music player software/host or is it limited to streaming from NAS or USB drive?
- The ability to upmix 2.0 or 5.1 source material
- UX/UI with AVR's embedded streaming functionality with streaming services
- Stability of HDMI interfaces and firmware in general
- Ability to mix/match pre-outs and speaker outs
- Presets for multiple EQ target curves
- Automated switching of CODECs/modes based on incoming bitstream
- Ability to disconnect unused PA channels
- Quality of OSD
- Quality of web control interface
- Quality of front panel display
- Thermal management
- Peak output if I'm going to use any of the PA channels for anything other than the top layer
At that point I might consider differences between 85 and 100+ dB SINAD, whether there's differences in picoseconds of jitter measured, or whether there's differences in linearity down to -100 dB.
I suppose nirvana would be a 16 ch pre-pro with SOTM signal processing with all of the functionality and characteristics listed above that can revert to an ultra clean 2.x CH. mode when desired. The RZ-50 appears to be an economical compromise for those wanting one box that can do 7.1.4 with near-top of the market room EQ. I'm anxious to see what the models above it look like when they're introduced.