Review and Measurements of Anthem MRX 520 AVR

[eycatcher]

This sounds reasonable, though one could also make a case for running a test in the default mode (because that is the one that the manufacturer sets).

True but if trying to compare an AVR to a Desktop DAC when it comes to SINAD, that doesnt have bass, treble, room correction and other functions that require additional circuitry etc it doesnt sound fair. We are not trying to compare sound modes or processing. Sure measure both but, why not put it in them in a mode that will allow it to sound and measure best?

 

[GrimSurfer]

You're measuring an AVR, not a DAC. Even though there's a DAC in it, it doesn't operate independently of the preamp, amp and video controller.

 

[eycatcher]

Not entirely true. Most all AVRs have functions to allow you to pass the analog signal along to the amp section with minimal circuitry. Meaning no DSP conversion, bypassing bass management, video and even disabling the VFD or LED display, Tone Controls, and EQ. This will always give the cleanest possible SNR which is what we are interested in. It's usually called direct, pure direct, straight mode.

 

[GrimSurfer]

I understand what you're saying. The problem comes when comparing two AVRs -- one with and the other without bypass capability. People, and companies, will cry foul. They will call it an apples-to-oranges discussion. They will do so for many reasons, not the least of which is to undermine the relvence of measurements they don't want published.

Testing "as configured" removes this option from manufacturers. They build the damned things, so they can be fairly and legitimately judged on configurations leaving the factory.

 

[DubbyMcDubs]

Perhaps we should have separate ranking charts for AVR's and DAC's? And maybe a third chart showing them interleaved?

 

[eycatcher]

Can't think of any current units that dont have the capability to disable processing modes, testing like that is creating an apples to oranges. Unfortunately none of them default to a direct configuration. But the Anthem can do it, NAD, Denon, Yamaha, Marantz, Pioneer just about all of the units so far tested.

 

[GrimSurfer]

So let me understand what you're suggesting: AVR manufacturers clutter and advertise various add-on circuitry as advancements... but these should be disabled during testing because it is in the manufacturer's best interests?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Can't think of any current units that dont have the capability to disable processing modes, testing like that is creating an apples to oranges. Unfortunately none of them default to a direct configuration. But the Anthem can do it, NAD, Denon, Yamaha, Marantz, Pioneer just about all of the units so far tested.

I don't think this is true anymore. It once was. For instance the Marantz Pure Direct, isn't. That looks to be the case of some others. They already are being tested with a digital input signal and the purest output for the stereo DAC operations. How is that unfair? If some do offer an analog in and out what would your use for that be? Plus it appears most now digitally sample analog inputs and it goes all digital anyway.

 

[amirm]

Amir, when you add an input or reset the Anthem unit to factory defaults, it defines the input to process them through the DAC. I would recommend to check the Menu Setup when testing the Analog input on the Anthem, scroll all the way to the bottom and make sure it is configured for "Mode Preset for Stereo Source" to "NONE", "Anthem Room Correction" to "OFF" and "Process analog Audio Input" to "NO". Configuring this way would be the equivalent of setting the Anthem in a "Pure Direct" mode for minimal processing of an stereo or 2 channel audio signal. Having AVR's in Pure Direct should be the basis of how each is measured and compared to each other. I suspect the non optimal defaults may explain the anomolies you see in some of the measurement responses.

Two of those are not material here as I had Dirac already disabled and Preset was "Last used" which meant no effect.

Disabling the Analog Processing does make a big difference. Trouble is, then we can't compare the results to others such as NAD that don't give you that option. Further, many AVR users set their speakers to small and have subs which this would (I assume) bypass.

This mode then is useful then when just looking at analog path and comparing it to stereo pre-amps. That is useful although doubles my workload in the future. I re-ran the tests. Here are the outcomes:

 

[eycatcher]

No that is not what I'm saying, I could care less about marketing propaganda. We are here because we don't trust the mfr's right?

Amir stated "I don't know what is going on" and several other posts about not undertanding what is going on in the frequency reponse. He even posted results that were not accurate already, that were later corrected due to a sampling error most likely due to a default DSP setting outside of the Anthem.

I'm serious about the measurments for digital and analog would be interested multichannel measurements and 2 channel analog measurements with and without processing. If i had to choose one method it would be to disable processing in the best interest of having the ouput closest to the source.

All of AVR's in the past decade default to process signal to utilize their room eqalization and most all of them can be disabled exploiting the performance of the ADC and DAC selected by the mfr. An issue that Amir will discover is that each mfr will default their settings differently. It would be helpful for me to understand if testing is performed with everyting disabled or in a default config since the default will most likley have less linearity and potentialy more noise.

I'm also informing that some genious at anthem decided that when you configure a 2 channel analog input on the MRX520, it defaults to process it via the ADC then put it through the DAC in a default listening mode called Anthem Cinema which is ouput to all 5 channels and it boosts the sub channel 10db. I'm simply curious how he tested it?

 

[amirm]

So what do we want to do in the future? I am thinking we want the ADC in the path as then room EQ, bass management, etc. is all available. That would be a true benefit of these systems over stereo but they need to get their act together and produce transparent ADCs.

 

[eycatcher]

Amir, the NAD M17 and 758 both offer Direct per their manual

DIRECT
The analog or digital sources are automatically played in their native formats. All the source’s audio channels are reproduced directly. This
mode recreates the original sound most faithfully thereby producing outstandingly high quality audio. Note that the source must be at playback mode for “Direct” to become available as a listening mode option.

 

[amirm]

An issue that Amir will discover is that each mfr will default their settings differently. It would be helpful for me to understand if testing is performed with everyting disabled or in a default config since the default will most likley have less linearity and potentialy more noise.

I want to make sure you understand that I go all the menus and set things as best I can for pass through. Further I perform measurements and if I see something, I investigate and re-do them all. This happened for this review after I discovered frequency response was still wrong after all that so I reset the device and started over.

I have had AVRs and processors for over 20 years so this category of product is not new to me although I don't keep up with all the idiosyncrasies and settings of all the products.

While mistake can happen, manufacturers need to better document their products and provide single-button access like Pioneer does.

Net, net, if you have doubt, ask me but don't assume I don't know what I am doing and just randomly testing things.

 

[eycatcher]

i'm speaking from personal testing of units for over 20 years as well. I think the only way you could get a level playing field to comparing AVR's DAC implementation or even get close to compare them to Desktop would be to disable all processing.

Without A weighting on an unbalanced unit those numbers are fairly impressive wouldnt you say?

It is clearly audible too with trained listening ears. The MRX520 is their entry level unit. I even get better performance grounding their chassis and a better line cord but that could be my environment.

 

[amirm]

i'm speaking from personal testing of units for over 20 years as well. I think the only way you could get a level playing field to comparing AVR's DAC implementation or even get close to compare them to Desktop would be to disable all processing.

On DAC we are on the same page. As I said, I go through a lot of work to accomplish that already. I thought we were talking about analog input testing which is of interest to very few people.

 

[amirm]

Without A weighting on an unbalanced unit those numbers are fairly impressive wouldnt you say?

Impressive? No. This is impressive:

I would say that it is fine and not broken..

 

[eycatcher]

An XLR measurement of a $3000 class balanced pre amp would not be fair, they should have a lower noise floor. Let's see a measurment of the Anthem AVM60 or Yamaha CX-A5200 without processing and get back to me. I would like to see a remeasure of the AV8805A in direct. After all Direct mode has been around for about 20 years.

 

[audimus]

To address the question of whether we are comparing apples-apples or not, I see three main useful cases for AVR measurements:

1. Use the analog input to the cleanest path available in the AVR to the amp output. This is useful for comparing between AVRs, integrated amps, pure amps, etc. It is an evaluation of the build quality of the amp part of the AVR and important. If the cleanest path possible in each varies, it does not matter. Let AVRs that provide the best performance in their best path win.

2. Use the digital input to analog pre-out in the cleanest mode possible for an AVR. No bass management, no surround modes, ideally just the DAC and no other uses of a DSP. Again, if a manufacturer allows a more cleaner path than others then good for them. This is useful for comparing the DAC performance between AVRs themselves and benchmarking against pure DACs. This is an evaluation of the engineering of the digital path of the AVR and its noise isolation, etc.

3. Same as 2 above but the most common use case that engages the DSP. In other words, a set of things like bass management, room correction if available, etc. These are things that almost everybody (if not all) would be expected to use all the time (so no need to look at surround modes and all the other bells and whistles which is there only if one needed it). The set may vary from one AVR to another but it does not matter since it will be the most common mode for each AVR.

Not saying the above is effortless. Just 2 itself as being done takes a lot of time but I do think the above create a more complete evaluation of the AVRs between themselves to answer the three basic questions:

1. How good is the amp?
2. How good is the digital input handling in the pre/pro?
3. What penalties if any does one pay for using the most necessary/common feature of the AVR in real use?

There are a lot of boundary/special cases than the above but I believe the above will sufficiently capture both an evaluation of the engineering quality and what people can expect in practice.

 

[eycatcher]

Nicely said. Clearly as displayed in this test case there are performance deltas due to the variations. I would vote for audimus suggestions. Clearly it is important to understand how well the preamp can perform before amp and DSP, as well as measuring the ADC. Measuring the room correction or bass management etc would be nice if your looking to get into a comprehensive review but would take considerable time.

 

[amirm]

An XLR measurement of a $3000 class balanced pre amp would not be fair, they should have a lower noise floor.

How about a $99 headphone amplifier?