• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Review and Measurements of Anthem MRX 520 AVR

OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
3. Same as 2 above but the most common use case that engages the DSP.
This would still leave out the most common case which is HDMI in, speaker out. My thought is that this becomes the main test and everything else is diagnostic in nature to see what is going on. Currently the amps are the weak link anyway so having the DAC in the path won't change their measurements.

Let's decide quick before I start sending all this gear back. :)
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
One other thought is that I pipe their output through the Purifi output to see how well it does relative to internal amp. That would tell people if an external amp can help or not.
 

eycatcher

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
50
Likes
26
Even more important to measure the analog input for the resurgence of phono or R2R. Or better yet so I can connect one of those awesome $99 desktop dac's to it or a source with a tube buffer and not have it go through my AVR's DAC since not everyone uses cans
 
Last edited:

DubbyMcDubs

Active Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2019
Messages
143
Likes
132
One other thought is that I pipe their output through the Purifi output to see how well it does relative to internal amp. That would tell people if an external amp can help or not.

I like this approach
 

Vovgan

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
188
Likes
346
Location
Moscow, Russia
the most common case which is HDMI in, speaker out. My thought is that this becomes the main test and everything else is diagnostic in nature

Agreed. This, plus the first two scenarios proposed by @audimus should give the most comprehensive picture for all common use cases.

One other thought is that I pipe their output through the Purifi output to see how well it does relative to internal amp. That would tell people if an external amp can help or not.

Isn’t the test proposed by @audimus a neater way to compare a given AVR’s amps to any dedicated external amps that you review here and not just Purifi? (if by “the amp output” he means output to speakers)?

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.
 
Last edited:

DubbyMcDubs

Active Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2019
Messages
143
Likes
132

DubbyMcDubs

Active Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2019
Messages
143
Likes
132
Slightly off topic, but could the Okto Research DAC 8 Pro be of any assistance in a DIY AV processor, coupled with some other software? With that device you get a lot of high quality channels for your money, and it seems the audience at ASR has the taste for something of that nature (me included).
 

audimus

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2019
Messages
458
Likes
462
This would still leave out the most common case which is HDMI in, speaker out. My thought is that this becomes the main test and everything else is diagnostic in nature to see what is going on. Currently the amps are the weak link anyway so having the DAC in the path won't change their measurements.

Let's decide quick before I start sending all this gear back. :)

It makes sense, but ...

If the DSP features in my (3) is included in the above end-end test, then it would give more information than the combination of (1) and (2). Otherwise, it would just be the amp measurements dominating as you mentioned. And if you include those, then their effect would be hidden in the amp measurement, so we might not come to know if DRC X introduces more noise or does downsampling vs another DRC Y, etc. So, I would include the hdmi but leave the amp out for (3) which also makes it easier to compare with pre/pros with no amp.

The difficulty, of course, is in deciding a checklist of things to include here and the actual process of measuring for room correction, etc.

Given that the presence of room correction is becoming common and will most certainly be used, here is a first cut at standardizing this common use feature test (measure HDMI to analog pre-out with DSP engaged) at the minimum:

1. Start with a factory reset of the unit (I assume owners will be Ok with this and/or it is already being done)
2. Go through the initial set up procedure selecting default/recommended option for all choices.
3. Speakers configured as 2.1, mains as small with default crossover.
4. If there is room correction as part of setup, do a single position measurement (hopefully, all of them allow this if not just don’t move the mic for all measurements). The quality of room correction is not being measured here.
5. No dynamic/auto volume etc unless they are pre-selected by default.
6. No video or audio post-processing features selected (shouldn’t be by default or there will be a direct mode that enables room correction but nothing else in most recent units).

If the above is not practical, then I would use HDMI in (2) if it makes sense and just do the first two scenarios.
 
Last edited:

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,614
Likes
5,167
One other thought is that I pipe their output through the Purifi output to see how well it does relative to internal amp. That would tell people if an external amp can help or not.

That would be great if you can always do that! If one visits other sites frequented by beginners, one of the most frequently asked questions is:
Would I get better sound quality by adding an external amplifier?

I would like to see the following measured:

- HDMI input, I bet 99% of AVR/AVP users use HDMI inputs so this one should be obvious, should test both direct mode to avoid the effects of room correction software, and pure direct to avoid dsp as many people use their AVR/AVP for music listening using the pure direct mode that is free from DSP effects.

- Analog input, I think this one is very important because many people use that for stereo music using their disc players, and/or external DACs, or even turntables (in that case I guess noise may be irrelevant lol..)

- Optical/coax, imo I doubt this is even necessary but I am sure many people do but I don't why they do..

For outputs, I would like to see both pre out and power amp outputs vs THD+N measured for the obvious reasons. I would measure the pre outs from the lowest practical minimum to say 1.2 V, and keep going up until it clips.

You always measure THD+N, IMD, SINAD, FR and Harmonics/FFT, other good ones to have are slew rate, input and output impedance/damping factor.

Finally, for amp outputs, it would be great if you try as much as practically possible to use the same protocol and criteria so that we can compare one with another. For example, aside from average power, are the peak power always measured the same way, i.e. if it is CEA-2006/490A dynamic output, or something else? And by the way, what is 490A? and what is the test duration for those peak measurements?

Your measurements are probably the most encompassing in terms of scope and detailed one can find and read on the internet for free, but I do find it hard to use the data to compare gear you measured because the measurement criteria and conditions are not very consistent. Still, imo everyone who benefit from this site should have little excuse not to donate aside from may be just being lazy that is a temporary condition hopefully.. .;)
 

laidick

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
161
Likes
127
The owner was curious how the analog input on the MRX 520 performs since I measured that for the NAD M17 V2 processor. Which sadly did not perform well.

Anthem MRX 520 Analog Input Audio Measurements
Here is our dashboard view in unity gain (input = output):

View attachment 33570

That is 10 dB better noise and distortion performance than the NAD M17 V2! It is not that the SINAD of 84 dB is great but that the NAD's performance is so poor.

Crosstalk was neck and neck with NAD:
View attachment 33571

IMD distortion and noise was better as we would expect:
View attachment 33572

I have shown it both with 0 dB volume and -4 dB I used for my other tests. Both are substantially better than NAD M17 V2 but again, way, way worse than desktop products.

Signal to noise ratio for unity gain is thus:

View attachment 33573

So we can only clear 15 bits of dynamic range.

THD+N versus frequency was quite high but also had an oddity at the highest frequencies:
View attachment 33574

So I ran a sequence of 1, 10 and 20 kHz to see what is going on:

View attachment 33575

At 20 kHz, we a sudden rise in a tone above 75 kHz. I have not done the math but I suspect that may be an aliasing component due to weak filter at the sampling rate they use. So not an audible concern.

Speaking of sampling rate, here is the frequency response:

View attachment 33576

This is falling short of the NAD because there, I could set the sampling rate to 192 kHz. But it is not a practical concern since there is plenty of bandwidth there to give you ruler flat audible response.

In summary, nothing seems badly broken but you definitely can NOT use this input with external DAC to get better performance. You will be taking a step back actually relative to the internal DAC.

Hi amir,

Have you disabled the digital processing in the Input Setup?


(Ignore me, I didn't read through all post.)
 
Last edited:

SimpleTheater

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 6, 2019
Messages
927
Likes
1,789
Location
Woodstock, NY
This would still leave out the most common case which is HDMI in, speaker out.
Exactly. When it comes to AVRs, I use HDMI in. Period. Yes I only watch movies/tv on my AVR and use a dedicated separate room/setup for two-channel listening, but I would imagine 99% of people buying these AVRs simply use this method.
 

pkane

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,626
Likes
10,202
Location
North-East
This would still leave out the most common case which is HDMI in, speaker out. My thought is that this becomes the main test and everything else is diagnostic in nature to see what is going on.

A lot of folks reading this forum are interested in audio. A pure/direct path would be of importance to those thinking about using the AVR for also playing music. For that, measuring other digital audio inputs in addition to HDMI, and with a disabled ADC/DSP would be of great interest. Sorry if that adds to your workload!
 

Icboschert

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Messages
139
Likes
197
Location
Wisconsin
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:

View attachment 33608


View attachment 33609

View attachment 33610
Now it would be fun to do a DBT using full range speakers to see if people prefer the processing and room correction at worse measurements vs. the lower noise direct mode. I'm going to guess the former.
 

laidick

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
161
Likes
127
Now it would be fun to do a DBT using full range speakers to see if people prefer the processing and room correction at worse measurements vs. the lower noise direct mode. I'm going to guess the former.

I agree , most people would prefer room correction.
 

GrimSurfer

Major Contributor
Joined
May 25, 2019
Messages
1,238
Likes
1,484
After sleeping on it, I can see some benefit to testing every sub component and operating mode of AVRs. Doing so would satisfy the broad science mandate of ASR because it could help pinpoint specifically where these products are failing to meet the broad levels of excellence claimed in their advertising.

My concern, however, is that the results from such testing would fuel what I call the "yes, but debate". For example, fans of an AVR with a good DAC and dodgy amplification stage would say "but it works so well with external amplification" and so on. Just like a nonsensical post elsewhere suggesting that room correction can somehow make distortion sound appealing.

The "yes, but debate" assumes that people are happy spending relatively large sums of money for a multifunction component that only partially works as advertised. It also assumes that the average consumer is willing to spend another $n kilodollars on more components and undertake considerable integration work. These assumptions ignore completely the market, which expects performance for kilo dollars and purchases one box solutions to simplify installation and operation.

It has been said that the scientific mind values knowledge over ignorance. If this holds true among ASR participants, then any hard data will be better than the paucity of specifications that confront us. It will also confirm independently what audio companies would like us to think as a result of whatever specifications they do release. Because, after all, there is great profit to be made between over promising and under delivering.
 
Last edited:
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
And by the way, what is 490A?
It is CEA-490a which is a specification for peak power measurements. It is the counterpart to CES-2006 which is for mobile.
and what is the test duration for those peak measurements?
Here you go:

1568788524423.png
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,614
Likes
5,167
It is CEA-490a which is a specification for peak power measurements. It is the counterpart to CES-2006 which is for mobile.

Here you go:

View attachment 33693

Thank you very much. I did try googling for the standard by I could only find the CEA-2006, not the /490A for some reason. Anyway, as I suspected, that's what Yamaha used for their so called dynamic rating as defined by them as follow:

https://usa.yamaha.com/support/faq/audio_visual/2483.html
"To measure dynamic power, an amplifier is fed a 1000 Hz signal for 20 milliseconds then allowed to rest for 480 milliseconds. The amplifier volume control is turned up until the amp reaches the clipping point. At that point, the amp has reached its instantaneous peak or dynamic power output. Like the continuous power rating, dynamic power is expressed in watts"

NAD, for some reasons, would typically specify their beloved and very old "IHF" rating, sometimes they also mentioned 10 ms but I am not sure if they also based their so called IHF dynamic output on 20 ms. It seems that NAD doesn't want us to know any more than something like IHF 180 W continuous, 320 W/700/650 8/4/2 ohm dynamic, and they never tell you (may be once in the blue moon and I missed..) which DAC they used.
 

RndmLstner

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
29
Likes
63
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.

I felt compelled to register and comment on the direction of additional tests to the AVR/Prepro reviews because I was excited to see the direction of expanded testing, in particular the analog inputs, only to then see that such testing could be at risk based upon your perception of limited interest. Here is my vote to continued analog input testing including the variations described by Audimus in this post.

I believe that analog input testing is of interest to a significant portion of your current and potential audience. In fact, it may be as large or larger than the audience that is interested in DAC measurements generally. The AVR/Prepro serve as the hub for home audio for most people. I think we can confirm this simply by going into any mainstream audio store and comparing the selection of AVRs to 2-channel preamps/integrateds. And, for many of these users, the AVR/Prepro will be their primary home system. As such, the analog input of the AVR/Prepro is of particular importance to a significant portion of the audience of people who have source digital components or wish to pursue enhancing their listening of music through the purchase of external DACs because they will be doing so by going through their AVR/Prepro. After all, why purchase or concern yourself with the quality of a separate DAC if by the time it goes through the hub (AVR/Prepro) its superior implementation is lost due to the poor analog in/out on the AVR/Prepro? The only value would be if your purchasing it for additional format processing. Yet, that purpose (of being able to decode higher quality formats which some would suggest is questionable to begin with) is also likely lost by the time it goes through the AVR/Prepro with a poor analog in/out. The quality of the analog input is also relevant for those who still use physical media and are shopping for digital source components (not just a digital transport). After all, if the analog in/out on their AVR is poor, then just by the cheapest source player and connect it to the AVR/Prepro digitally. Any benefits of a superior DAC in the source component will likely be lost in the poor analog input/output chain.

A very recent exchange in AVS Forum actually highlights this very real issue and the insufficiency of information amongst those that enjoy our hobby. I have been looking to purchase a streamer/pre/DAC that can sit between my prepro (Integra 80.2) and my 7 channel amp to provide for a superior 2 channel stereo listening (than using the Integra's internal streamer/DAC). The purpose was three-fold - I want to check out DIRAC (vs. Audyssey), acquire a superior DAC/output stage than what is in my Integra, and obtain a streaming interface superior to the antiquated Integra since my music is streamed through my home network. I explained on the NAD C658 (a unit that meets these needs if it weren't for a few bugs) forum on AVS Forum that the reason I wanted to find a unit with a preamp and passthrough was because, despite being far less knowledgeable on these matters than many, I believed there were legitimate concerns of sound degradation by using the analog inputs of the pre/pro that otherwise negated the investment. Among them, that Pure/Direct, etc. modes aren't necessarily what they often claim to represent (it's inconclusive as to the Integra iirc) and b/c using the analog input/output stage of the prepro just introduces more unknowns into the quality of the chain. In short, I want the best 2-channel source chain within my budget and without having to obtain a separate 2-channel system.

In response to my rationale, one user posted (to paraphrase) "just get a better prepro or build a separate 2-channel system." I did not respond for a number of reasons. Alas, it is relevant for the current dialogue. First, my Integra 80.2 was a well reviewed unit and for the price you would expect that it's analog input would at least be competitive. However, one simply doesn't know without testing and I don't believe in assuming a certain quality based on price or brand reputation. Thus, the safest choice is to avoid the potential issue (poor analog input) all together by removing the Integra from the chain. Second, even if I'd asked, he would most likely be unable to point me to a prepro that would surely have a "superior" analog input/pre section (other than guessing a newer or more expensive unit should which we know is not indicative of quality). Lastly, the idea that one has to build a separate 2-channel set-up is absurd, and unless money is not an issue (whatsoever), all it leads to is owning 2 compromised systems due to budget. In any event, I have no interest in buying another pair of budget-oriented (sarcasm) Revel Ultima Salon2 speakers for a separate system or moving (from a larger than average residence) solely to acquire additional space for a separate 2-channel listening room.

The results of your recent measurements of the analog inputs of certain AVR/Prepros confirms that my concern was well-placed. It also highlights that it is an area frequently overlooked (per the AVS interaction above). The erratic and poor results of the measurements also suggest that they are relevant for one's purchase considerations depending on use (b/c they obviously are not all created equal - except maybe equally poor). These measurements would (or should) be important to a large group of differently-situated consumers including those looking to buy a new AVR/Prepro unit (who may already have external DAC's/sources they will be plugging into the analog input stage) as well as those considering purchasing a new source or external DAC for use in their system (they may be wasting their money depending on the quality of the analog stage of their AVR/Prepro).

In short, the analog input measurements are sufficiently varied (and surprisingly poor) that their testing is additive to a review. The audience of those interested in such measurements may be larger than you suspect. And, if it isn't now, it may be because not enough are aware of the materially varying (& poor) degree of the measurements.

As a side note, I'm still on my quest for a new streamer/pre/DAC - if the miniDSP SHD had a firm HT bypass function my quest would be over. I have considered buying a balanced or unbalanced switching box so that I can eliminate needing the HT bypass function but just haven't. The NAD was an option but some of the bugs affect the HT Bypass function. And, after your recent measurements of other NAD avr/prepros, any willingness to deal with (likely fixable) bugs has all but disappeared.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom