Review and Measurements of Anthem MRX 520 AVR

[peng]

According to this: https://hometheaterhifi.com/technical/technical-reviews/avr-audio-video-reciever-build-quality-part-v/
"Every Marantz multi-channel product from the NR1609 up to the AV8805..." as well as some new Denons not specified.

For Denon, I know all the 2017 (so it is reasonable to assume it applies to the 2018 models as well) have the same NJU72343 chip, i.e. from the AVR-X730H, X1400H, all the way to the AVR-X8500H. I guess it is cheaper to standardize than to use different and lower grade chip in the lower models.

Denon and the corresponding Marantz models are practically the same/almost identical internally in terms of electronic hardware, the only electrical differences are the multi-channel inputs and HDAMs that are not found in Denon's. (exception: Denon AVR-X8500H does have multi-channel inputs but no HDAM).

 

[valerianf]

The problem is not hearing the difference or not between audio equipment.
In the 80' the Japanese brands had lowered the distortion from 0.1 to 0.001 or less and reviews
Of that time clearly described the enhancement
Nowadays young generations are happy with less than perfect mp3 encoded files and it is their choice.

Let us go to the real question as 21 century music is multichannel recorded.
Which end user receiver is able to have a digital pre-amp designed without this low end LSI?
Arcam ?

 

[peng]

Which end user receiver is able to have a digital pre-amp designed without this low end LSI?
Arcam ?

Not sure what you are asking, don't we already know Denon/Marantz, and can assume Arcam are not using that LSI chip? It may be true that Yamaha, NAD, Anthem may still be using a LSI chip for their volume control, but at least Yamaha's BD347X, BD347XXX series aren't exactly low end. We know the A-S801's BD3473KS2 must be doing a decent job when you look at it's measurements, that's just one example.

http://www.tg-tech.com/chs/rohm/data/databook/audio/pdf/bd3473ks2-e.pdf

 

[ScofieldKid]

Loved the deep dive here... Just to add some feedback, part of the reason that the cost curve impacted things here is Anthem provided their room correction software and a mic (ARC), and implemented it. Inexpensive home theater receivers don't do as well as dedicated stereo components when doing 2-channel audio. No surprise there.

Having played around with an MXR500 a bit, I'll concur that the menu system can be confusing. If you don't have a display attached, it's a good test of your memory skills....

 

[Vindermere]

Despite the disappointing measures, do you think that the MRX520 can be used as preamp with correct audio quality ? or the arcam AVR390 is a better choice ?

 

[peng]

Despite the disappointing measures, do you think that the MRX520 can be used as preamp with correct audio quality ? or the arcam AVR390 is a better choice ?

If you look at the measurements, the MRX520 is not as bad if used as preamp, in fact in THD+N it looks great. We don't have measurements for the AVR390 so it is hard to say, though I would think the Arcam should do better based on available information, aside from measurements.

Even as preamp, the MRX520 is worse than the cheap AVR-X3500H in linearity, IMD and DR. It only beats the Denon in THD+N at >1.5 V. So if used with a power amp with gain =>29 dB and rated up to 225/450 W 8/4 ohms, the much cheaper Denon would be a better choice if used as preamp for music in pure direct mode.

 

[Promit]

Despite the disappointing measures, do you think that the MRX520 can be used as preamp with correct audio quality ? or the arcam AVR390 is a better choice ?

I'm setting up Amir with an Arcam, so if you can wait a few weeks we should know for sure.

 

[SynthesisCinema]

I'm setting up Amir with an Arcam, so if you can wait a few weeks we should know for sure.

This is great news! Is it AVR390 or newer one?

 

[Promit]

This is great news! Is it AVR390 or newer one?

It’s the 390.

 

[SynthesisCinema]

It’s the 390.

Very nice, can´t wait! It doesn´t have strong amp section, but otherwise will be intresting to see how it measures.

German site has some data for it here, use google translator:
https://audiovision.de/arcam-fmj-avr390-test/

It got good points, but AVR550 did better = Reference Class:
https://audiovision.de/arcam-fmjavr550-test/

 

[jameson71]

Thanks Promit, I was thinking about doing the exact same thing when I was considering the AVR390. I also look forward to seeing the review.

The only thing that stopped me doing it is the 390 only allows one crossover setting for all speakers. As my front towers are much more capable than the rest of my speakers this is a bit of a non-starter for me. If the receiver reviews well, I may bite the bullet on an AVR10.

 

[Promit]

The only thing that stopped me doing it is the 390 only allows one crossover setting for all speakers.

Yeah, I also realized this only after I’d submitted the order. I’ll let it ride for the review’s sake but it’s practically guaranteed to be a deal breaker for me. My position is that 80 is too high to cross the fronts, but my sats definitely can’t reach down low.

 

[tktiomy]

So this might be a dead thread….but I recently decided to buy a htm1d3 to use with my 804d4 with a recently purchased mrx520 and utilizing 2 nad m22 v1 amps. The issue is connecting the nad m22 v1 amps to the pre out section of the Mrx 520 produces a hiss from the 804d4 speakers while the htm1d3 is connected to the terminals on the receiver with no hiss at all. Is the gain on the nad to much for the pre out of the 520, if so anyway to fix that….they worked perfectly when I was using 2 channel with my nad m12. I am new but my questions have gone unanswered on avs forum which I’ve been a member of for 15 years and audiogon…which they never really help…unless u own 1000$ snake oil cables lol.

 

[peng]

So this might be a dead thread….but I recently decided to buy a htm1d3 to use with my 804d4 with a recently purchased mrx520 and utilizing 2 nad m22 v1 amps. The issue is connecting the nad m22 v1 amps to the pre out section of the Mrx 520 produces a hiss from the 804d4 speakers while the htm1d3 is connected to the terminals on the receiver with no hiss at all. Is the gain on the nad to much for the pre out of the 520, if so anyway to fix that….they worked perfectly when I was using 2 channel with my nad m12. I am new but my questions have gone unanswered on avs forum which I’ve been a member of for 15 years and audiogon…which they never really help…unless u own 1000$ snake oil cables lol.

Based on the specifications, the M22's gain is 29 dB, not that high at all. Also, the HTM1 d3's sensitivity is 2 dB higher than the 804 d4 so if gain is the reason it should be more prone to audible hiss. The MRX's gain is likely around 28-29 dB as well. Since you have two M22, you can troubleshoot a little such as (if not yet):

- Swap the amps for the 804 d4 and HTM1 d3 and see if the HTM1 d would hiss. Note: Avoid moving/disturbing the interconnect cables, just do the unplugging and plugging (in case the cables for the 804 d4 may be picking up noise for whatever reasons).

Or you can just unplug the interconnect cables from the MRX pre out for the center speaker plug them into the pre out for the M22. Just choose the FL or FR for this test.

In any case, you probably should try (again if not yet) using a pair of RCA to XLR interconnect for the M22, just make sure you pick a pair that is wired to Hypex recommendation.

Edit: Forgot to ask, have you tried the balanced/unbalanced selector switch at the back.

 

[eycatcher]

You could try to run a ground wire between the two units grounding screws, but I experienced the same issue with different amp and using RCA to XLR adapter solved it

 

[yanm]

So this might be a dead thread….but I recently decided to buy a htm1d3 to use with my 804d4 with a recently purchased mrx520 and utilizing 2 nad m22 v1 amps. The issue is connecting the nad m22 v1 amps to the pre out section of the Mrx 520 produces a hiss from the 804d4 speakers while the htm1d3 is connected to the terminals on the receiver with no hiss at all. Is the gain on the nad to much for the pre out of the 520, if so anyway to fix that….they worked perfectly when I was using 2 channel with my nad m12. I am new but my questions have gone unanswered on avs forum which I’ve been a member of for 15 years and audiogon…which they never really help…unless u own 1000$ snake oil cables lol.

I had a similar experience when I added an external amp to my MRX720. Turned out, it was a ground loop created by the set top box (the connection to the cable coax plug was not isolated in the STB). It went away by adding a capacitively insulated coaxial adapter. Experimenting with it, I also discovered that the wiring of the interconnection between the MRX and the amplifier was paramount as well. At the beginning, I just had a RCA to XLR adapter on the amp, and a RCA cable in between. Turns out that a RCA to XLR cable should be wired in a specific way to minimise ground pick-up e.g., https://benchmarkmedia.com/products/benchmark-rca-to-xlrm-adapter-cable. It will never be as good as a fully differential interconnect but it helps.

Anyway, your specific problem requires experimenting to find out the reason(s) for it. You could try to disconnect all cables connected to the MRX and amp (except power supply, interconnect between the two, and loudspeaker cable) and check if there is still a hiss. If yes, you may want to connect the ground screws of the two units (as suggested by @eyecatcher) or use a different RCA to XLR interconnect. If there is no hiss, keep adding the other cables (sources, Ethernet, HDMI, etc.) until you can determine which interconnect causes the hiss. It may be need a lot of trials…