StormAudio ISP 16 MK2 Review (AV Processor)

[stevenswall]

Very amazing interface and EQ options.

However, if you only needed 13ch and are fine with Audyssey (with the app), the Denon X8500 is $4000 and has better performance at 2Vrms, which is enough for most amps. Plus you can use the amp disconnect feature and use internal amps for some of the surrounds/heights to save even more money (granted, if you were considering the Storm, money likely isn’t an issue).

Need something like the Denon pre-amps recommended here but with XLR. Hopefully the current generation of the Emotiva XMC can perform.

 

[Dimifoot]

Post it up, every thing I've read so far has shown little to no difference when you're actually in a room making measurements.
I'll take measurements in a given room showing real improvement from one to the other. It doesn't tell us anything about how they perform across different types of room, but that is at least a start.

You need to measure so much more than a simple Freq. response (SPL in REW). It has been explained so many times, its tiring.

I will give something new to think about:

Get a recording of a music file at the listening position in a normal living room with a microphone dummy head.
Play the recorded file again and re-record it. And again, and again, in loops.

Then note at what point it becomes unrecognisable from the original.

Now you have your measurements that can prove which software is better.

 

[ace_xp2]

You need to measure so much more than a simple Freq. response (SPL in REW). It has been explained so many times, its tiring.

I'll take measurements in a given room showing real improvement from one to the other.

Don't see where this says the measurements I'd accept are frequency response, so set that strawman aside and get useful measurements.

Additionally, as Mitchco pointed out (essentially to you) here, all these multi measurement systems do well in shown freq. response, so that was really your best hope anyways. However when making corrections that really help, these multi measurement systems are best relegated to schroeder and below, with different methodologies used above that. And below schroeder, I've yet to see anything conclusively better, claims yes, not sauce.

Get in to room corrections that are single point, and we're somewhere. This storm, despite the cost, is still Dirac though.

 

[Dimifoot]

Don't see where this says the measurements I'd accept are frequency response, so set that strawman aside and get useful measurements.

Additionally, as Mitchco pointed out (essentially to you) here, all these multi measurement systems do well in shown freq. response, so that was really your best hope anyways. However when making corrections that really help, these multi measurement systems are best relegated to schroeder and below, with different methodologies used above that. And below schroeder, I've yet to see anything conclusively better, claims yes, not sauce.

Get in to room corrections that are single point, and we're somewhere. This storm, despite the cost, is still Dirac though.

I have given you a way to measure processors more thoroughly, but you ignored it.

Another way of comparing software is to do DB comparisons with a group of trained listeners, in different rooms.

I know both approaches that I suggested are not as easy as measuring THD+Noise with an AP, but if you want to compare processing abilities you have to measure processing abilities.
Looking for you lost keys under a street lamp, just because it’s the only area you can see in the dark, doesn’t help.

 

[ace_xp2]

I have given you a way to measure processors more thoroughly

That's a method, sure, where's the results?

Again, I'll take measurements that show an appreciable gain. But as I've so far seen, these multi point based room corrections should stay below schroeder when they need to be used, and at that rate the end result shows little disparity amongst the group. Claims aren't evidence, and better than needs evidence.

Is there a AVR that uses single point, ala acourate or audiolense? If so, there may be something there.

 

[Scott Borduin]

That's a method, sure, where's the results?

Again, I'll take measurements that show an appreciable gain. But as I've so far seen, these multi point based room corrections should stay below schroeder when they need to be used, and at that rate the end result shows little disparity amongst the group. Claims aren't evidence, and better than needs evidence.

Is there a AVR that uses single point, ala acourate or audiolense? If so, there may be something there.

For context, I can't speak to the Storm, as I don't own one. I do own a JBL SDP-75, the Harman variant of the Trinnov. I've previously owned high-end examples of any number of DACs and processors - Berkeley Alpha DAC, Meridian 861, etc. I also used Acourate for several years. I would never choose to substitute any of those devices back into my system in place of the SDP-75, for the simple reason @Dimifoot cites: software. Software that allows for the creation of a better, more immersive listening experience than I could get with any of that previous stuff.

A big caveat to that observation: I have a system that has 7 "bed" channels, 4 subs, and 6 height channels for music reproduction. All of these channels are used in playback of formats from 2.0 to 5.1, using up-mixing through the Auro-3D "Auromatic" algorithm. Living with this setup for 3 years now, there is no chance I would ever choose to go back to 2 channel reproduction. Or for that matter, the Trifield processing of the Meridian. I would never again choose a processor that did not have Auro 3D or equivalent/better.

It is hard to tease apart the factors that lead to my strong subjective preference. Certainly the Auro3D processing is important. But I also note that I hadn't been much of a surround sound fan until my current system. The Harman and Trinnov folks talk about the importance of the surround "bubble", where every channel in a system is subjectively matched in timbre at the listening position. Part of that is careful selection, placement, and aiming of surround speakers. But a big part of it is also psychoacoustic correction. In my case, the SDP-75 offers pre-defined PEQ presets to optimize the direct response of the Harman speakers in my system. Beyond that, I can create specific target response curves for any individual or group of speakers, and then link them back to an overall response target. I can examine the measured response of any individual speaker in many ways, with many windows. I can take as many measurements as I want, from as many positions as I want, and then reuse those measurements in any combination of positions with any combination of weights to create different responses (obviously including single point when that makes sense).

And in the case of the Trinnov/SDP-75 at least, I can control the parameters of the Optimizer room correction to a very fine degree. If my Schroeder frequency is higher in a small room, no problem - set the IIR transition to a higher frequency. More resolution on low frequencies vs. high? No problem. Want to control the bandwidth resolution of correction on schoeder vs. high frequency? No problem. Sensitivity to first reflections? Correction of reverberant soundfield? All there. A lot more control than any other acoustic correction system I've previously used - none of which could handle the complexity of my current system in any case. And BTW, when you're dealing with surround speakers that can not be located away from room boundaries, correction above the Schroeder frequency is essential.

So to get back to the point Dimifoot makes - you can't compare these processors to straight 2 channel DACs on some absolute measure of SINAD and then draw conclusions as to subjective value. I absolutely would like to see the highest possible basic objective performance from these devices. But beyond a certain point, objective measurements of basic performance parameters are simply not relevant to subjective outcomes. Under the conditions of actual music listening in more than one channel, how reliably could anyone reliably detect the difference between the performance of this Storm processor and the best Topping DAC? On the other hand, how many listeners would not detect the difference between Dirac room correction and no correction? Or Trinnov Optimizer, etc.

I'm a huge fan and supporter of this site and what Amir is doing to promote an objective, scientific foundation for the audio industry. That said, the things that Amir measures are the things whose correlation to subjective preference are mostly already known. When it comes to some of the things on the boundary of knowledge around subjective preference - room acoustic correction, multi-channel processing - we are perhaps beyond where the like Floyd Toole and his colleagues have gone. Where could Amir go next?

 

[Dimifoot]

That's a method, sure, where's the results?

I am an end user, not a reviewer.
You claimed that software performance cannot be measured, and I showed you how this can be achieved.

If my job was to review processors and software, I would show you the results.

 

[MonsieurAl]

Everyone is looking for the "holy grail" when it comes to home cinema equipment, after a number of home cinema amps, an XMC-1 processor, an Av8805, that big crap from RMC-1 and a JBL SDP-55 broke down after 3 months of use and lost a lot of money especially with the RMC-1 I decided to upgrade and take a StormAudio ISP 24 MK2.

It has been installed at my home since September 2020 in 11.2.5.2 (11.2.7) configuration this ISP is masterful, since the first time I started it, not a restart, not an operating bug, there is so easy to update.

Not once have I regretted the 15k € paid for the MK2, whereas I regretted having spent 5K € for this crap of RMC-1 or it would be necessary to do a separate manual just to update !

Me the "grail" 'I found it because unlike the RMC-1 it is a real modular processor, with all the features I have, great sound quality, incredible dynamism and what has not of price? peace of mind has returned to me, no need to wait for updates to resolve bugs like a drug addict who attends his dose, since the Fai is installed in my home I take advantage of my system and I can immerse myself in a movie 100% with peace of mind.

Given its stability, all these features, its modularity, the quality of construction, its exceptional after-sales service, its high price is justified.

For me, going from a € 5k 16-channel processor to a Storm 24-channel processor is like going from a VW Golf to a € 100k Mercedes.

As much with the RMC-1 I get bored, bugs and restart repeatedly no Auro 3D, no DTS: X pro, no web pages etc, the MK2 has so many features that it is fun and enjoyment on a daily basis .

Sorry for the spelling, I'm French like the FAI!
and sorry for the Emotiva RMC-1 but this device was the worst experience of my life for 5.390 €

 

[Krobar]

Would it be fair to also mention the slight differences in the SINAD measurements between Amir and Storm is due to the slightly higher voltage in Amir's by about 0.01 V?

I think Denon, Harman and Storm have all claimed results about 2dB better than Amir's using an HDMI signal generator.

The jitter and hybrid volume implementation were the most impressive results from my POV.

 

[zorax2]

As mentioned by Scott Bourdain and similarly by Monsieur Al, there is no way you could pry my recently purchased Trinnov Altitude from my hands. I went down a similar path with multiple processors and couldn't bear the thought of the new DIRAC processors that are essentially beta units. It was tough to make the commitment to spend what I did but I'm now confident I have the best quality sound possible and will never feel the need to upgrade to something else as Trinnov provides free updates and a new HDMI board will be available from them once developed at a reasonable price.

I think many of us have already gotten the best speakers, room treatments, etc. that we can afford for our situation. I believe the Storm or Trinnov will squeeze whatever last bit of performance is possible out of your system whether it is for stereo or multichannel sound.

I was astonished a the sonic improvement in my heavily treated room. I expected a very small incremental improvement and was completely blown away how much better stereo and multichannel audio sounded in my room. Amazing gear - that's for sure!

 

[Pultzar]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but I'm pretty sure that StormAudio processor has some headroom in the digital domain used for Dirac/EQ/Remapping etc. So we can't expect it to have the same SINAD performance as a stand alone dac that doesn't allocate any bits for processing.

 

[Skeptical]

I think you can switch the output to AES digital as well as I recall and just use it as a surround processor and then hook it up to okto dacs

 

[jhaider]

Post it up, every thing I've read so far has shown little to no difference when you're actually in a room making measurements.
I'll take measurements in a given room showing real improvement from one to the other. It doesn't tell us anything about how they perform across different types of room, but that is at least a start.

You haven’t looked very hard. I’ve made in-room comparisons between Dirac on and off in the Bryston version of Storm Mk I, as well as a Denon AVR and Marantz prepro. There should be a link below you can explore.

 

[Pultzar]

I think you can switch the output to AES digital as well as I recall and just use it as a surround processor and then hook it up to okto dacs

I have thought about doing this but I'm not sure it would yield an audible result. The digital out board is also expensive.

 

[Spocko]

Oh my... This backplate looks so cheap for 15k.View attachment 122679

At last, close to decent performance for an AV processor! Software also seems to be next-level.

I'm sure an upgraded backplate would set buyers back an extra $1,000

 

[Spocko]

The problem with the cost ranges of the various AVRs is the implied performance they bring as the costs rise. It's the same sort of performance via obfuscation that offers the potential for snake oil this industry has been beset with for years. Selling ever more costly products that mostly appeal to some sense of increasing performance, as opposed to actual measured benefits.

This is not to imply that there isn't doubtless benefit to room eq, multi channel output, trigger options, multi-zone, etc. as applicable. But rather that the audio performance difference between a equally channeled Denon and all the various esoterica isn't defined by directly attributable audio differences, but because reasons.

For while there may indeed be a performance difference in say the room eq, those differences are difficult to define. Due to their partly proprietary natures they are difficult to pin down and hard to knowingly fit to your room compared with wide vs. narrow directivity, room treatments, and all the rest. So even were one EQ to actually make a notable difference in a specific users room vs. a different EQ, those effects aren't guaranteed in the next users room.

It turns into more of the flowery language and potential for parlor tricks that this entire segment has struggled with through most of its existence. And here too as elsewhere it suffers from the cost=performance fallacy. Price is a metric, but it doesn't measure what many think it does.

Every product has a target market with features and compromises unique to that price point. Denon's best AVR do not share the premium features unique to either Storm or Trinnov. If you NEED the object visualizer that's only available on the Trinnov, then this is the product to buy because no other AVP has this feature. If you want the easiest but powerful room EQ implementation then Lyngdorf AVP should be on your short list. It's like cars: a Toyota Camry will get you there more comfortably than a 911, and using less fuel, but people pay extra for the features unique to the 911 not available on the Camry.

 

[Descartes]

it is funny how Trinnov used to be on real cheap AVR processors like Sherwood but now have jacked up the price and are selling for $$$$!

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews...ood-newcastle-r-972-av-receiver-with-trinnov/

https://www.soundandvision.com/receivers/sherwood_newcastle_r-972_av_receiver

 

[jhaider]

it is funny how Trinnov used to be on real cheap AVR processors like Sherwood but now have jacked up the price and are selling for $$$$!

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews...ood-newcastle-r-972-av-receiver-with-trinnov/

https://www.soundandvision.com/receivers/sherwood_newcastle_r-972_av_receiver

That’s a little silly. Sherwood R972 came after at least one generation of megabuck hardware, and had a much much simplified version of their room correction and remapping software. Still, it was an interesting AVR, let down by being an HDMI pioneer when the video hardware wasn’t even yet quarter-baked. I suspect a few people here owned one for a time. I did.

Also, they were not “cheap” until they were obsolete and Accessories4Less blew them out. Use an inflation calculator...

 

[Spocko]

it is funny how Trinnov used to be on real cheap AVR processors like Sherwood but now have jacked up the price and are selling for $$$$!

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews...ood-newcastle-r-972-av-receiver-with-trinnov/

https://www.soundandvision.com/receivers/sherwood_newcastle_r-972_av_receiver

To your point, Onkyo is introducing Dirac on its $900 AVR this summer, so the best room optimizers are no longer exclusive to megabuck AVRs. How low can it go?

 

[Bulldogger]

The problem with the cost ranges of the various AVRs is the implied performance they bring as the costs rise. It's the same sort of performance via obfuscation that offers the potential for snake oil this industry has been beset with for years. Selling ever more costly products that mostly appeal to some sense of increasing performance, as opposed to actual measured benefits.

I completely agree. How much would it cost to use better IC? Dacs with better SNR likely are just a little bit more, dollars, few hundred dollars for a boxes that cost the price of a nice used car or as much as a new car?