The impossible decision of buying an AVR/AVP!

[OCA]

Actually as I recall, the tests of the X3700 (and others of the series?) showed a cutoff indicating 96kHz processing....

But if running in straight through mode - without any processing engaged (ie: no EQ, Mixer, etc...) - then the resolution is whatever it says it is.

The system is capable of running high resolution - but as soon as you engage the DSP it is dropped down - at the very least to 96kHz (but what it gets dropped down to with other/future models or software, is anyones guess!)

I am not an expert on the matter but with Asio drivers these receivers used to show up to 24 bit 192kHz compatibility. This is possibly the input choices for their downsampler. REW recently added Java wasabi drivers for multichannel over HDMI and here are the available sample rates:

And there's no 24-bit option either!

 

[dlaloum]

I am not an expert on the matter but with Asio drivers these receivers used to show up to 24 bit 192kHz compatibility. This is possibly the input choices for their downsampler. REW recently added Java wasabi drivers for multichannel over HDMI and here are the available sample rates:

View attachment 236951

And there's no 24-bit option either!

The Denon X3xxx and up can all handle high bitrate/resolution audio as an input - but the question is not what they handle as an input but what happens internally before it is output.

The DSP (Digital Sound Processing, or Digital Surround Processing) - aka the processor that does most of the Mixing and EQ - is limited to 96kHz - so if the options activated require ANY processing, and they are of a higher rate than 96kHz they are downsampled internally before being processed.

So your incoming 192, or 384kHz stream is downsampled to 96kHz, processed, and then passed to the DAC for conversion to Analogue, before being output via either the power amps or the pre-outs.

Processing includes any form of EQ or crossovers, also mixing, up or down... taking stereo and adding the LFE Sub, stereo to surround, etc, etc... basically anything other than straight pass through.

The ONLY things that don't get downsampled to 96kHz or below, are when the selection is for a PURE Pass Through - incoming channels to outgoing channels.

With regards to Audyssey, and/or Dirac - it is not clear what rate these are processed at. - Higher rates may well require more processing power and/or memory (RAM), and most AVR implementations in the marketplace therefore downsample to 48kHz before processing.

I'm not sure what the D&M models do in this area.
The Onkyo's (and Pioneer / Integra ) all downsample to 48kHz, so D&M have been ahead of the game with 96kHz capability for a while.

 

[kmidst]

Don't know if it was mentioned earlier in the thread, but Anthem is great. Their 5-channel AVR is just under $2k and it generally regarded to have some of the best audio quality (many people say better than Marantz). It's supposed to have 8k, but not sure if the HMDI 2.1 update has actually made it to current production units or if it will be a paid hardware update. I don't care about that though because widespread 8k source material is still WAYS out. But it does 4k extremely well and also has incredible audio quality, and looks very sleek. I upgraded my 5 channel Anthem to the 7 channel because I realized for gaming having those rear surrounds adds extra immersion. I might also add a dedicated amp for the fronts and remap the extra two channels to atmos heights.

 

[OCA]

Did ASR test any Anthem receivers?

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Did ASR test any Anthem receivers?

Yes.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Don't know if it was mentioned earlier in the thread, but Anthem is great. Their 5-channel AVR is just under $2k and it generally regarded to have some of the best audio quality (many people say better than Marantz). It's supposed to have 8k, but not sure if the HMDI 2.1 update has actually made it to current production units or if it will be a paid hardware update. I don't care about that though because widespread 8k source material is still WAYS out. But it does 4k extremely well and also has incredible audio quality, and looks very sleek. I upgraded my 5 channel Anthem to the 7 channel because I realized for gaming having those rear surrounds adds extra immersion. I might also add a dedicated amp for the fronts and remap the extra two channels to atmos heights.

“What people say” is generally worthless to determine a receivers capability.

The AVM70 tested here is good (should be transparent) but did not outperform the X Denon Series with the old AKM DAC.

 

[192kbps]

True Dolby Atmos with only a PC
Cavern

 

[dlaloum]

True Dolby Atmos with only a PC
Cavern

Any reviews of this?

 

[voodooless]

The Denon X3xxx and up can all handle high bitrate/resolution audio as an input - but the question is not what they handle as an input but what happens internally before it is output.

The actual question should be: why should you care? Is any of it audible? Don’t the advantages of the digital processing not outweigh any potential netagives?

 

[dlaloum]

The actual question should be: why should you care? Is any of it audible? Don’t the advantages of the digital processing not outweigh any potential netagives?

There are some advantages to extended frequency response - eg: the ability to use slow filters, which have a reputation (arguable) for audibly better results

Most of the benefits of higher rate and bit levels, acrue primarily to the recording/mastering end of the chain, and double blind testing at the final listening stage, show the benefits of these (at that point in the chain) to be.... highly debatable (!).

Still we have substantial community of dedicated high definition, high bitrate, audiophiles, and the AVR's are capable of running in that mode.

But to clarify my position: the benefits of room / speaker EQ processing, far outweigh any benefit from the high definition/high bitrate.... to take it to extremes, a high bandwidth/rate mp3, with a well sorted roomEQ/DSP is likely to sound superior to high bitrate uncompressed, on most un EQ'd setups.

Yes - a purist system, with carefully dedicated and designed listening room, with appropriate treatments applied, and a very high quality speaker system, may well sound superior to a standard living area / HT with RoomEQ/DSP.... but in our real world.... my setup shares the room with our main living area, with kids, pets and heating/cooling, in an open space shared with the kitchen (and all of its associated noises).

In this imperfect world, DSP processed is vastly superior to the purist option.

 

[peng]

The actual question should be: why should you care? Is any of it audible? Don’t the advantages of the digital processing not outweigh any potential netagives?

I think so, but I still want the best possible specs and measurements on all else being equal regardless. Also, similar argument can be made to digital processing too. For example, digital processing in terms of RC/REQ mainly do good in the frequency range up to about 600 Hz, being that it isn't clear and if it does do good in the higher band it may not be preferred by all people. At least higher SINAD has a decent chance of minimizing the chance of audible noise in very quiet rooms for people who are bothered by hiss, hum etc. kind of noise during quiet music or movies passages. To me I can understand manufacturers would use the lower cost, lower spec ICs (dac, vol. control, switches, opamps etc.) on their entry level avrs, avps and integrated amps but it is a shame that they don't use the slightly more expensive ones in the upper midrange models. I would rather pay $100 more for the likes of the CX-A5200, AV7706 if they use something like the AK4493 (2 to 3 notches below the flagship AK4499) and ES9018 K2M (2 to 3 notches below the flagship ES9038Pro). I didn't think it would be too much to ask, again, only for the upper midrange to flagship models. In a way, at least D+M seems listening by offering the Dirac Live upgradable RC but that's mostly on the software side.

 

[OCA]

I think so, but I still want the best possible specs and measurements on all else being equal regardless. Also, similar argument can be made to digital processing too. For example, digital processing in terms of RC/REQ mainly do good in the frequency range up to about 600 Hz, being that it isn't clear and if it does do good in the higher band it may not be preferred by all people. At least higher SINAD has a decent chance of minimizing the chance of audible noise in very quiet rooms for people who are bothered by hiss, hum etc. kind of noise during quiet music or movies passages. To me I can understand manufacturers would use the lower cost, lower spec ICs (dac, vol. control, switches, opamps etc.) on their entry level avrs, avps and integrated amps but it is a shame that they don't use the slightly more expensive ones in the upper midrange models. I would rather pay $100 more for the likes of the CX-A5200, AV7706 if they use something like the AK4493 (2 to 3 notches below the flagship AK4499) and ES9018 K2M (2 to 3 notches below the flagship ES9038Pro). I didn't think it would be too much to ask, again, only for the upper midrange to flagship models. In a way, at least D+M seems listening by offering the Dirac Live upgradable RC but that's mostly on the software side.

I fully agree. Unfortunately these firms are under the control of marketing people rather than the engineers lately and the products and their novelties appeal to average Joe rather than the enthusiasts and it's getting worse by the year. I upgraded my SR6011 to SR6015 a year ago as it was the norm for decades with these receivers. But I can bet 6011 was a better amp in terms of sound quality. Now I have IMAX, 8K and many other marketing tricks which I never even use and I have a receiver with different crossover roll off slopes for the front left and right channels (yes I measured very precisely more than once).

 

[peng]

There are some advantages to extended frequency response - eg: the ability to use slow filters, which have a reputation (arguable) for audibly better results

For clarity (just hopefully), I would like to add the following points

1) If slow filters are used, frequency response will still be limited to half the sampling rate of the signal (Nyquist) regardless of which AV device/dac use as it is sort of a theoretical limit. You want extended response when slow filters are used, you will have to play signals with higher sampling rate than 44.1 kHz or even 48 kHz.
2) As an example, Marantz AV7705/8805, SR6015/7015 use some sort of slow filter selectable (the AK4458/AK4490 dac chips) and we know from Amir's measurements that from 10 kHz to 15 kHz it would drop less than 1 dB and about 2.5 dB at 20 kHz.

From frequency response extension stand point, I highly doubt too many users will notice the roll off especially for movies, and that's if the input signal sampling rate is at or below 44.1 kHz. For 48 kHz sampling rated signals, the roll off will be less and at higher sampling rate such as 88.1, 96 kHz, the roll off in the audible range will become virtually 0.

3) Above of course are about FR that you mentioned, there are other claims/beliefs regarding impulse response, ringing etc., that slow roll off filters are audibly better to some people.

MEASUREMENTS: Digital Filters and Impulse Response... (TEAC UD-501)

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[peng]

Even if you could detect, after what Audyssey does to the response you are very unlikely to experience those intended roll offs:

You may be right, and in that case I guess same may apply even if you substitute Audyssey with Dirac Live, or Trinnov.

 

[Dj7675]

Even if you could detect, after what Audyssey does to the response you are very unlikely to experience those intended roll offs:

Watched a few minutes. Unfortunately there appears to be very little understanding of the harman target curve and the purpose of DEQ in relation to loudness compensation..

 

[peng]

Watched a few minutes. Unfortunately there appears to be very little understanding of the harman target curve and the purpose of DEQ in relation to loudness compensation..

Not all youtubers know/understand those stuff for sure.

 

[Daka]

To anyone who tried Arcam will confirm it sounds much better than Denon/Marantz AVRs. And it measured apparently poorly. Amirm measurements are one thing, how it actually performs another. If you can get refurbished unit with full warranty for 60% rrp - that’s the best money you can spend.

 

[Sancus]

To anyone who tried Arcam will confirm it sounds much better than Denon/Marantz AVRs. And it measured apparently poorly. Amirm measurements are one thing, how it actually performs another. If you can get refurbished unit with full warranty for 60% rrp - that’s the best money you can spend.

When you say one processor "sounds much better" than the other all you're doing is indicating you have no understanding of how these things work and no one should pay attention.

 

[Daka]

When you say one processor "sounds much better" than the other all you're doing is indicating you have no understanding of how these things work and no one should pay attention.

It’s an obvious generalization that would hold true for majority of their models. I think that part is clear.
In relation to specific model OP is considering, had it, compared both and can relay my experience.

 

[Dj7675]

To anyone who tried Arcam will confirm it sounds much better than Denon/Marantz AVRs. And it measured apparently poorly. Amirm measurements are one thing, how it actually performs another. If you can get refurbished unit with full warranty for 60% rrp - that’s the best money you can spend.

Nothing wrong with personal subjective opinions as long as we know their limitations and the limited value without precise level matching/blind conditions. I have had what I thought would be obvious differences when such controls were in place. For example with comparing lossless audio to 256k AAC. Results showed I was basically guessing. When we here things like x brand blows away, is better, sounds more musical etc others have to take it with a grain of salt. In particular when using phrases like "to anyone who tried"... you have now made a claim that everyone that has compared them came to the same conclusion. It isn't possible to know that.