What is the best Multichannel AVR on the market right now?

[Vacceo]

Best depends on your needs. With a SINAD of at least 96 you should be well-served in the sound quality department (even if there is a huge room for improvement) however, you may want or need:

-HDMI 2.1 because you play videogames and the high refresh rate at 4K may be a feature you need.
-Your choice of room correction (Dirac, Audyssey, ARC...)
-Streaming capabilities/Bluetooth (5.0 if possible).
-Inputs you may want/need (like a phono stage, for example).
-Auro 3D. Atmos and DST: X are quite widespread, but Auro 3D not so much and that may be a crucial feature for you.
-XLR´s in a number that suits you.
-Subwoofer outs in a number that suits you (2 is quite common; 4, not so much).

And now, good luck finding all/some of those in a single box with a SINAD of 96 or more...

 

[Vacceo]

Is it really as hot as people say? Not just the american climate being far wamer/hotter compared to other continents?

Southern Europe gets quite, quite hot. Sicily, Alentejo, the Peloponesian Peninsula, Andalucía and many more can get really scorching.

 

[guy soundy]

Southern Europe gets quite, quite hot. Sicily, Alentejo, the Peloponesian Peninsula, Andalucía and many more can get really scorching.

hah, what I meant was might the SR8015 get hotter simply because of the american climate (which most reviews come from) rather than the AVR itself?

 

[apgood]

Really depends what your definition of best is and how much you want to spend the Focal Astral 16 is a 16 channel avr (12 channels of amplification built in) that is based on the StormAudio ISP platform and benefits from the ongoing software updates provided by StormAudio and likely as well the upcoming hardware update to HDMI 2.1 should you want to buy it.

 

[Operator]

Just chiming in with this:

Not sure if it's relevant to AVR's and speakers.

 

[Sancus]

The best is Trinnov Altitude 16/32 and it's really not even close because nothing else has 3D measurements, the spatial remapping and visualization functions, or the infinite configurability on all channels.

This site doesn't really do AVR reviews at all, it does tests that tell you whether they're fine or not and that's it.

 

[dlaloum]

Just chiming in with this:

Not sure if it's relevant to AVR's and speakers.

No reason it wouldn't be - the fundamentals of audibility remain the same whether it is through Speakers or through Headphones...

Whether you can identify harmonic distortion and at what levels, is substantially different from whether you can hear/identify noise.

And at some level, one can subjectively ask - if you can't tell, what does it matter?

At another level (as he points out in the video) - it is a safety net... provides a level of confidence.

Ultimately if we are aiming for "Higher Fidelity" then we are aiming for reduced harmonic distortion AND reduced noise.

At some point, increased SINAD becomes somewhat academic - but what point is that? and how does it differ between a noise dominated SINAD and a Harmonic dominated SINAD?

 

[dlaloum]

This site doesn't really do AVR reviews at all, it does tests that tell you whether they're fine or not and that's it.

Not really - the site does tests - which need to be read and understood in depth ... and then adds to it a reviewers subjective evaluation of the results. - It's not a matter of whether they are fine or not... it is a value judegement by the reviewer, of whether they are fine or not.

Which is OK - no issue with that! - but there are both parts to the Reviews.... and often readers of the reviews ignore the details of the measurements and focus on the value judgement at the end. Once you do that, you are no longer talking about an objective evaluation, we are back in subjective territory.

 

[peng]

Just chiming in with this:

Not sure if it's relevant to AVR's and speakers.

Nice effort to those who tried to make their point that SINAD/THD+N does not matter, or not relevant to sound quality, but in my opinion they likely created more confusion and/or misconception. If you watch what this guy said in the video carefully, you may actually conclude that SINAD really is one of the most important number, for reasons include but not limited to the following:

a) 1%, (-40 dB) may not be audible, but it may, so why not go for 0.03% (-70.46%), then you know it will most likely be inaudible to you.
b) THD is a good indicator of IMD in general, we all know IMD is more audible, so if THD is at 0.01% (-80 dB), IMD would likely be lower than those measured with much higher THD and THD is much more readily available in manufacturers published specs.
c) If SINAD is say, lower than 60 dB, then it is highly likely that are going to hear noise under some conditions because that 70 dB would most likely be dominated by noise.

By the way, they all loved to talk about how 2nd harmonics doesn't matter even if high, but failed to mention that a device measured with 60 dB SINAD will most likely (if not always) have higher 3rd, 5th harmonics than those with 80 dB SINAD.

Try finding a device Amir has measured with SINAD >80 dB yet measured really bad in other areas, or has very high 5th harmonics that would indicate audibly poor sound quality. You can see that the list would be short. So at least one counter argument can be made, that while SINAD is one number, it is often a good indicator of other specs that manufacturers may not publish or discussed. For people who made such videos to dismiss SINAD without qualifications/caveats is beyond my understanding.

It is really sad that so many youtubers seemed to have good intention, and they made valid points, yet in the process they could, and would misled many viewers. They themselves clearly understand SINAD is in fact a very important metric when considered with other aspects yet they focused only on one point, that SINAD is not an important indicator, but failed to also explain why it could be important under some circumstances. It would have been more reasonable if they made the point that SINAD is not always important and may have no correlation to sound quality, but in some, or many situations it can be an important number to look at and consider. Instead they seemed to want viewers to think that if sound quality is the concern, don't pay much attention to SINAD.

Consider this, if I am facing a decision to choose between two power amps that have very much the same audio specs except Amp A measured 100 dB SINAD and Amp B measured 70 dB, both have no other lab measurements such as IMD, DR, SNR, FR available. I would think that Amp A's SINAD measurement would then be an important factor for my decision.

Such Youtubers tend to cover one side of the story to make the point they wanted to make, while they knew (typically) full well there was the other side yet they chose to ignore.

 

[voodooless]

Try finding a device Amir has measured with SINAD >80 dB yet measured really bad in other areas,

While I agree with the sentiment, there are few exceptions to be found. Notably the rather expensive Marantz SACD player. It has a 100+ SINAD, and also has a respectable multi-tone. But that is just at low frequency and high sample rate. At CD rate, THD rises sharply beyond 1 kHz and even goes over 1% at 7kHz, or is just ~70 across the board with the other filter. Both are evil.

 

[peng]

While I agree with the sentiment, there are few exceptions to be found. Notably the rather expensive Marantz SACD player. It has a 100+ SINAD, and also has a respectable multi-tone. But that is just at low frequency and high sample rate. At CD rate, THD rises sharply beyond 1 kHz and even goes over 1% at 7kHz, or is just ~70 across the board with the other filter. Both are evil.

Great find, thank you very much. That's another good example why "important (as defined by those internet self proclaimed expert)" or not, in general, the higher number the better in order to allow for degradation when the measuring conditions change such as using >5 kHz test signal, or at the extreme ends of the output level such as at 100 mV and 4 V RCA, or 100 mW and 400 W.

 

[itz_all_about_the_music]

From what I have gathered from the reveiws on this site it would be either of these:

Marantz SR8015
Denon AVR-X3600H
Denon AVR-X6700H
Denon AVR-X4700

Is the question about use solely as an AVR? Or used as a pre-pro? Two very different questions which will garner two very different opinions/answers.

 

[my_ears_are_up_here]

While I agree with the sentiment, there are few exceptions to be found. Notably the rather expensive Marantz SACD player. It has a 100+ SINAD, and also has a respectable multi-tone. But that is just at low frequency and high sample rate. At CD rate, THD rises sharply beyond 1 kHz and even goes over 1% at 7kHz, or is just ~70 across the board with the other filter. Both are evil.

A single number is never great to represent dynamic systems, but it seems reasonable to center on a more meaningful measurement. For example:

WORST_CASE_SINAD ÷ (HARMONIC_ORDER_1 × HARMONIC_DB_1 + ... HARMONIC_ORDER_n × HARMONIC_DB_n)

...would adjust the value taking into account psychoacoustic value. But then you'd have enormous ranges, so maybe take the log...

Anyway, it's imperfect, but that's what graphs are for. We use them to evaluate frequency response, no reason they can't be standard to evaluate distortion. (As we're already presented with, at least here on this site.)

One thing that's missed, however, is the cumulative nature of these distortions. As each component hits the next, the structure of the signal is changed nonlinearly. A couple "good enough" components could interact such that the result is rather imperfect.

Aince this is a psychoacoustic evaluation, now we're discussing the difference between MP3 and AAC, for example. So one could say the "320Kbps MP3" equipment chain is "good enough", but matters are made worse when you rely on a clean signal. Say you want to EQ. If you EQ an MP3, it's not going to be as good as a 24-bit FLAC, for example. Same with these signal chains: several "good enough" pieces on the way to the EQ now change that challenge.

So what does this matter? Well, is SINAD "good enough"? Well, no. It never was. It's a single number to describe a dynamic system. Is it "good enough" in the context of a purchase decision? Odds say yes, but if you get an unlucky chain that exacerbates distortion... then no.

What we'd need is a standard for the raw measurements at varying rates and frequencies, and the ability to chain them together to observe/simulate the cumulative effect in a given combination.

Is that ever going to happen? No. It's too much work. And the interest? Probably not high enough.

But what's interesting is, who would benefit most from this sort of evaluation? Ironically, not really us. It would be the subjective audio listeners.

Why?

Well, at some point, someone is going to realize that they can make a lot of money by *simulating* various popular, colorized equipment. (FIRs, analog simulation, etc.) And when you do that, the absolute cleanest, most transparent system is to your benefit. (Avoid garbage in, garbage out.)

So, maybe one day that'll become the popular way to consume audio among subjectivists. "Use our Vintage Audio Domain Processor and get the greatest systems at your fingertips at the push of a button!"

And, if so, that would be to the benefit of everyone, objectivists included. Photography has already gone down this road, for capture, at least. (Which is all they really need, since most displays now are good enough to reflect that quality.) I know the same exists in audio capture, but to realize it on the playback is a whole other potential...

Anyway, I'm wandering way off topic. Point is, single numbers are never "good enough" to measure dynamic systems. But it's what we've got, and it's better than what we had.

 

[guy soundy]

So I've made a sketch of my room and setup, now I am still thinking of wherether getting an avr with dirac would be the better choice compared to something like the Marantz SR8015 since sound improvement features weight for me quite heavily in choosing. That said, knowing how my room is shaped with that unfortunate diagonal... Also, let's say I would take a AVR with Dirac, how does the Pioneer Elite VSX-LX505 compare to the Onkyo RZ50?

 

[oldtexasdog]

I don't know if this would be important to your decision but last I heard Onkyo went BK and the parent company in Japan is shutting down.
Exert by Wayde Robson — May 16, 2022
Over the last couple of years we’ve been following Onkyo’s fight for survival, from the potential Sound United acquisition, Onkyo USA closing down and the AV business being taken over by the Klipsch parent company Vox, to the company’s insolvency just months ago. Last Friday we received some tragic news when Nikkei Asia reported that Onkyo Home Entertainment filed for bankruptcy Friday, May 13th at Osaka District Court.

The Years-Long Decline of Onkyo Home Entertainment

• October 2019: Sound United deal to buy Onkyo/Pioneer falls through
• July 2020: Onkyo USA shuts down US distribution
• July 2020: Onkyo/Pioneer AV division sold to Voxx International, parent company of Klipsch
• Nov 2020: Onkyo struggles with insolvency
• Aug 2021: Onkyo delisted from Tokyo Stock Exchange
• Jan 2022: Onkyo presents new line of AV receivers CES ‘22
• April 2022: Two major Onkyo divisions file for bankruptcy
• May 2022: Onkyo files for bankruptcy, ceases operations

The Onkyo we knew, the Japanese company with a history that dates back to 1946 and has been majority owned by the Ohtsuki family will cease to exist. Think of it as the soul of the company that’s lost. It’s unlikely that even Elon Musk will step in to save Onkyo from bankruptcy and pay off the debts of a company that couldn’t make ends meet. But the Onkyo and Pioneer brands will continue to live on! The company’s audio/video business is owned by Voxx International and it even has a contract with Sharp to manufacture its AV products. In fact, it’s unlikely that most consumers, especially those looking at new Onkyo AV receivers, will even notice a change. Premium Audio Co is a joint venture from Voxx and Sharp since September 2021 and runs several popular home Audio Video brands including Onkyo, Pioneer, Elite, Integra as well as Klipsch, HECO and Energy speakers.


So, fans of home audio will still see the familiar Onkyo, Pioneer and Elite nameplate on AV receivers for some time into the future. Warranties will continue to be honored and its AV receivers and other equipment will continue to be made, provided they can fish for the chips required to assemble and fix them. Who knows, maybe under Voxx, Onkyo will be injected with new life and continue to live on and even prosper in the leaner, more adaptable form that today’s market demands.

 

[BJL]

View attachment 198877So I've made a sketch of my room and setup, now I am still thinking of wherether getting an avr with dirac would be the better choice compared to something like the Marantz SR8015 since sound improvement features weight for me quite heavily in choosing. That said, knowing how my room is shaped with that unfortunate diagonal... Also, let's say I would take a AVR with Dirac, how does the Pioneer Elite VSX-LX505 compare to the Onkyo RZ50?

I have a Pioneer VSX-LX505 and I am entirely satisfied. So far as I can tell, the Pioneer and Onkyo have identical features. In my opinion, aside from the suite of processing features, the key feature (vs. Denon) is Dirac processing, and therefore the choice between the Pioneer and Onkyo is arbitrary; although, I have a vague recollection of reading that the internals are different. If you can use the Dirac desktop app with a UMIK mic or similar, (not the built in version), it supports the current version of Dirac and is more flexible and customizable. In my limited experience, Dirac has more influence on perceived audio quality than the hardware. I've had a couple of different Dirac-licensed miniDSP products (SHD, DDRC88A) and noticed little or no difference between those and the Pioneer with Dirac engaged (I did a quick comparison while I still had time to return the Pioneer, ended up selling the miniDSP gear).

If it matters, the the Pioneer iOS app works well. No idea about the Onkyo app.

 

[Dj7675]

I wouldn't get an AVR and not take advantage of the DSP. Parametric EQ is an incredibly beneficial tool to audio reproduction.

Does the ONKYO offer manual PEQ?

 

[starfly]

I too am in the market for a new AVR, mainly because I need HDMI 2.1 support. Curious to see what comes out in the coming months. I don't need something immediately, but if I did I'd probably go for the Onkyo RZ50.

 

[Soundmixer]

There seems to be a consensus here that Dirac Live is superior to any of the incarnations of Audessy

I am not convinced of this. Until there is a double-blind shootout between them both (the proof is in the listening), I would say both have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[dlaloum]

I am not convinced of this. Until there is a double-blind shootout between them both (the proof is in the listening), I would say both have their strengths and weaknesses.

No double blind here - too complicated / painful to do.... was already rushed swapping over AVR's during a few hours I had alone in our shared space!

But the Dirac EQ made me subjectively go "yes!" immediately - the midrange vocals / dialogue were immediately clearer - and many movies / tracks that previously had me struggling to discern details / voices, were immediately and noticeably clearer and more defined.

I have had far less need to increase the volume to try to make out what characters are saying in movies.

This type of effect does not require double blind - it is glaringly obvious.

The one caveat, is that this may be due to the midrange dip, that Audyssey defaults to, and which with more recent versions, can be disabled via the associated "App" - be that as it may - the default EQ of Audyssey XT, and XT32, compared to Dirac Live, in my room, and with my speakers, Dirac resulted in a heads and shoulders better result than Audyssey.

There is a case to be made, that with further adjustements / tweaking Audyssey and Dirac can have very very similar "Target curves" - but a number of comparisons have been made elsewhere, and reports are either "they sound the same once adjusted" or "Dirac sounds better" - I have yet to see any of the comparisons come back with "Audyssey sounds better".

The strengths of Audyssey that I miss with Dirac, is the Dynamic Volume / Loudness functions - the Dirac based AVR's depend on the Dolby (or DTS) equivalent functions... and they aren't as good (in my experience).

So when comparing strengths and weaknesses - Audyssey currently loses out. (from a long term Audyssey user, having started using it circa 2008... and switched to Dirac in 2022)