Why Don't High SINAD Receivers Exist?

[BDWoody]

yeah, saw that, 1k is still more than i was hoping to spend considering the theme of this thread is the exception 100db+ 2ch DACs for ~100

there's got to be a way to get the 8ch I2S/ADAT/TDM out of a USB/MCHstreamer, and throw it to (4) replutable ~100ish 2ch DACs for around $500?

edit: Could you hook up (4) hifiberry DAC+ Pro's i wonder off a MCHstreamer I2S?

Minidsp UDIO-8 will give you 8 digital outs you can play with how you want. Mine goes into the 88D, then into my active speakers (JBL 708's and 705's)...all digital until it gets to the speakers with Dirac in the middle. You could do without the 88D and just connect directly or through DAC's.

 

[detlev24]

Dirac does not provide a pure software version of their algorithms in multi-channel configuration.
They did it some years ago, but no more today. Latest software is 2.x only

Actually, the exact opposite is the case. Just open the previously provided link.

.n-configurations with more than 1 subwoofer channel are not available yet; as software-only solution. Dirac Live Bass Management 'Beta Testing' is the next step. // Dirac Live Bass Control incl. "Single Sub" and "Multi Sub" upgrades is already available for some hardware processors/AVRs.

The currently supported multi-channel configurations with Dirac Live for Studio are:
2.0, 2.1, 4.1, 5.0, 5.1, 6.0, 6.1, 7.0, 7.1, 7.0.2, 7.1.2, Quadraphonic, Pentagonal, Hexagonal, Octagonal, Ambisonic

 

[Vincentponcet]

Actually, the exact opposite is the case. Just open the previously provided link.

.n-configurations with more than 1 subwoofer channel are not available yet; as software-only solution. Dirac Live Bass Management 'Beta Testing' is the next step. // Dirac Live Bass Control incl. "Single Sub" and "Multi Sub" upgrades is already available for some hardware processors/AVRs.

The currently supported multi-channel configurations with Dirac Live for Studio are:
2.0, 2.1, 4.1, 5.0, 5.1, 6.0, 6.1, 7.0, 7.1, 7.0.2, 7.1.2, Quadraphonic, Pentagonal, Hexagonal, Octagonal, Ambisonic

Good news. That's very new, when I checked two weeks ago, it was not there, and only 2 channels stereo was available, and I understood it worked stereo with multiple subs, hence 2.x
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...inad-receivers-exist.12499/page-2#post-419969

500$ for a software plugin sounds huge when you have integrated amp 7 channels with integrated Dirac like NAD T 758 V3 for about 2K$.

 

[fyonn]

Hello, long time listener, first time caller etc

• Black box systems. AVR manufacturers don't actually develop a lot of this garbage - they have to license chips and implementations from hardware companies like TI, and software/patent companies like Dolby. If that chip messed up your audio path (again, even in bypass mode) then now you have to do an onboard hardware bypass and these signal chains get complicated fast.

question. do AVR companies have to licence chips and implementations. are they unable to write the decoders themselves (presumably under licence) and if so, when did this change?

Meridian claims to have written their own Dolby Digital and DTS decoders back in the day.

from the datasheet of the Meridian 565z3 back in 1996:

A major reason for the success of the 565 has been the fact that all the surround processing – including AC-3 – has been done in powerful general purpose audio computers, using algorithms and code developed by Meridian

This Meridian Z3 card currently runs in-house software implementations for Dolby Digital AC-3 and DTS

Now I know that's a while ago and things have moved on but I assume that Meridian still use an evolution of this code. Was Meridian granted special privileges or could other companies have done the same thing? have the licencing conditions changed or can current companies still choose to implement these codecs themselves if they choose?

thinking about it.. wasn't the 565 the first surround sound deocder generally available? maybe a roll-your-own approach was the only option and there were no pre-made chips to purchase?

 

[Vincentponcet]

Hello, long time listener, first time caller etc



question. do AVR companies have to licence chips and implementations. are they unable to write the decoders themselves (presumably under licence) and if so, when did this change?

Meridian claims to have written their own Dolby Digital and DTS decoders back in the day.

from the datasheet of the Meridian 565z3 back in 1996:




Now I know that's a while ago and things have moved on but I assume that Meridian still use an evolution of this code. Was Meridian granted special privileges or could other companies have done the same thing? have the licencing conditions changed or can current companies still choose to implement these codecs themselves if they choose?

thinking about it.. wasn't the 565 the first surround sound deocder generally available? maybe a roll-your-own approach was the only option and there were no pre-made chips to purchase?

ffmpeg / FFDshow / LAVFilter does it in software using their own code too.

 

[fyonn]

ffmpeg / FFDshow / LAVFilter does it in software using their own code too.

true, but aren't they somewhat "unofficial" implementations? I guess the question still stands though. if Meridian wanted to update themselves to the very latest codecs (and I wish they would but that's another story) could they write their own atmos and dts:x decoders, running on their own chips? would it make for a better product if they did?

 

[rccarguy]

From my point of view the $100 DAC will sound worse. No subwoofer management, no Dirac Live, only two channels, no support for decoding immersive formats, etc. Such a device is not anywhere near state of the art performance.

My HiFi upstairs, and downstairs cinema with stereo analogue pre, stereo DAC, two channel power amplifier, speakers in full range, it doesnt have a subwoofer, nor bass management, nor room correction, two channels, no support for immersive formats.

You know what, it sounds fantastic.

 

[fyonn]

My HiFi upstairs, and downstairs cinema with stereo analogue pre, stereo DAC, two channel power amplifier, speakers in full range, it doesnt have a subwoofer, nor bass management, nor room correction, two channels, no support for immersive formats.

You know what, it sounds fantastic.

If you're listening to a stereo source or to a non-action film I absolutely agree with you. Stereo can make for a very good system and for a while I ran one even for films.

where you lose out though is in bass. I don't just mean in terms of not having a sub, though that is a part of it, but when anything other than a receiver does a mixdown of a multichannel track to stereo, the LFE channel just gets dropped completely. So you'll get the bass that happened to be in the main channels, but esp in actions films, you lose some of the slam that the editor has chosen to only put on the LFE channel.

For many people this doesn't matter, but it's worth being aware of.

 

[rccarguy]

For movies it's in 7.1 with a AV pre amp, using Lexicon MC-8 with Logic 7. With 7.2 speakers system
For PCM audio from squeezebox into the DAC and onto the stereo pre amp.

Subwoofer plugged into MC-8. Not into analogue pre amp
Speakers go down to 34hz.

Full range for PCM, no sub.
Small 80hz Lexicon MC-8

So best of both worlds. Great 2 channel Hifi, and great 7.2 movies.

 

[lashto]

We have $100 dacs with state of the art performance, why isn't there a multichannel version available? It's not a question of price anymore, with units at $5k not breaking 100dB SINAD. If the tech is there for low-buck two channel, why aren't companies like Topping doing multichannel? Seems like someone, somewhere should be able to do a 5.1 or 7.1 system at 110dB SINAD for a little less than $1000.

I'm in the market for a HT setup and I'm willing to pay upwards of $1500 for the receiver, but I don't see any value in paying $1500 when $250 gets me similar sound quality and features (SINAD around 85, HDMI switching, 4K, room correction, and a remote). I can't be alone in this.

Is there really nothing on the market that differentiates on performance instead of add-on features or looks?

see https://hometheaterhifi.com/technic...vr-audio-video-reciever-build-quality-part-v/.
That is the last part of the series and should be enough as a summary/conclusion. If you really want to know the whole story, all 1-5 parts are highly recommended. AFAIK, that is by far the best and most useful investigation into AVR build quality & that industry in general.

For some reason, many people (still) try to find all sorts of excuses for the home-theater-audio industry: hard times, busy market, complex devices, cool-tech, etc. I think they have absolutely no excuse and mostly see just incompetence, cost-cutting, GREED and shameful marketing tactics.

The industry deserves all the blame (and more) but in the end the fault lies elsewhere: the not-so-smart consumers (us!) who keep reading/watching/believing all sorts of shameless review-monkeys and also keep salivating and overpaying for the "amazing latest features" ... which most often are just "marketing bells" (of the Pavlov type).
On short: market economy at it's 'best'

 

[Vincentponcet]

see https://hometheaterhifi.com/technic...vr-audio-video-reciever-build-quality-part-v/.
That is the last part of the series and should be enough as a summary/conclusion. If you really want to know the whole story, all 1-5 parts are highly recommended. AFAIK, that is by far the best and most useful investigation into AVR build quality & that industry in general.

For some reason, many people (still) try to find all sorts of excuses for the home-theater-audio industry: hard times, busy market, complex devices, cool-tech, etc. I think they have absolutely no excuse and mostly see just incompetence, cost-cutting, GREED and shameful marketing tactics.

The industry deserves all the blame (and more) but in the end the fault lies elsewhere: the not-so-smart consumers (us!) who keep reading/watching/believing all sorts of shameless review-monkeys and also keep salivating and overpaying for the "amazing latest features" ... which most often are just "marketing bells" (of the Pavlov type).
On short: market economy at it's 'best'

The problem of AVR is having dozens of AV entries they have to switch. That means a lot of PCBs and those crappy LSI analog switchs which destroy the sound quality.
With most AV sources being digital you don't need massive LSI analog switches or even ADCs to bring in analog sources into the DSPs.
You just need digital ( or hdmi and spdif) switchs, decoders in digital domain to PCM, room correction in digital domain, DACs section and volume control. You don't need any video processing as most current TVs are doing decent upscaling, just an hdmi video switch is enough.

Another point is most AVRs nowadays have 11.2 channels which means either you double the cost or you reduce the quality of the channels.
Most people have 5.1 and have no room for 14 speakers.
With AVR, you pay for 50+% of useless input/outputs and amps.

 

[lashto]

The problem of AVR is having dozens of AV entries they have to switch. That means a lot of PCBs and those crappy LSI analog switchs which destroy the sound quality.
With most AV sources being digital you don't need massive LSI analog switches or even ADCs to bring in analog sources into the DSPs.
You just need digital ( or hdmi and spdif) switchs, decoders in digital domain to PCM, room correction in digital domain, DACs section and volume control. You don't need any video processing as most current TVs are doing decent upscaling, just an hdmi video switch is enough.

Another point is most AVRs nowadays have 11.2 channels which means either you double the cost or you reduce the quality of the channels.
Most people have 5.1 and have no room for 14 speakers.
With AVR, you pay for 50+% of useless input/outputs and amps.

generally agree but why would you call that analog switch "the problem"? It's just another to-do on an engineer's desk. And it can be done right. As the x3600 proves, it can also be done easily & ~cheap. Or as you also mention, the digital sound path(s) shouldn't even need any analog switching/volume so why not do it that way? The engineers can clearly build a better (and probably cheaper) device but that is not for sale. And that is only a made-up problem, a people/business issue of too many bean-counters, cost-cutters and marketing trumpets.

What I would call a Problem is that Marantz/Denon used a crappy ~$1 switch up to about 2017. Even their top, $4000 devices used that cheap part and had the same performance limitations as their $400 AVRs. But they "justified" the price with marketing-bells: "wow the case has some copper, that'll bring audiophile SQ". And since they are the biggest player, some manufacturers of good switches simply stopped making them for lack of clients. That's a serious Problem.

And many people bought those $4000 devices and were convinced that the freaking sheet of "pure copper" will give them audiophile SQ. Another Problem, this time on us the consumers.

Also a Problem that many so called hi-quality AVRs (NAD, Arcam, etc) which presumably did not use such cheap parts do measure almost same as bad (or sometimes even worse). Even though they cost $5000+. A pretty clear engineering competence Problem. And again a serious marketing deception Problem.

... and so on. After checking the latest x4700 measurements I don't even want to see any AVR for a while.

 

[Wes]

The reason High SINAD Receivers do not Exist is that this would violate a fundamental physical law, The Law of Conservation of Audiophool Stupidity (AS). Because AS can neither be created nor destroyed, no greater gains in receivers can be made.

 

[Vincentponcet]

generally agree but why would you call that analog switch "the problem"? It's just another to-do on an engineer's desk. And it can be done right. As the x3600 proves, it can also be done easily & ~cheap. Or as you also mention, the digital sound path(s) shouldn't even need any analog switching/volume so why not do it that way? The engineers can clearly build a better (and probably cheaper) device but that is not for sale. And that is only a made-up problem, a people/business issue of too many bean-counters, cost-cutters and marketing trumpets.

What I would call a Problem is that Marantz/Denon used a crappy ~$1 switch up to about 2017. Even their top, $4000 devices used that cheap part and had the same performance limitations as their $400 AVRs. But they "justified" the price with marketing-bells: "wow the case has some copper, that'll bring audiophile SQ". And since they are the biggest player, some manufacturers of good switches simply stopped making them for lack of clients. That's a serious Problem.

And many people bought those $4000 devices and were convinced that the freaking sheet of "pure copper" will give them audiophile SQ. Another Problem, this time on us the consumers.

Also a Problem that many so called hi-quality AVRs (NAD, Arcam, etc) which presumably did not use such cheap parts do measure almost same as bad (or sometimes even worse). Even though they cost $5000+. A pretty clear engineering competence Problem. And again a serious marketing deception Problem.

... and so on. After checking the latest x4700 measurements I don't even want to see any AVR for a while.

For an AVR, Denon x3600H has a very good price/performance https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/denon-avr-x3600h-av-receiver-review.12676/
But its DAC section is 20db behind the best DACs, and its amp section is 15-20db behind the amps. So, that's not impressive in absolute terms.
For the price point, it is still very good.

oh, x4700 is such a scam.That's unbelievable the same company can do decent and crap AVRs at the same time
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/denon-avr-x4700h-2020-avr-review.14188/

On my side, I got an Okto DAC8 Pro 8 channels DAC, and I'm waiting for the next NAD M28 8-channels Purifi amp.
I will use a PC as an AV processor.

 

[3dbinCanada]

We have $100 dacs with state of the art performance, why isn't there a multichannel version available? It's not a question of price anymore, with units at $5k not breaking 100dB SINAD. If the tech is there for low-buck two channel, why aren't companies like Topping doing multichannel? Seems like someone, somewhere should be able to do a 5.1 or 7.1 system at 110dB SINAD for a little less than $1000.

I'm in the market for a HT setup and I'm willing to pay upwards of $1500 for the receiver, but I don't see any value in paying $1500 when $250 gets me similar sound quality and features (SINAD around 85, HDMI switching, 4K, room correction, and a remote). I can't be alone in this.

Is there really nothing on the market that differentiates on performance instead of add-on features or looks?

Ahh yes, the same pointless race that the 2 channel crowd was doing in the 70s and 80s until they realized that once you go below the threshold of audibility, the race becomes rather pointless. Bragging rights only offers a higher cost to the consumer but does nothing for sound quality.

 

[peng]

Also a Problem that many so called hi-quality AVRs (NAD, Arcam, etc) which presumably did not use such cheap parts do measure almost same as bad (or sometimes even worse). Even though they cost $5000+. A pretty clear engineering competence Problem. And again a serious marketing deception Problem.

NAD did use, likely still do, use those LSI (in some cases, same chip found in D+M models prior to 2017) chips with volume control, switches, ADC jammed in one chip with 80 or more pins.

Arcam too, but at least in some of their older models they did use the much better Cirrus logic chip. Source of my info: SMs and Dr. Rich's articles you mentioned.

 

[Vincentponcet]

Ahh yes, the same pointless race that the 2 channel crowd was doing in the 70s and 80s until they realized that once you go below the threshold of audibility, the race becomes rather pointless. Bragging rights only offers a higher cost to the consumer but does nothing for sound quality.

The point is here the race is going to worse performance for higher price.

 

[3dbinCanada]

The point is here the race is going to worse performance for higher price.

Please show a product whose sinad is at the point of being audible. How much does it cost?

 

[lashto]

For an AVR, Denon x3600H has a very good price/performance https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/denon-avr-x3600h-av-receiver-review.12676/
But its DAC section is 20db behind the best DACs, and its amp section is 15-20db behind the amps. So, that's not impressive in absolute terms.
For the price point, it is still very good.

oh, x4700 is such a scam.That's unbelievable the same company can do decent and crap AVRs at the same time
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/denon-avr-x4700h-2020-avr-review.14188/

On my side, I got an Okto DAC8 Pro 8 channels DAC, and I'm waiting for the next NAD M28 8-channels Purifi amp.
I will use a PC as an AV processor.

cannot agree more with your "scam x4700" conclusion.

Spoiler: another giant screw-all-AVRs rant inside, open at your own risk

Most people seem to forget that x3600 & x4700 (and most other AVRs/AVPs) were tested here with an optimized config that represents their absolute very best: only two channels active, only the main DACs used, almost everything else disabled/deactivated/avoided, etc. 99% of the people won't use theirs like that. Most won't even be able to replicate such best-results configs. And the partial measurements that we have for the main usecases (i.e. full AVR with all DACs & amps active) suggest serious 10-20dB degradations everywhere else. The ASR tests didn't even touch the multitude of (almost fully) separate audio paths which use even cheaper DACs/components: zones and network/USB driven by additional $0.5 DACs/boards, subpar ADC at -90dB (IIRC), Wifi/Bluetooth/Heos, surround channels, etc.
How much worse will those cheaper/secondary audio-paths measure? Nobody can tell. Those devices are such mind boggling Legos that it's impossible to predict how they'll work. Even for expert EEs/techs after reading all the manuals, see this investigation. (thanks again @bigguyca ).

I don't even think the x3600 is that 'safe' since we only have best-case test results. Results obtained by an expert tester from a fully tweaked test setup. Yet, the majority of the people who comment here and elsewhere seem to assume that they'll get exactly that performance from their own device in their home/setup. All the time and over all audio-paths. Surprisingly, even some experienced people who can fully read measurements seem to think ~like that. And then you have posts with 'conclusions' like: it's not audible, it's all ok, etc..

That is wishful thinking at its worse. Actually, some are so deep into delusion-valley that they assume they'll get better results at home. Their particular device will be better (just because), something was wrong with Amir's test, his procedures, his cables or the weather in Kansas; or their 'highend' HDMI cables will make everything sound 30dB better. Anything is fair game to blame and twist except the wonderful Denon devices made by the wonderful Denon people. So many people are simply just begging to be scammed and fooled with "hi-res audio" stickers from marketing.

I even used to think like that myself. Whatever I saw in an expert test-sheet, that's what I will hear in my home. Yeah sure!
Luckily, I met an old sound engineer who gave me a seriously cold shower. But I can't reproduce his straight, old-school expert words without a ban for life. Suffice to say, even for the "simplest" pure DAC I now assume that in my home/setup it will perform >5dB worse. From a device so scraptacularly complex as those AVRs, I would assume at least 10dB worse on any average day. 20dB worse could be a safer assumption.
Add *that* assumption to the test results and see if they look any good after. Even the no1 tested AVR will start looking like (more or less) pure trash.

All the above applies not only to x3600/x4700 but to pretty much all Denon/Marantz AVRs. Even their most expensive, $5000 topline models are built on ~the same design/architecture, have (almost) the same super cheap secondary audio paths, etc.
And a lot of the above probably applies to (almost) all AVRs. The more I read about those devices (and I did read a lot!), the more I think that ~all of them are just hopeless clusterfucks. Most current AVRs are based on 10+ years old designs/architectures . The Denon/Marantz designs probably come from the early 2000s. Those deprecated devices will never ever provide solid performance or good sound. The only solution will be a completely new device, based on a 2020 redesign from scratch.

Many here have IT backgrounds so here's an analogy that might help: those AVRs are the equivalent of a large piece of code (think MS Word) after 10+ years of continuous development. Even if that software it was super-duper clean at the start, after ten years and hundreds of people working on it, hacking and adding features that weren't even dreamed about at the beginning, that software is a pure and simple hopeless clusterfuck. And the only solution: rewrite from scratch!

That's where I seem most AVRs now. And ~the whole industry.

Sorry @Vincentponcet, that was not necessarily for you, just had to vent my AVR joy. At this time, I think you made the best decision by going PC+multichannel DAC+amps. Best by a seriously wide margin!

After doing all that AVR research, now I understand why people do it. And IIRC, @Kal Rubinson is someone who does that even though he could (probably) have any AVR/AVP on the face of earth.

For me, I wish I had the time to configure and maintain such a setup. Guess I will just keep my pre-4K AVR, it still works and sounds acceptable .. after 3 whiskeys.
One thing is for sure, none of those AVR companies will see any cent from me anymore. Not before that 21th century redesign happens (see spoiler)

Good luck and good sound everyone!

P.S.
few on the x4700 thread mentioned Anthem's flagship AVR as a (possibly) good choice. Don't know that much about that one but it measures ok and surely looks best out of this bunch. At least it's the only one which (still) looks acceptable. Maybe...

 

[lashto]

Ahh yes, the same pointless race that the 2 channel crowd was doing in the 70s and 80s until they realized that once you go below the threshold of audibility, the race becomes rather pointless. Bragging rights only offers a higher cost to the consumer but does nothing for sound quality.

would you care to expand on that "threshold of audibility"? I am quite afraid you might have set it wrong. Here's a hint: if you did set it as a sort of fixed point anywhere on the dB scale, it's wrong!

And also potentially interesting, one of those hardcore 2-channels guys once asked me (approx): do you want two excellent channels for a reasonable price or you want 16 crap channels for tens of thousands?. I think he was into something

Still like my 5.2 though.