High-End AV processors - smoke & mirrors?

Afternoon All

As a relative newbie to the world of AV, coming from the land of 2 channel and with many years experience of it behind me, I'm finding the woods a bit confusing re AV, and am seeking some answers to many nagging thoughts, both general and specific.

To start off, and hopefully promote some meaningful, and worthwhile discussion/debate, (but hopefully not a flame-fest) I'd like to be the devils advocate and offer the contention/proposition that in general, High-End AV Processors are not worth the asking price re what they bring to the OVERALL movie enjoyment/satisfaction rating, compared to lesser 'mainstream' components.

As multi-channel surround sound continues it's march into territory once dominated by Hi-End 2 channel markets/manufacturers, those manufacturers seem to have scrambled to bring products to market, to enable them to share a piece of a burgeoning and lucrative AV pie. And who could blame them, after all, business is business.

But with few exceptions, most do not appear to design their own software re surround sound processing, rather they just buy in OEM boards/chips from off the shelf makers, and marry it to their own circuits re the analogue outputs, power supply and implementation etc, dress it up in a tasty box, and sell it on at thrice and four times the cost, of 'lowlier' designs from 'mainstream' manufactures, using the same OEM decoding boards and chip-sets etc.

Not that many years back, the Japanese HiFi manufacturers were accused of taking other peoples designs, copying and marketing them at undercutting prices.

Nowadays, the Japanese HiFi manufacturers seem to be the ones that are truly innovating and at the cutting edge of technology; the smaller specialist manufacturer copies, tweaks and makes small improvements, and sells it on at a much higher cost, buoyed by the marketing machine of prestige, status, brand image, assumed extra benefit/quality through cost (it costs more, therefore it must be better) and well, smoke and mirrors at times IMHO.

This approach seems to work very well in countries like the UK, which still appears IMHO to have a very entrenched class structure socially, but seemingly less well in societies that appear to have a much more pragmatic outlook re consumer goods in general, such as the US for example.

In particular, having heard one or two high-end processors, I found their sound strengths to be typically that which apply and are important to 2 channel, i.e. resolution, dynamics, clarity etc, BUT and importantly for the movie watching experience, nothing extra re soundfield size, steering, localization etc, and most especially, in the context of viewing a movie, with a large screen, VERY LITTLE improvement at most to the overall (sound AND picture) involvement and satisfaction of a movie watching experience.

So, ladies & gentleman, are Hi-End processors worth it? Just WHAT do they bring to the OVERALL movie watching experience that makes them 'better', if at all, over their mainstream competitors? Anything? - or is it just smoke, mirrors, and a good dose of old fashioned snake oil?

Let the debate begin.

Cheers

John....

 

I had the TAG AV32R DP and, only because of their finantial wows, now have the Krell Showcase...

They are truly in a different league, comparing with any receiver, I had a good one too, and listen to many, besides the "conventional" sound qualities, you get much better steering and involvement, particularly with quality DSPs for stereo sources, I use DPLII for CDs too...

Receivers are unlisteneable with stereo or DPLII, except for TV or video sources...

 

After much experimentation, I found top end processors to sound noticeably better than integrateds. They also sound noticeably better than your local multiplex, cleaner, more detailed and natural. Which for me is a problem

Since I want to get close to the cinema experience at home, I found a good integrated was perfectly adequate, so long as it's backed up by a large screen and beefy subs.

I guess if you want to go the multichannel music route, like Antonio, then a processor is fully justified. For movies though, I reckon they are unneccesary unless you are sucked in by the AV marketing hype

 

Another problem with most receivers is wrong bass management...

 

I wouldn't call it "wrong", it's just not as flexible. My Marantz SR4200 receiver has a fixed sub crossover at 100Hz but you can configure all the speakers as small or large or whatever you want.

I pump the front channels through my 2ch. system and let the Marantz do the "processing" and the centre and surrounds and, quite honestly, I really would struggle to justify the cost of taking the next step (separate processor and 3ch. power for centre and rears). For me my £200 Marantz is absolutely fine for movies.

If were going to get into proper (not DPLII) multichannel music though (SACD and/or DVD-A) that would be the only reason I could justify the extra expense. For the time being that looks like being a long way away.

Michael.

 

If were going to get into proper (not DPLII) multichannel music

Maybe not proper to you, but I remember how stunned you where with the Allegri Misereri CD played with DPLII a while ago...

By the way, please bring your camera when you pop over, I would like to take a pic of my rack... :MILD:

 

I'm not disputing that you can get some excellent results with DPLII but it's still not proper multichannel. Having said that, there are undoutedly proper multichannel recordings that sound better in stereo + DPLII because recording engineers haven't really understod the whole multichannel thing yet.

On the whole though, I prefer to hear music on your system in stereo

OK, I'll bring my camera

Michael.

 

From my experience, the whole point of high-end processors is inreased involvement.

I had a home dem of a Meridian 568.2 processor (£4K) and compared it directly to my Yamaha DSP-E800 (£300 a couple years ago). It was a fascinating comparison. The difference wasn't as immediate or obvious as I had expected. Certainly the big CRASH BANG WHALLOP action scenes I customarily use to test AV equipment didn't seem hugely better on the Meridian. It was only when I watched more sedate scenes whose soundfields I'd never really noticed before that the improvement became crystal clear. In these the sense of atmosphere and involvement was just miles better on the Meridian - all of a sudden you were really there in that room or in the forest. Two good scenes that spring to mind are the scene in the Fifth Element where the goateed general and the weird pock-marked scientist are wheeling the remains of Leeloo through the corridor towards the reconstruction room where they're going to remake Leeloo, and the early scenes in Fellowship of the Ring with Frodo and Gandalf in the Shire. With my Yammy both of these scenes are completely unremarkable. With the Meridian, you really feel like you're in the corridor with Leeloo's disembodied hand; and you really feel like you're in the Shire with Frodo and Gandalf, with the sounds of the woods and the fields all around.

I guess the Meridian just does a much better job of creating a seamless, detailed soundfield. Where the Yammy plonks the obvious sounds pretty much in the right speaker at the right time (and smudges away the not-so-obvious sounds), the Meridian just made the speakers disappear and replaced it with a proper wrap-around soundfield, rich with ambience.

It also does more "technical" things better than the Yammy. The bass is a LOT better on the Meridian - so smooth and perfectly integrated with the rest of the frequencies. I hadn't noticed anything wrong with the Yammy's bass until I went back to it after spending time with the Meridian. It just sounded rough and broken.

Then there's the surround steering. Tied in with the "wrap-around soundfield" qualities, sound effects that move from one part of the soundfield to another did so completely seamlessly and smoothly on the Meridian, unlike the Yammy.

I guess it's a bit like hifi really. If all you've ever heard is yer average Sony midi system, it probably sounds pretty good to you. You can't really imagine how the sound could be significantly improved. Then when you listen to a high end system you suddenly know. And it's not [necessarily] the really obvious things that are better - it's mostly the subtle things, and just the overall experience that are improved.

Anyway, much like hifi, the law of diminishing returns is very much alive and well in the world of AV. The difference between my Yammy and, say, a Lexicon MC-1 (which can be had these days for £1500) are likely to be FAR greater than the difference between the MC-1 and a top of the line MC-12 (around £9K I believe?) There's also the fact that surround decoding on modern mid- and high-end integrated amps from the likes of Denon and Pioneer has advanced to the point where they're sounding more like entry-level standalone processors than the integrateds of yesteryear. So, just as with hifi, it's always worth trying a few different options and determining where on the VFM curve you feel most comfortable. Not everybody needs an MC-12 or Meridian 861.

Dunc

P.S. - As Merlin says, if you're just looking for that "cinema sound" experience, you can usually settle for a lot less than top of the line. But AFAIC, why settle for "cinema" sound? You can do a lot better. :MILD:

 

Dunc. Better? In what way? I tend to find in all honesty that overblown AV setups have you concentrating on the mechanics of the sound engineer's work rather than enjoying the film. For me, it is the combination of large high resolution picture with less than intrusive sonics that makes a trip to the movies so enthralling. You get to concentrate on the film more, surely the intention of the director?

Most AV nuts, dig out the demo scene from Matrix Revulsion 3 and sit there going "wow! listen to that" whilst the room distorts in every possible dimension and the sofa turns into a washing machine on spin cycle. It's a film for christ's sake! I'm meant to be watching it and taking in the story.

My recipe for Home Cinema would be £2K on Receiver, £4K on speakers and £6K on a good projector and quality screen. To blow half that budget on processing makes you an AV geek and not a film lover IMHO

 

Merlin,

Why do you think they bother composing music and recording fantastic sound effects for movies....

I think the best you can play them the more pleasure you take from the movie, and yes, most theaters have worst sound than a reasonable receiver and speakers, but that was not the intention of the film maker, as good CDs wheren't meant to be played on gheto blasters... :MILD:

 

A fair question, although an equally fair one would continue '...only to then release it on a lossy, overly compressed format such as Dolby Digital and/or DTS?'

I sometimes wonder whether the DVD source material itself is of high enough quality to warrant going much beyond the current crop of c£1500 integrated AV receivers.

 

You would be surprised with the quality of some DTS and DD 5.1 recordings, better than most CDs... :MILD:

 

I'm not saying there aren't some stunning DD/DTS film soundtracks and music recordings out there, just that we are attempting to squeeze things out of a format that just aren't there where the really high-end of AV processing and amplification is concerned.

Although, arguably, we've also been doing the same with CD for years

 

3 years ago IMHO yes. However, has current crop improved since then I am not sure as I have not audition any.

I watch my DVD movies with a 28 inch TV. Still enjoyable but sometimes when the 'audio image' projected is a giant monster the size of my living room front wall running across from left to right ----- I wish I have a DLP projector.

 

Of course I would love to have a 50" NEC plasma, but first things first...

 

Has anyone done or read about blind ABX comparisons of surround processors?

I'm cautious of when people comment on accuracy of steering as dolby digital 5.1 and DTS are discrete channel formats, there is nothing for the decoder to steer, only decode the discrete channels. Steering is only relevant for the 2-channel surround decoding of dolby surround, dolby pro-logic, dolby pro-logic 2.

On the other hand I understand for low distorsion and phase accuracy could help to make sounds more distinct.

I'd love to read about a blind test comparing a high-end integrated against a similar priced processor, perhaps both using 5/7 channels of a given power-amp, or even with the integrated using it's own power-amps.

cheers,
Rob.

 

I happen to feel it really isn't for movies. I've gone from a Meridian 568.2/Theta combo to a Rotel 1055. Do I miss the extra refinement? No certainly not. Sure things aren't good in an absolute sense, but my enjoyment of the source material is the same.

When you consider there is an £8K price differential, that buys a serious projector, screen and ludicrous bass reinforcement if that's your bag.

And with this kind of set up the sonics match the on screen action, something you cannot say when using an expensive processor to create an enormous soundfield whilst watching on a twee 32" CRT

 

Given the choice between upgrading my £200 Marantz receiver with a £1500 processor and a £1000 3ch power amp or spending £2500 on a projector I'd get the projector...if SWMBO would let me fit a ceiling mount in the living room

As it happens I'm very happy with a 32" Toshiba widescreen TV. I wouldn't go for a plasma. The image quality is still pretty poor compared to a CRT TV and their cost/image size ratio is just ridiculous.

Michael.

 

Interesting you should say that Michael. I feel my Panny W4 is every bit the equal of the CRT's I see, but I would agree that the cheaper generation of plasma that is on the market today is poor. It seems quality is suffering in a bid to reduce costs. The hype surrounding the latest models is frankly offensive.

DLP projectors however continue to come on in leaps and bounds. I recently auditioned the new Sharp 200 and was frankly amazed at the quality on a 9' Vutec screen.

When you realise you could get one of those AND a plasma for the cost of a high end Processor, I would agree it seems to represent far greater value when creating the complete AV enviroment.

 

I'm afraid I'm firmly in the CRT camp. I've not seen any plasmas that can touch a well calibrated, progressive scan capable CRT TV to date, although I'd be quick to agree that most 32" CRTs offer a better image than 36" CRTs also - increases in size nearly always result in more poorly perceived quality images.

I'm assured that a similar picture level can be achieved by plasmas, but it usually involves an expensive plasma as a base along with external (expensive) processing.

I'm sure it's the size options and domestic, living space appeal that have so far driven the sales of plasma.