High-End AV processors - smoke & mirrors?

I Have to admit I'm changing me mind a bit here on viewing pieces, over the last 3 months or so, I've had the oppotunity to sample some 'top end a/v gear (thanks to a lot of guys on a/v forums who accquired some interesting upgrades thanks, )
From the lastest super dooper 50" Poineer Plasma to an £8K infocus projection system (with trick vented box and camera lens)
100" screens too.
2 things which immedately spring forth, the Projector gives that analogue presenation if you like, where as the plasma, gives the digital side of life.
Having experimented with various snake oil adorments to both, the plasma gave such depth 3d stylee' and shimmer rich colours, still not black black, but seriously dark grey
The projector giving that near 'flim like' thang, definately chalk and cheese, but both quite good in their own right.
Although one thing stands out how far a/v processors are behind in the music stakes, some set ups weren't cheap lots of decent names and speakers, yet seriously under whelming.
However for the main purpose quite satisfactory Wm
Added, I still prefer me Tosh, in prog scan and now captive lead removed, it's damn fine, mind you those things connecting it to the dvd seem to have some effect though

 

I'd agree certainly, although so many plasmas seem to be set up very badly. And yes CRT does still rule the roost in ultimate quality, but for me size limitations and managability are real drawbacks.

I had toyed with the idea of importing a HDTV compatible RPTV from the states. A mate in Milwaukee has a 56" Mitsubishi that looks seriously impressive upscaling DVD to 720p.

But the great thing about flat panels is that you can wall mount them, and have an electric screen drop down in front for serious movie viewing without it intruding 3 feet into the room

CRT is the Vinyl of the AV world

 

I think "steering" is a misnomer. It's not about manipulating the encoded channels but rather about keeping the channels clear and consistent and keeping easily obscured ambience intact. I think of it as being much like stereo imaging in hifi. Stereo has two discrete channels, but some hifis definitely image better than others.

As for the whole compression thing... I would imagine the fact that DD and DTS are compressed would imply that you'd get more benefit from expensive processors than if it were uncompressed - the expensive processor being better at eliminating compression artefacts and such... no?

And Merlin, I mean "better" generally in terms of realism, or at least believability. As I said, the whole point of the cinema experience is immersion. IMO cinemas generally do a poor job of immersing the viewer in the film - instead they just tend to make them (or, at least me) feel like they're in a big room with a big screen and speakers all around them (and often big, distorting subs). I would prefer my home cinema to make me forget for two hours that I'm sitting in my living room watching a screen full of pixels, listening to a whole bunch of decoded 1s and 0s, and feel like I'm in the movie. Suspension of disbelief and all that.

Dunc

 

Afternoon All

Great to see some interesting debate, and hey, no flames!

Nice to find a forum with some folks who are well informed and present interesting, helpful and informative points in a very knowledgeable and pleasant manner.

Some folks who have spent large amounts on processors of the high-end variety would argue the benefits, and to a degree when it comes to multi-channel music surround, I would tend to agree perhaps.

However, it all depends to some degree as to how you assess 'the best'.

As an example, say, lets look at perhaps the new Meridian G series, Arcam AV8, and the new Sony DA9000ES.

The Sony is a receiver, however as it uses digital amplification, the concept of needing a pre-processor, and separate power amplifier is somewhat negated with regards to noise and interference etc, hence the integrated design.

With respect to the quality of the materials used as regards the bits one can see and assess, such as chassis, covers, front fascia plates, knobs, join lines, screws, quality of the materials themselves and the finish applied, I'd place that ES Sony on a par with the Meridian, and both comfortably bettering the Arcam IMHO.

As regards the quality or otherwise of the internal components/electronics, the quality testing applied re their selection and quality control, one can only guess unless one is an electronic expert, or, go by the advertising blurb which as usual is long on rhetoric and short on facts. I would have doubts as to whether there would be much, if any difference. They all state that they use 'audiophile grade' components etc.

Naim years ago boasted that they used to individually spec test each and every component that went into one of their products, a policy I am unsure of as to whether it is still maintained, but one assumes so. Most other manufacturers merely batch test, usually one in several hundred or thousand etc.

Either way, just as a car manufacturer doesn't tell you the tensile strength of the steel they use, the number of spot welds per inch in assembly, the torsional rigidity of the body etc of the products they make, neither is the HiFi industry going to be likely to reveal such things as the quality of the components etc for comparative purposes. Far easier to convince one by marketing and brand name association that they use 'the best'.

With regards to the signal processing, I would think that with their expertise in two channel, Arcam and Meridian may have an edge over the Sony re the circuit layout, power supplies, and analogue output stages re fine tuning of the 'sound', especially with regards to music, whether the processor is being used in two channel mode, or multi-channel surround mode for music.

I say may, because I'm not an electronics engineer, and again, one can only go by what one perceives re brand 'heritage' with respect to two channel, past experiences, and mostly the advertising claims of these 'established' 'high-end' players in the 2 channel arena, muscling in on the multi-channel surround sound scene.

Given the scarcity of SACD/DVD-A players, whilst I've heard multi-channel SACD in a home, and in-store, I've not been able to do a careful AB between processors on this medium as yet, so it is very much conjecture as to which would provide a 'better' music surround experience.

The other side of the performance equation for a 'high-end' AV processor, and the most useful one for me at the moment, is AV in the context of home cinema.

Here, on specs at least, the gap between the Sony and the Meridian narrows even further. Both use proprietary in-house DSP to augment the surround sound movie experience.

I am under the understanding with the AV8, unlike the AVR100, 200 receivers etc, which were actually made in China to Arcams specs, sharing many features with a NAD design, the AV8 has been developed more in-house, with regards it's DSP, as against just buying off the shelf components and software.

The Sony uses a number of chips that are exclusive to, and made in-house by Sony themselves, along with their proprietary software.

On specs, and regarding in-house development, i.e. that 'specialist high end touch' I can see little difference between all three.

As regards listening, which is really the bottom line, I've not been able to hear the Meridian, AV8 or perhaps even better still a Lexicon unfortunately.

However, I have been able to do a direct listening comparo between a Naim AV2, (another high-end processor that uses OEM boards/chipsets, with careful attention paid to the design re in-house power supplies, circuit layout etc) and Denon, Rotel, and Arcam receivers.

The Naim delivered somewhat as expected on music, easily outclassing the others, re detail, dynamics, rhythm, transparency, all the usual 2 channel strengths, BUT on movies, there was very little in it. The strengths so apparent for music, seemed to matter little for movies, where surround sound 'wrap' or immersive involvement perhaps, was no better than the much cheaper units. Consequently, it added little IMHO to the overall movie watching/involvement experience.

Indeed, if the coherence, integration, and seamless panning of effects around a 360 degree sound-field is of primary performance in the sense of involvement and immersion re a movie experience, then no, I don't see the Arcam AV8 having an edge over the Meridian or the Sony I have mentioned. My thoughts would be that the Sony and Meridian, with their proprietary DSP would be more likely to be similar to each other re movies, and have the edge over the Arcam IMHO in movie sound.

The fact that the Sony supports 9.1, has an RS232 port for upgrades, has proprietary chipsets and software for surround sound, is one of the few affordable mass produced digital amplifiers available, with high power, and little heat output - surely a technology that is cutting edge and likely to be developed by 'specialist' manufacturers in the future, and has a build quality to match (IMHO) the Meridian and exceeds that of the Arcam, and yet comes in at well under half the price makes it quite an outstanding product IMHO, and easily the equal of the others in most, if not all respects that I can see, with the possible exception perhaps of music reproduction.

Of course, usually one does get what one pays for in many ways; the exclusivity of the TAGS, Meridians, AV8 & Naims etc of this world will always have that indefinable 'something' that the likes of Sony, Denon, Yamaha etc do not have.

But then of course, speaking as a Naim owner, I'd be inclined to say that!

However on performance grounds, I'm of the opinion (not a closed one I might point out) that the differences between the so called high-end processors developed by previously two channel specialist manufacturers, and more 'pedestrian' mainstream processors are more tied up with notions of prestige and assumed engineering excellence based upon past 2 channel experience/heritage.

When the source is a movie soundtrack with dialogue, sound effects and some music, delivered by a lossy compression system, and where the 'mainstream' use similar if not identical chipsets to the specialist manufacturer, and in some cases such as Sony and Yamaha, use in-house proprietary DSP to augment the surround experience, as do specialists such as Meridian, Lexicon etc, the differences in movie performance are relatively small, whilst the price difference is huge.

So it would seem to me for the moment, that by most reasonable methods one can use to compare so called 'high-end' processors v's something with say, a less prestigious name tag, the differences are very minor at best for movies, with the exception of the humble matter of price.

Anyway, just some further rambling thoughts from me on a contentious subject.

Cheers

John...

 

In theory you sound right, in practice, I never heard a receiver with good amplification, and Sony's S-master digital power technology has quite a bad reputation, Panasonic is better perceived as fair quality, particularly for the price...

Also, with separates, you can buy amplification adequate for your speakers/room, with a receiver you are stuck... :JPS:

 

Yeah, Antonio's right - part of the appeal of separates is simple flexibility, in terms of upgradability, customisability, and selection of ancillary components. Most decent high end processors are easily upgradable, both in software and hardware, and thus should last many years (the TAG AV32R being a prime example), whereas few (if any?) integrated amps by the mainstream companies can be upgraded in this way. Thus, if you want to keep up with the latest home cinema technologies (of which there are MANY!) you'd have to chuck out your integrated and buy a new one. With the processor you may just have to download a free software upgrade. (It may involve an expensive hardware upgrade, but these are usually still cheaper than selling and buying a whole new product...)

As for in-house DSP, I would've thought this is where you'd see the biggest differences. Meridian, for one, has been at the forefront of high quality digital processing for many years now, so you would expect their DSP software to be of very high quality. Arcam doesn't have the same pedigree, but they did spend an awful lot of time and money ($1 million according to their ads) on the AV8 and making sure it was of the highest quality (including proprietary DSP I believe). I can't say I know about Sony, or other mainstream electronics giants. But just in terms of the "sound" of the equipment, the DSP is where a manufacturer gets to have the most obvious influence on the sound, tailoring it to their requirements.

Another aspect is simply presentation - or "character" of the sound. Every manufacturer has their own. My Yamaha has a fairly thin, hard sound to it that the Meridian 568 I tried didn't - it sounded very much smoother and more even-handed in the frequency response. Immediately after returning the Meridian I took home a Sony 9000ES AV processor (a model that's very popular Stateside) and listening to that was similarly interesting. It was clearly superior to my Yamaha in terms of the obvious areas of "quality" - seamless panning of effects, smoothness and integration of bass - but at the same time didn't live up to the Meridian in some areas, such as bass quality, and especially ambience. But the thing that struck me most about the Sony was its tonal balance - completely different from either the Meridian or my Yammy. The sony had a rich, full balance in the mids and bass, but also a VERY bright, forward, even forceful treble that was quite hard to listen to at high volumes. The difference between, say, the Matrix lobby scene, on the Sony vs. the Meridian was NOT subtle by ANY means at all. One sounded smooth and listenable - perhaps even a little too smooth and safe - the other tore holes in my eardrums!

Anyway, yeah, so flexibility and tonal presentation are another two reasons you can't just go for the cheaper option just because it's cheaper.

I agree with you that for many people there simply isn't enough justification for spending many thousands on a high end processor. For the most part, though, this is down to taste and the requirements of each person's system. (Oh, and budget too. )

Dunc

P.S. - Of course, perhaps the biggest reason people go for really high end processors - as with hifi and many other things - is simple upgraditis. Just gotta have that last ounce of extra performance, even if it costs thousands of pounds....... Sometimes people lose sight of the whole experience in pursuit of the nth degree of resolution, or dynamics, or ambience, or whatever else happens to take their fancy (or whatever else they happen to think is lacking in their current system). To be honest, I would say this problem is no worse in AV than it is in hifi, and to some extent, hifi (or "audiophilia" in this case ) can be quite a lot worse..

 

Afternoon All

Dunkyboi said:

In the main, I would heartily agree. Meridian and Lexicon pretty much seem to sit at the top of the tree when it comes to DSP expertise, at least if reputation is anything to go by.

However, a 'cut down' version of Logic 7, as developed in house by Lexicon, is used in HK, Onkyo, and I belive Marantz HT receivers as well. Yamaha has their own proprietary DSP, as does Sony.

I did some searching on the web to try and ascertain more factual information about Sony's DSP, in particular their Cinema Studio modes, and was intrigued to find it is also utilised in their professional mixing desks, and again is proprietary to them.

Once one starts looking at the professional scene, companies such as Lexicon, Meridian, and Sony seem to have a great deal invested in research and development in the areas of acoustics and DSP.

One could perhaps also argue that in Sony's case, as they own a movie company or two, plus have their own full-size dubbing theatres, mixing consoles etc that they have something of a front seat in the development of movie sound period, notwithstanding their professional SDDS theatre sound system.

In starting this thread, perhaps I risk coming across as someone who can't appreciate high quality, or trys to belittle it. Not at all, as generally speaking one gets what one pays for in HiFi/HT as in most things in life. And I have many years of experience behind me in 2 channel, and own what some would call high-end equipment.

However, my main contention is that 2 channel and HT are VERY different disciplines, and so far in my listening experience, the high-end specialist AV processors put out by the high-end 2 channel makers mostly fail to impress commensurate with their price in the movie arena, over much cheaper, more 'pedestrian' products.

I would contend that it is due to the use in some cases (albeit not Meridian or lexicon) of OEM boards, chipsets & DSP, with some tweaking to power supply stages etc. For music use, IMHO this leads to a worthwhile increase in performance over cheaper receivers, whether the music is two or multi-channel, so if say SACD or DVD-A was to become the dominant consumer music carrier, then I can see a lot of musical merit in such high-end processors.

However, for movie use, where the focus of the viewers perceptions are arguably the picture, or at least lead/dominated by the picture/plot/storyline etc, then the extra detail on offer, re the more traditional aspects of sound as would apply to 2 channel use, i.e. transparancy etc, are IMHO mostly (but not totally) nullified.

Certainly, whilst I don't think they would be a match on music for the high-end processors, for movie use, and particularly in the way they can create such a huge coherent and immersive soundfield, Yamaha and Sony IMHO both do a job that equals and perhaps even betters that which I've heard from Naim and Tag, albeit the lexicon and meridian would perhaps offer even more with their own proprietary DSP and expertise in acoustics etc.

Certainly in the movie arena, the proprietary DSP offered by Sony and Yamaha is no slouch by any means, price notwithstanding IMHO. The fact that it comes at the price it does, is only a bonus.

Very interesting point.

And I'm also most curious to hear more, as the TAE9000ES AV processor is what I ended up with! Heheh

I find the Sony quite a fascinating product. It doesn't carry a 'prestige' 'specialist' name tag, but it does use what was considered high-end, state of the art components when it first came out, along with Sonys proprietary DSP. Being a pre-amp/processor, and with an RS232 port, it has been upgradable, and flexible like all processors, but at a 'mainstream' price.

About my only disatisfaction with it, is that it doesn't carry more weight in the prestige stakes as regards it's 'image' or 'pedigree' heheh :MILD:

I actually went with it over an AV2, because whilst the AV2 was clearly better with music, and a LITTLE clearer and smoother on movie sound, with more obvious detail in sounds, and seperation of them, with respect to the soundfield size and immersive 'feel' the Sony was the match or better. In total, I felt at the time that the AV2 didn't offer enough to the total movie viewing experience for me to justify the huge difference in cost, for MOVIE use alone.

On the negative side, I would agree with your comments about the tonal balance. However, I find that many DVD movies differ quite considerably re their apparent recorded volume, audio quality, both in soundfield, clarity, detail etc, AND tonal balance. Just like CD's in fact. One thing it doesn't have, is Cinema EQ, which is on some processors, and is a circuit designed to soften the often overbright movie soundtracks where they are balanced/EQ'd for the acoustics of a cinema.

On the other hand, it has a wonderfully open and transparent midband, with masses of detail on offer. Being a 2channel 'purist' and newbie to HT at first I disregarded the proprietary DSP modes, much as one would disregard a graphic equaliser for 2 channel, but experimentation has proved it's worth, as it actually improves the overall involvement factor of a movie.

The Cinema Studio modes give a much warmer presentation, whilst being an obviously much bigger acoustic 'space', and more coherent blend between channels, and the Virtual Theatre modes bring an even bigger space, with fantastic localisation and detail in effects etc, albeit sometimes I think that it is compensating for the limited soundstaging of the SBL's.

The fact that one can get units like this, or Yamaha etc, that offer so much for movies, (but perhaps not so much for music) and at so little cost relative to high-end 2 channel manufactures processors, is something not to be missed IMHO.

Now if we're talking multi-channel SACD, well, I guess that's another subject again


Cheers

John...

 

The fact that one can get units like this, or Yamaha etc, that offer so much for movies, (but perhaps not so much for music) and at so little cost relative to high-end 2 channel manufactures processors, is something not to be missed IMHO.

I think you are trying to convince yourself that you dont have to spend much money on AV...

But after a little while with your Sony you will want more, believe me... :JPS:

 

I can't speak for the Naim AV2 and, in fact, reviews of it I have read suggest it's processing capabilities are competent rather than leading edge, but I find the idea of (even the older 96kHz) TAG AV32R being equalled or bettered by a Sony or Yamaha integrated AV amp to be far fetched to say the least.

My experience began with a Rotel RSP966 processor – nice unit, decent processing and good value at £600 – in fact there were no other processors around at this price level then – nor are there now. It's downfall was reliability (DTS drop-outs) and during it's repair I was loaned a Yamaha A5 AV amp and I used this as a pre/processor only (into a Rotel THX power amp). The Yamaha was a clear step down from the Rotel processor – no doubt about it.

When the DTS problem with the Rotel couldn't be resolved, I got a refund and picked up an ex-dem Tag AV32R. The difference between the Tag and the Rotel was not small. The biggest difference was with music – with the Tag actually sounding like a decent hifi pre-amp. However, the step up for movie processing was more than notable. Far more natural would be the best way to describe it but it was more detailed, less 'digital sounding' if that makes sense.

I also know that the guy I sold my 96kHz Tag AV32R to found it a considerable step up in quality over his previous AV amp – the well regarded Denon 3802. He thought the extra quality more than compensated for the 5.1 channels of the Tag over the 6.1 of the Denon.

This is what put me off the AV2 and why, when I replaced my Tag (96kHz version), I went for the newer 192kHz Tag instead. I had no doubts of the Naim's musical credentials, I just wasn't sure it was going to compete with even my older Tag for movies.

The 192kHz version of the AV32R I was happy would be pretty much state-of-the-art as far as DD/DTS decoding was concerned, whilst offering improved stereo performance. Mind you, at £3300 you should expect it to do the business and it's perhaps unfair to compare it to the AV2 which costs 2/3rds its price.

Also, I tend to lump Tag in with Lexicon and Meridian (as home cinema/digital specialists) rather than in with Naim who I see more as alongside Linn as specialist hifi companies who have branched out into AV a little. On the components/OEM/software etc, I'm no expert but again I'm sure Tag did a lot more in the creation of the AV32R than simply putting together a number of 'off the shelf' components, as Naim appear to have done (very well btw) with the AV2.

Going back to the AV2, I can't help wondering whether it's 'flat earth' credentials that give it such gusto for music are it's downfall as far as movie decoding is concerned i.e. it's concentrating on PRT at the expense of creating a deep, wide and enveloping soundstage. I don't know – it's just a wild theory.

Matt.

 

Matt said:

Heh, fair comment Matt; unfortunately my listen to the Tag was not one where the reliability of the setup re careful attention to detail re distances, delays, levels etc could be guarranted, as the dealer was relatively unkown to me, and my audition of the product was somewhat cursory into the bargain.

Also, to be fair, I have not been able to do a careful AB between Tag, Sony, & Yamaha, which is why I prefaced my thoughts with IMHO, and yeah, at the end of the day it's still only an opinion, as everyone is going to have different viewpoints.

Frustratingly, being able to get a careful AB of competing equipment is becomming increasingly difficult, as dealers seem to stock what they think they can sell, and in combinations that they think 'work'.

Consequently doing a careful AB comparo between say Tag, Meridian, Sony, Yamaha etc, is a well nigh-on impossibility. All one can do is hear equipment at different venues, and judge it as best one can, and of course how one responds then can come down to different moods/receptiveness as well as the different venues and equipment etc, so hardly a 'scientific' method.

However, I try to listen to equipment that interests me, in as many different situations as possible, to try and get a feel for the character as it were of the sound, and how I respond to it. Certainly on an enjoyment/involvement factor I found the Sony & Yamaha to offer much the same as I heard on the Tag.

I have no doubt that the Tag, like the Naim AV2, is better on music, and also in a number of areas of HT, BUT IMHO when the main focus of the 'event' is the picture, those advantages tend to be diminished somewhat IMV, as they are not so readily noticed, unlike 2 channel where one is listening intently to the sound without the added 'distraction' of the picture.

Yes, I noticed the same thing with the AV2. And it was carefully set up by my dealer, who also carries Arcam, Denon & Rotel, which I was able to compare directly AB wise, against it. The main area of notable improvement for HT with the Naim was dialogue - definitely smoother, more detailed, and more natural sounding than the others. Also it's ability to separate sounds out in the mix.

The difficulty was that when one stopped analyzing, listening to the sound, and just letting the whole experience of the picture and sound play together at one, the dialogue was about the only area one noticed a considerable and ongoing sense of 'betterness' if that makes any sense, as one just sat back and absorbed the film.

One then has to make value judgements of, one is getting this much extra on the overall enjoyment scale, v's the cost to achieve it. For ME, there wasn't enough in it (AV2 over the others) to justify the cost unfortunately.

Far be it for me to lump Tag in with that, however in the difficult and less than ideal circumstances in which I heard it, no, unfortunately, it didn't 'blow' me away with that 'WoW, must have' factor any more than what I heard with the Yamaha Sony etc.

Perhaps if the demo had been better, or I was able to do a direct AB comparo my view would be different. And I always try to keep an open mind, and not be to fixed in my viewpoints, even though I may be branded by some with the 'flat earth' brush by being a Naim owner.

I would pretty much be inclined to agree with your assessment re Tag, Meridian and Lexicon, albeit I'm no expert either. However lexicon in particular has done a great deal of research into room acoustics etc, which is reflected in their proprietary DSP. Certainly in the US they have the reputation of being THE processor for HT.

I would also tend to agree with your theory re the AV2. It's a very good processor to be sure, but again one aimed perhaps re it's market at the existing 2 channel user who wants to add-on AV capablity to his existing setup, for music and movies, rather than trying to be the last word in HT sound reproduction.

In one sense, that's me, as I'm a Naim owner, however whilst my bias is more towards music than movies, I like my movies to sound in character close to reference and what the director intended, and that is a movie theatre, i.e a large acoustic space.

In that sense, whilst the AV2 may be more musical and detailed in a PRaT sense, that big wraparound enveloping soundfield is not one of it's strengths IMHO, and perhaps why it seems to fair only marginally better than the Sonys, Yamahas of this world re that vital being there sense of immersive involvement for movie use.

Anyway, just some more rambling thoughts on a contentious subject. (Pleads for other Naim owners to not burn him as a 'heretic' )

Cheers

John...

 

It should be noted that HiFi has had over 60 years development whereas AV has only been around for a fraction of that time. AV amps are disappointing in terms of value for money and sound quality but I am not certain the various AV markets are defined or mature enough to see detailed evolution.


Single box amps are also very domestic friendly which to the majority of the market is very important. I do look forward to more diy and tweaked equipment information appearing in the near future. Ultimately, the amp sections should not be that hard to improve, as for the processors, I am sure there are a number of wiz kids who can modify the programming.