AVForums group test for five top AV receivers - Anthem MRX 1120, Denon AVR-X7200WA, Arcam AVR850, Yamaha RX-A3050 and Pioneer SC

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

Son_of_SJ

Well-known member
Sep 10, 2009
325
0
18,890
Published today by Mr Steve Withers, here:

https://www.avforums.com/review/high-end-av-receiver-group-test.12607

Even before reading this group test, I had decided that if I were to suddenly come into money, the winner of this test is the one I would buy.
 
Son_of_SJ said:
Published today by Mr Steve Withers, here:

https://www.avforums.com/review/high-end-av-receiver-group-test.12607

Even before reading this group test, I had decided that if I were to suddenly come into money, the winner of this test is the one I would buy.
Click to expand...
More like a WHF group test taking price into consideration.
 
That's quite a surprise. I was expecting one of the major players in av world to come tops. Being that it's even the cheaper alternative makes it even more interesting.
 
That's an interesting comparison! The gist is:

1) For outright performance, Arcam is the best.

2) Anthem is a close second with the added advantage of a one box solution for 7.1.4.

3) Denon is the best overall if you take price into consideration.
 
I'm relaxed about adding one extra box for a full 11-channel experience, but I wouldn't want to add two extra boxes. So that would rule out the Arcam, brilliant though it is.

I also like the option of 11-channel Audyssey procession as well as 11-channel Atmos, so that leaves only the Denon in this group, and I believe that is is better than the much cheaper Marantz 7010. which also does Audyssey and Atmos processing. Just as well that Mr Withers also likes it!
 
Am all for value for money these days. Yes Arcam is the best for performance, but you would have to match it with top notch hifi for it to really shine. All begins to add up money wise.

Also I would like to see another comparison of Av and two channel shootout in a blind test to know if much has really changed playing music.
 
The thing I find a bit odd about tests like these is that underneath all the numerous features of a modern AVR, they are amplifiers. So surely the speakers they were tested with and the speakers you intended to pair with them ought to be a principal factor? What about tonal balance? That would be one of the main considerations in a stereo amp (its pairing with speakers) and it seems all their features have clouded this consideration.

With the speakers I have now, I would likely only consider Anthem and Pioneer. As good as the other amps are WITH THE RIGHT SPEAKERS, I don't think they'd suit mine as the result would be too warm and soft for my taste.

It would have been helpful in the review to say how each amp brought out the qualities of the speakers they tested with it and if the synergy wasn't great, what speakers (as far as tonal balance goes) WOULD have worked well with that particular amp. To be fair, I seem to remember they mentioned in the individual review of the Denon that it had a warm bias.
 
I believe each individual amp has had its own in depth review previously, which may well go into more of that sort of detail, there was a comment to that effect at the start of the group test, from what I remember.
 
I dn't think the individaul reviews made mention of which speakers to use. This is the main reason why I think many say Av amps do not do 2 channel as well stereo amps. Most av amps when setup properly & given more attention to playing two channel they sound just as good as stereo amps. Just like two channel amps tonal balance has to be taken into consideration when mixing & matching. Again bring on the blind test.
 
Yes, it is a shame that the speakers used weren't mentioned, as this is quite an important factor. I think an ideal review would be done with at least a couple of spairs of speakers - a normal package for around £1500-2000, then a higher end package that is more demanding which will ultimately show the real capabilities of an AVreceiver and possibly push it to its limits.
 
David@FrankHarvey said:
Yes, it is a shame that the speakers used weren't mentioned, as this is quite an important factor. I think an ideal review would be done with at least a couple of spairs of speakers - a normal package for around £1500-2000, then a higher end package that is more demanding which will ultimately show the real capabilities of an AVreceiver and possibly push it to its limits.
Click to expand...
@BB did mention a test was done AV vs stereo sometime ago. With your above analogy I would like to see a full blind test done to see if stereo amps can really out shine modern av amps. To my knowledge not seen an extensive test of this nature.

If am not mistaken HIFI Choice once did such test but was mainly on the budget size of things. One of the av amps performed very well with music.
 
But there was still no mention of the speaker package used to test these receivers. Some speaker packages might favour one over another, and might not show the capabilities of the better receivers.

Other than its capabilities in driving all speakers at the same time, a receiver's two channel performance is the big tell tale in my opinion. Feed it a digital signal and you find out how good it's DACs are. Feed it an analogue signal and you find out how well it isolates it from all the unnecessary circuitry. Use a number of differently capable speakers and you find its limits (although what it can drive well in two channel mode isn't necessarily the same as what it can when all channels are driven).

Can you can swap out an AV receiver for an equivalently priced hi-fi amplifier and hear a difference? You certainly should be able to do so as hi-fi amplifiers don't have to pay numerous licences (for starters). That may be a little unfair on AV receivers, but it does easily inform you of how well various aspects of the AV receiver have been implemented.
 
David@FrankHarvey said:
Feed it a digital signal and you find out how good it's DACs are. Feed it an analogue signal and you find out how well it isolates it from all the unnecessary circuitry. Use a number of differently capable speakers and you find its limits (although what it can drive well in two channel mode isn't necessarily the same as what it can when all channels are driven).
Click to expand...

I know my AVR is way down the pecking order compared to those in this group test, but I know my AVR's biggest failing is its analogue inputs. I think its DAC is surprisingly good, but when I fed my AVR using the analogue RCA outs from my CD, the difference was palpable. But feed my amp a good Bluray (audio only or a movie) and it can sound spectacularly good considering its original RRP.

My earlier point about which speaker packages used was mainly about synergy, and that sometimes an amp/speaker combo can sound greater than the sum of its individual parts just because they both play so well to each other's strengths; so saying that one AVR's sound quality is 'better' than another might just be because the amp/speaker synergy choice is poor.

Of course, with an AV receiver able to power so many speakers these days, a group test of this nature, including plugging and unplugging speakers and the set-up procedure can take many hours, so I appreciate doing a group test like this with multiple packages could be much harder (or practically impossible) than an equivalent 2-channel test. Still, if we knew what speakers were used, it would help.
 
Son_of_SJ said:
I'm relaxed about adding one extra box for a full 11-channel experience, but I wouldn't want to add two extra boxes. So that would rule out the Arcam, brilliant though it is.

I also like the option of 11-channel Audyssey procession as well as 11-channel Atmos, so that leaves only the Denon in this group, and I believe that is is better than the much cheaper Marantz 7010. which also does Audyssey and Atmos processing. Just as well that Mr Withers also likes it!
Click to expand...
Unscrew the lids on the Demon and Marantz and I bet you won't find much difference. Same product, different badges, I suspect. (Though I am open to being told why I'm wrong).

The Marantz 7010 I bought in early May works great, all be it with an external power amp for the last two channels. And so does the Denon.

The Denon is slightly more powerful, 150 wpc vs 125 according to Amazon.com, which you'll hardly if at all notice, but the Marantz offers [sort of] 13.2 processing, which according to users on avsforum.com (not avforums.com) is more of a "pick 11 from 13 or the receiver does it for you" than outright 13.2. The idea behind that is that Atmos is more about all around at ear level plus several overhead speakers while DTS:x is more about all around plus heights plus one or two overheads (I think).
 
bigboss said:
Yes, I'm sure Marantz and Denon share components, although Denon is made in Japan while Marantz in China.
Click to expand...
And that makes all the difference (in labour costs).

Heaven knows what percentage of the World's phones, not to mention hi-fi speakers (don't mention B&W or Tannoy , I did it once but I think I got away with it..) are made in China.

Not like any of them are made in Europe, let alone the UK. And I suspect that goes for the Arcane (I love it when my Android spell checker makes these Freudian slips 🙂 )too.
 
In relative terms in reasonable quality auidio gear a lot is made in UK/Europe compared with other electronics. Sure many manufacturers have gone abroard but there is still a good sector non the less.
 
manix said:
In relative terms in reasonable quality auidio gear a lot is made in UK/Europe compared with other electronics. Sure many manufacturers have gone abroard but there is still a good sector non the less.
Click to expand...

Sure. Just like the car industry. Lots of small marques making expensive small volume stuff, while Panayamasonyonkypioden churns out receivers by the gazillion, just like Toyota stamps out another Corolla every 30 seconds or so (probably).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom