Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Advice from Axiom Owners Arcam AVR600

John, I read the above link, then clicked on 'next' page. This article declaring that the Xbox 5.1 system has as good a sound quality as any high end system, or VERY close. Do you believe this to be true?

Thanks for the reply, Alan.

Had an interesting chat with the local Arcam distributor today. Very nice guy. Works out of his home and does it mostly, he says, for fun.

He has an AVR600 in his basement listening room. At Arcam training, they told him to emphasize two main selling points: 1) class g amp (he explained it as class a below 35 watts, then switched to class d above) and 2) extremely low jitter over hdmi. He said it was his new reference, replacing an Anthem. His only criticism of the Arcam was that its automated setup was not as good as his Anthem's.

I see jitter specs measured in picoseconds for lots of devices, but have never seen any definitive statement about what threshold constitutes audible jitter (only that less is good). Do you by any chance have a number in mind?

Also, just read two of your articles ("Loosen Up, Stereo Devotees—You Just Might Prefer Music in 5.1!", and "Stereo's Intrinsic Flaw: Why Multiple Channels Are Better"). Am still trying to picture a 10.2 setup! Anyway, thanks for the explanations, and for whetting my appetite to learn more. Towards that end, I just ordered Dr. Toole's "Sound Reproduction - Loudspeakers and Rooms" from Amazon.

As far as subwoofers go, am hoping to order at least one EP400 to go with my EP175 (or perhaps two, in which case I have an office I can relocate the EP175 to). Am first going to play around with positioning the EP175 and my old Def Tech ProSub 80 to see if my less-than-optimal location choices have any chance of working.

Thanks again!

Glenn

Have no idea how good that speaker system is, Dave, and of course its quality has nothing to do with the basic principles of audio electronics.

Glenn, sure two widely separated subs result in a 3dB level increase. The best results with respect to evening out bass response by way of minimizing/cancelling room modes do however require positioning the subs at opposite mid-wall positions which are at the minimum position for some modes and partially cancel others because of being located where those modes are opposite in phase. Diagonally opposite corners result in partial cancellation of both width and length modes.

As Alan has pointed out, stereo reproduction doesn't reproduce the actual recording as realistically as well-implemented surround processing does. The majority of the sound at a concert reaches us as reflections from directions other than the front. When the microphones pick this up there's nothing else to do in 2-channel source material(it isn't a matter of "intent") but mix it into the front channels. Analysing the phase differences that the mixed-in surround content exhibits, extracting it from the front and sending it to the surrounds where it belongs is more realistic, with the improvement varying depending on how much ambient content is present in each recording.

Nodding and grinning ... backing out of the room ... still nodding and grinning.

Hooky, you really stepped into the consensus delusion around here.

I own a sufficient number of receivers to know based on experience that not all receivers have the same sound qualities.

I'd like to hear one of those Arcam 600s.

Notwithstanding the above, I sure agree with JohnK when it comes to more and better subs. The more the better.

Hooky, it's up to you who you believe.

On the one hand, there's 2x6, who does indeed have (and has had) quite a number of receivers, placed in different rooms throughout his home. He unabashedly derives great pleasure from his audio hobby, as we all should -- or else why bother? He believes you can easily distinguish one amp from another, but he has not subjected this belief to any real (and by real, I mean scientific) tests.

On the other hand, there's Alan, Axiom's resident audio expert, who has been in the audio industry for decades, who once believed that different amplifiers sounded different, and who reversed his stance on the matter after subjecting his belief to a battery of blind listening tests. They were proven false, beyond doubt.

We travel this road often around here.

Well, that was civilized.

Receivers are more than their amplifier sections and the front ends (processor/pre-amps) clearly contribute to the sound quality of different receivers.

I don't think the differences between amplifiers are always obvious. For me, the ultimate test is not an A/B test, but the long term living with it test. When a set up grows on you, makes you love to listen to it, then it gets the thumbs up. When you find yourself not listening to a system as often, or if it grows on you the wrong way ... then it gets the thumbs down.

I owned that system. It doesn't have the clarity of my Axioms, and it can't compete at higher volume levels, but at moderate levels it was very pleasant to listen to. It did much better when I had it in a smaller room. I ended up listening to certain music on it quite a lot, probably because of its softer presentation.

I'd probably say Peter Aczel's thumbs-up was a bit too emphasized, but at the price, it did very well. It would be nice if there was a system with similar technologies but higher component quality at not an unreasonable cost. I think there's a lot of potential for fully-integrated systems, where every piece was designed to work with every other piece.

Wow. This is turning out to be a lot more fun than I thought it was going to be....

Have not done any a/b, or long-term comparisons, myself. The last two refresh cycles I did included all A/V gear (TV, source, receiver and speakers). I know that my current Denon/Axiom/Pio 141/Oppo combo looks and sounds a lot better than the integrated Yamaha sound bar that proceeded it. By a lot. And that sound bar was a big upgrade over my old Yamaha receiver and Bose satellites. By a lot. The only constant has been the room. So, am 100% positive that I have upgraded how things look and sound for the same 12x17x8 room.

One thing I'm pretty sure of: I do hear an audible difference before/after the application of Audyssey MultiEQ setup on the Denon 3808. For me, in my room, multi-channel sound sounds different (to my ears better) in more listening locations after I run the setup.

So my current thinking, for what it's worth, is that for a given receiver it is certainly possible to make it sound better or worse in a given room through some form of equalization (software, physical treatments, whatever).

It is sounding to me, therefore, that the real debate here is not whether or not one receiver actually sounds better than another, but rather whether one receiver can *tuned* to sound better than another in a given room. That, I would think, has to be a function of a receiver's feature set, and gives us some parameters for differentiation.

Or maybe I'm being delusional. Fun to think about though. Will give it some more thought over popcorn and beer tonight....

Glenn

I was intrigued by Arcam while I was shopping for a receiver. Back then there were the AVR 200 and 300, I believe. The local hifi store guy recommended them highly, but I listened and was not wowed like I thought I would be. I'm now seeing the point Alan and JohnK make.