The machine (COLDMACHINE) has a thread in the amp, receiver, pre-pro section of AVS but I wonder if any of you other "connected" gents have any tid bits they would like to share?

- Is the new prepro an AVR600 without amps or will it be jazzed up somehow?

- Price of the new prepro?

- Date available?

I spoke to one of the owners of ARCAM in the AYRE room at CES and he was excited about the product but a bit vague and understandably so.

I understand this may been looked down upon here in the 20K forum but this group seems to be "in the know"...

Current projected price is around $6k-$7k. Release is hoped for May/June.

There will be some improvements over the 600, but the core technology was a joint development.

I've had the 600 for just over 2 weeks, for use in an apartment. I have NEVER been so blown away by a receiver.

I also tested it as a processor, using the pre outs and it was truly an amazing sounding unit.

If you want any info, let me know.

report away at mmiles@icrinc.net

I listened to every audio demo at CEDIA 2008.

I posted my observations in a thread to that effect.

My personal best surround sound presentation at the show was the Dolby Volume Demo room.

This demo featured 3 PMC MB2s as LCR and 6 PMC Wafer 2s for surrounds. Amps were 3 Bryston 7b monos for LCR and one 8 channel Bryston HT875 for surrounds.

The Processor was/is rumored to be a new Arcam ? AV888.

The soundtrack vocals were crystal clear and the surround effects were readily apparent without resorting to the extreme volume levels of other demos I also heard.

One of the Dolby guys there told me they demoed quite a few systems before selecting PMC/Bryston.

So, is Arcam going to release a pre-pro only ?

report away at mmiles@icrinc.net

What do you want to know?

Most of the AVR600 info will be applicable to the AV888.

Odd that they went with a crystal semiconductor DAC, anyone know which one?

CM,

What are they doing with video? The other thread there were some complaints on the black levels when run the the AVR600.

My main concern is audio. How did it sound with the new hi-res codecs? Any two-channel thoughts?

What if any video processing is built in?

CM,

What are they doing with video? The other thread there were some complaints on the black levels when run the the AVR600.

My main concern is audio. How did it sound with the new hi-res codecs? Any two-channel thoughts?

The AVR600 uses a Pixel Works PW338-3 video processor with custom Arcam code.

I believe there was only 1 guy who reported the black issue. I think that may be some sort of compatibility/settings issue. The unit does not raise blacks.

I'll post my review below, rather than post in dribbles.

What if any video processing is built in?

See above.

Before you read this, bear in mind this wasnt written for AVS. The forum it was written for would have less HT knowledge. It also has very few high end users, as the term is understood here. OK here goes......

I have now had an AVR600 for a few days. Normally this wouldn't be long enough for me to be able to fully opine on a piece, but the 600 was so easy to use that I got the maximum benefit from my time. Being familiar with Arcam was a great help here. Everything in this review is my own opinion and direct experience, some others may have a different experience, as their requirements may differ greatly.

Before anyone gets on my case here, issues with the unit will be dealt with in the second part.

The following headings are in no particular order.

Overall sound quality.

Quite simply, this unit is sonically stunning. It is a major leap forward for Arcam in many ways, I'll touch on them as I progress. The imaging is impeccable, and the unit is easily capable of gossamer light delicacy or some serious sonic violence, depending on what the source demands. I would say it has a surgical clarity that I've never heard in a receiver before. The best sounding receiver prior to this was the 350, but the 600 is well ahead of that. £3k may be expensive for a receiver, but for an audiophile unit that kind of money is small potatoes indeed. This unit, when coupled with good speakers and in a room that has been properly treated and corrected, is capable of serious audiophile quality reproduction. More on the test systems later, but they form 2 pairs of systems..... a Linn Akurate and Dynaudio Contour, both using Gotham subs, and the colossal Dynaudio M4 and Genelec 1036a, both using HTs6 subs.

Ease of use.

Nothing much new to say here. Its well laid out and organized. The menus are very easy to follow and logical to use. Its connectivity is amazing and very flexible indeed. The sources that are audio only, like TAPE, can have a video feed assigned to it. As an example, it takes seconds to have an HDTV video feed coupled with an internet radio sound source.

Things like disabling HDMI audio on specific inputs works fine too, so satellite users will be happy there. The Networking is set up in an instant and the internet radio is very easy to use and personalize. All the VP settings are "per source" as are things like room EQ and processing modes. 7.1 users who need PLIIx can set the unit such that it will always engage if there is a 5.1 signal, no need to select it. Spend some time with this unit to set your options as you wish and you will find that the unit simply begins to disappear, you don't have to work at it. All adjustments are shown as on-screen pop ups, this can be disabled if you wish.

Auto adjustment.

I'm not a fan of automated set-up and room correction. I am a correction fan, but prefer the use of "man in the loop" systems like the Dolby Lake as they are vastly more flexible and provide markedly superior results. I was, however pleasantly surprised. The system fires a broadband noise burst from each speaker, it does 2 rounds, from one position, then does its calculations. I found, in the 3 rooms I tried, it got the speaker distances spot on. They were within an inch of the actual measured distances. The crossover frequencies listed for each speaker looked reasonable too (there is one master crossover). The speaker levels were also close to ideal. when testing is done you can see all the results, you then select "accept" to store those values. You can adjust them manually later anyway, if need be.

The other part is the Room EQ. Even when you select "accept" as above, the room EQ is not applied by default. This is a good option, as it means you can still use the other measurements. The room EQ can then be selected, or not, for each individual source. The analysis looks at the broadband noise through the calibrated microphone and tries to even out any room resonances you may have.

The first room I tried was well treated, and had good geometry. Engaging the room EQ made a small but noticeable difference, but not near as good as the system already there, that was as much as I expected anyway. I certainly didn't do any damage. The second room was smaller and is awaiting treatment, the improvement was very noticeable indeed. Switching the EQ repeatedly in and out revealed a number of changes. Fidelity was improved, separation and fine detail was better and vocal ineligibility was improved. Delicate ambient sounds like rain or crickets were far better. Obviously the difference is source dependent, if the source doesn't impinge too much on the problem areas, the difference will be less apparent.

I would urge anyone to take the 5 minutes to run an analysis and see how the room correction works for you. If you don't have an SPL meter and tape measure, you will at least have a decent start point for distance,level and crossover.

The software is by Analog Devices, the guys who provide the SHARC DSP chips. They are very well known in audio circles.

Video processing.

More than anything, I simply wanted to see a transparent pass through, ie when no VP functions are selected. The seems to be the case here.

There is actually a fair bit going on under the hood here that may not be immediately apparent. I'm happy to report that I didn't encounter any nasty surprises. I use 1080 sources almost exclusively, but had a look at some other resolutions to test the scaling clarity. No problems at all. On close inspection, it scales SD-DVD better than the 360, PS3 and a satellite box so it will have it uses. The contrast, brightness and color all work as expected. Noise reduction is more interesting, and yielded some minor improvements with noisy SD material. The normal types are represented here. There is an Edge Enhancement feature too. This has no place with good source material, but did yield a reasonable result with some soft sources, picking out some extra detail. With good stuff, it just looks crazy. People end up with faces that look like they have some serious skin disorder. Every pore looks like a mine shaft.

I have no use for the VP and the fact that its pass through is transparent was all I wanted. Others may differ and benefit from making some "per source" adjustments to the big 3...Brightness, Contrast and Color.

I have no issues whatsoever with the neutral passage of 1080p24. Just make sure you select Auto in the frame rate pull down.

Thats the first part done. I'll try to do the other half tomorrow. I will look at surround performance, legacy AV9 head to head, issues and resolutions, Dolby Volume, network use, etc.


AVR600 Initial impressions, Part II

Before I get into part 2, let me address something I should have earlier. Scaling.

Scaling in the AVR 600 is actually very good. Using the test patterns in DVE, it provided better results than my Toshiba XE1. It also seemed to be on a par with my Oppo 983, which is regarded as the benchmark of players. I'd say, for a receiver, this is a home run. Couple that with the ease of use and Arcam hit it out of the park.

Network use.

Very simple indeed. Connect up an ethernet cable and that's it. I didn't even have to power cycle. The 600 immediately found my 2 PCs and the NAS drive.I also connected a Linn server and after a power cycle it was there and its music available. Using a switching unit I allowed the 600 to tap into my "whole house" distribution system. It found the Kaleidescape servers and was unable to access them, this is exactly as it should be.

Internet radio was already there and very easy to use. There is a huge selection of stations available. I quick visit to a PC with an ID number, direct from the menu, gives you access to the Arcam radio page. This allows you to set up your favorites, name your own genre folders etc. You can also import your own URLs. On the subject of subscription radio, not every format is supported, but I will be onto Arcam regarding that. With the networking I wss initially thinking "this is way too easy". All in all a superb network implementation, and pretty idiot proof.

Dolby Volume

For what little I will write, I spent hours familiarising myself with this and the effect it has on sources. Initially I thought it was horrific, this was primarily due to a factory default setting being set to "insane".

Dolby Volume sets out to achieve 2 things.

Firstly, to balance volume between various program material and different sources. Secondly, to retain the volume balance across the soundsatge when volume is decreased. After spending time with this, I was able to obtain good results. In the main, it achieves what it sets out to. I still feel its not a solution for critical listening, and wouldn't use it on a film I was really interested in.

Audio Testing

This is where the rubber meets the road. Who will be gnashing the teeth and shedding the tears? Firstly I just want to make it very clear that I am in no way interested in any arguments that may arise from my observations. My description of the tests may lead the reader to think that theses tests were carried out in a very short space of time. It actually took 2 people large parts of 3 days and is the main reason for the delay in this part of the test. I cant go into too much detail as the report would run into pages and pages.

The test systems were basically 2 pairs of setups. The first comprised stereo pairs of Dynaudio M4+ and Genelec 1036A monitors. These are very large, very powerful and very accurate quad amped (in the case of the Dynaudio) monitors. The Genelecs are Active tri-amped with each amp calibrated to its driver. 2 Genelec HTS6 subs took care of the bass duties. These 2 systems are dynamic and analytical way beyond that of the normal domestic speaker. The tests were run on the Dynaudios then the Genelecs.

The other pair of systems was a Dynaudio Contour 7.1 arrangement and a Linn Akurate 7.1 system. These are a more reasonable system for a smaller room and would give a good indication of what would be possible in that sort of environment.

I went to the monitors first with a number of sources. I used a Sonos, Apple TV with lossless content, in addition to a CD and SACD transport. Both of the latter were of audiophile quality.On each test we used a matrix switcher so that we could switch instantly from an AV9 to the AVR600. Time prevented us from testing with the Halcro I had hoped to. Next weekend I will run brief tests against the Pioneer Susano LX90. The tests were run in pairs ie Test 1, source 1 and source 2. I sat in the money seat and couldn't see what was going on, The pairs were random and were sometimes the same source. Other than internet radio, the same segments were repeated. this test was carried out in direct mode.
I should say, at this point, I am an owner of 2 AV9s and find it to be a great processor.

First we ran the Sonos with some good quality internet radio (256k and 192k). The tests were done fairly quickly and offered a sequential alteration between sources. I marked down the source that I preferred and why, over a number of runs.This type of test was repeated for Apple, CD and SACD. I took a number of breaks to avoid the ear fatigue that blights critical listening tests.The findings are a result of literally close on 200 runs. I will round the results to the nearest 5% in each case.

In 20% of cases I couldn't tell a difference. Many of those were actually the same source repeated, so I wasn't far off. In the 70% of cases where I could hear a difference, the processor I selected as superior was the AVR600. The sound was simply more detailed with a good bit more separation in the soundstage. Snare cracks and fret noise were better defined, brass had more of its metallic edge. Dance music was incredibly detailed too. It was noticed that the higher quality the source, the easier it was to identify the units more accurately.

A similar regime was used to test surround processing. This time it was the AVR600 as a receiver with the AV9 partnered with a P7. For HD codecs the the AV9 obviously relied on its analog inputs. Sources were the Denon 3800BD for Blu Ray and the Toshiba XE1 for HD-DVD. I was able to hear a difference in 75% of cases. Of those cases 75% were the AVR600. Thats a ratio of 3:1. The sound was more detailed, with effects being localized better when appropriate.Panning was smoother, with the transition to rears being seamless. There was also just that overall sound quality that transfers over from the 2 channel tests.

I have also been made aware that those responsible for voicing the AVR600 actually find it better than the AV9.

I will add this caveat to all the above....Bear in mind the speaker systems that were in use during testing, there is a great range of speaker sonic performance capabilities.

Issues and resolutions.

There are a number of issues with the 600 of differing levels of concern. The 600 is possibly more DSP intense than previous receivers. That also means that some issues can easily be fixed with a firmware update. The list below is not meant to be exhaustive or authoritative.

1. PLIIx would not engage properly........................................Fixed
2. Intermittent 5.1 streams being played as 2.0 with no center....Fixed
3. Gain jump on deselection of room EQ...................Confirmed Fixable
4. Clicks and pops..........................Fault confirmed and given priority
5. Time to sync audio..........................................Being looked into

I hope this helps any reader further understand the AVR600.

PS a new FW u/d is due that addresses 2 of the remaining issues above.

Arcam support has been incredible, with issues normally being fixed within days of reporting. By the time the main batches start to arrive, all the above should have been fixed.

CM,
Thanks a lot for the detailed information and review of the AVR 600. It seems to be a mighty fine product. I am pleasantly surprised by the non-audio features and positives you have mentioned. Arcam is well known for its excellent sound quality but other features like video processing, auto adjustment [Equalization] and network use with positive feedback from you means that this might well be a top dog all-round performer. The upcoming surround sound processor should be excellent based on this architecture and technology. :) Thanks again CM.

Odd that they went with a crystal semiconductor DAC, anyone know which one?Yes, the AVR uses the Crystal (not specified but listed as 24/192). However, the prepro fmj AV888 HD will use Wolfson 8741 DACs "across all 7 channels." 7?!?

Yes, the AVR uses the Crystal (not specified but listed as 24/192). However, the prepro fmj AV888 HD will use Wolfson 8741 DACs "across all 7 channels." 7?!?

Heh - OK you got us Kal :) OK 7.1 or 8 as you see fit!

John Dawson (Arcam)

John,
Congratulations on producing such a fine unit. An outstanding piece indeed.
I look forward to testing the 888 for my main room.

I hope, despite all the changes, you manage to keep the noise floor as low as my AV9s.

The AVR600 uses a Pixel Works PW338-3 video processor with custom Arcam code.

http://agilentpixel.com/product.php?id_product=42

I am not seeing a lot of info on this video processor, does anyone have a link to it being tested?

The arcam seems like a lot of money for what you get, no room correction, unkown DAC's, unknown video processor.

http://www.arcam.co.uk/_docs/avr600e_manual.pdf

E-33;

There is a proprietary automatic loudspeaker setup
function built into your AVR600. The Arcam Auto
Speaker Setup function attempts to set all the essential
speaker settings for all the speakers in your system.
It also calculates room equalisation (Room EQ) filter
values to remove some of the worst effects of resonant
frequencies in the listening room.
Your AVR600 package is supplied with a calibration
microphone, which should be inserted into the AUX jack
socket on the front panel and positioned at the main
listening position. This microphone picks up the special
calibration tones generated by the speakers when Auto
Speaker Setup is run. The AVR600 then analyses the
signal and computes:
< which speakers are present,
< speaker type,
< speaker distance,
< speaker level,
< crossover frequency to the subwoofer (or large front
speakers if no subwoofer is present),
< problem resonant frequencies in the room which
need control by filtering.

Ok what resonant frequencies does it measure and what does it do?

http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/tech_articles/60138323089229SHARC_ART_whitepaper.pdf#xml=http://search.analog.com/search/pdfPainter.aspx?url=http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/tech_articles/60138323089229SHARC_ART_whitepaper.pdf&fterm=room&fterm=correction&fterm=room%20correction&la=en

Does arcam use the SHARC Melody Platform with Auto Room
Tuner (ART) Technology?

Doug,

How much time do you spend on Google each day? We have a chance for a well know and respected manufacturer to chime in on a product that we all are interested in it appears. Don't run them off please...

This unit (new pre pro) has some promise. While others struggle with firmware [ Cary and Marantz ], "debatable" sound quality [ Integra/Onkyo, I like my 9.8 for movies that is, 2 channel is the pits. ] and others are just plain late to the dance [ Meridian, Halcro, Theta, Lexicon ] this could be the first real winner.

Perhaps we can all gain by John's input. I would like to know (other that the DAC implementation) what are the other differences in the AVR and prepro design and how does the auto EQ (room correction I guess) compare to Audyessy?


Peace and love.
mm

Have to agree with mmiles. I am tired of threads I am interested in becoming tense pissing matches at the behest of the same people. Please take it somewhere else.

Thanks CM for the fine review. I am hoping to get a new processor this year that sounds good all around. This may be it. keep the information coming.

2. The video processor is not unknown. It was explained above. If it uses custom code then other tests are not relevant.

I have to disagree here. It's certainly quite testable just as you would any other video processor. Color decoder accuracy, gamma, deinterlacing, etc are all testable parameters.

Ok what resonant frequencies does it measure and what does it do?

You don't know the answer to this already?

There are two ways to do this, you measure in the time domain for frequencies with abnormally long decay vs the typical for that room. Or measure in the amplitude domain for frequencies with exceptionally high amplitudes vs the typical for that room. That's the measurement part.

The implementation part is building a set of convolving filters that addresses these detected resonances and cutting down their severity.

The good implementations don't run above 200-250Hz and don't throw energy into an acoustic null (i.e. cuts only, no gains).

I have to disagree here. It's certainly quite testable just as you would any other video processor. Color decoder accuracy, gamma, deinterlacing, etc are all testable parameters.

John, I never said it wasn't testable, nor did I intend to give that impression.

I, very clearly, stated that if there is custom VP code then results of other tests of the same chip may not be relevant. I'm also not saying that any of that code is actually used to improve VP. I'm just stating that the same chip can be implemented and coded differently.

Look at the best native processing projectors available...they use Pixelworks chips, but have almost entirely "in -house" developed VP software. Thus, a standard test of that chip would not be an indication of how those PJs perform in that area. That was what I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to explain.

I hope that clarifies my earlier post.

cm:

I'm sure your earlier post was perfectly clear, it is quite possible that the interpreter at the keyboard was not ;)

Questions for John Dawson of Arcam-

Did Dolby use the Arcam AVR 600 for the Dolby Volume Demo at Cedia? if so, how did they finagle the dual side surround arrangement with 4 PMC Wafer 2's. They had 4 side surrounds and 2 rear surrounds.

The Blue Ray source is rumored to have been a PS3.

Is the new Arcam AV888 prepro going to have multiple XLR subwoofer outputs vs just 1? Denon has 3, I believe.

Is the new AV888 going to have multiple/4 XLR side surround outs like the Denon AVP?

I presume those 7 Wolfson 8741 Dacs for the 888 are the same as those used in the new Pioneer Elite 09 Blue ray player? Meaning the sound quality should be similar?

and how does the auto EQ (room correction I guess) compare to Audyessy?

Since we do not know which room correction they are using I will go by the analog devices PDF and say that it can only measure and correct for one listening position which is far less then what other room correction devices can do. They should have gone with audyssey or trinnov for this price.

I, very clearly, stated that if there is custom VP code then results of other tests of the same chip may not be relevant. I'm also not saying that any of that code is actually used to improve VP. I'm just stating that the same chip can be implemented and coded differently.

Look at the best native processing projectors available...they use Pixelworks chips, but have almost entirely "in -house" developed VP software. Thus, a standard test of that chip would not be an indication of how those PJs perform in that area. That was what I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to explain.

A video proprocessor can only accomplish what is in its design limitations, software/firmware can tweak it but not change it.

Since we do not know which room correction they are using I will go by the analog devices PDF and say that it can only measure and correct for one listening position which is far less then what other room correction devices can do. /
Why would you just go by the analog devices PDF as a basis for drawing conclusions.

Why would you just go by the analog devices PDF as a basis for drawing conclusions.

Since it was stated that they were using the analog devices room correction I went with what analog devices are saying about their room correction software, simple.

Every time i think that Doug has shown how much of a nit he is... he steps it up.

Thanks for that Doug.

Since we do not know which room correction they are using I will go by the analog devices PDF and say that it can only measure and correct for one listening position.

It does only measure one position. Thats very clear from the manual you have already quoted. Its also clear from my review.

A video proprocessor can only accomplish what is in its design limitations, software/firmware can tweak it but not change it.

Im afraid that statement is fundamentally incorrect. A total rewrite of software can certainly do far more than "tweak". That was the example I gave, and it was to this I referred. The example I gave is testament to that. Im not saying thats the case with the 600, just correcting your post.

Im totally at a loss as to what you are trying to achieve here, other than crap all over another thread. I had hoped that one of the designers, who has previously had to school you, may contribute to the thread, but it looks like that may not happen now, .

Questions for John Dawson of Arcam-

Did Dolby use the Arcam AVR 600 for the Dolby Volume Demo at Cedia? if so, how did they finagle the dual side surround arrangement with 4 PMC Wafer 2's. They had 4 side surrounds and 2 rear surrounds.

The Blue Ray source is rumored to have been a PS3.

Is the new Arcam AV888 prepro going to have multiple XLR subwoofer outputs vs just 1? Denon has 3, I believe.

Is the new AV888 going to have multiple/4 XLR side surround outs like the Denon AVP?

I presume those 7 Wolfson 8741 Dacs for the 888 are the same as those used in the new Pioneer Elite 09 Blue ray player? Meaning the sound quality should be similar?

I believe Dolby used their own code running on a PC at CEDIA - it was too early to run the code ported to the 600 at that time.

3 SW outputs, balanced and unbalanced. 7.1 channels overall.

I googled the Elite 09 and it seems to use WM8740s. That's a very good part (we've been using it for about 7 years in our SD DVD players) - the 8741 is the new flagship part and is better in a number of ways. It's also a lot more expensive :( In any case the DAC used in a design is not the sole arbiter of sound quality - it also depends on the surrounding circuitry, power supplies, PCB layout etc.

HTH.

John Dawson (ARCAM)

PS - I am not the designer of this product family, though I have done a considerable amount of work on it, in particular the power amplifiers. It's a team effort with about 20 man years expended so far........

Thanks for that update John. Good news on the 3 sub outs.

One more question if you don't mind-

I read up on the new Wolfson 8741 dac. It would appear that they have the ability to control volume, presumeably in the digital domain.

Is the volume control for the new 888 based in the digital domain using the control from the Wolfson Dacs or is it a more typical analogue based volume control?

I have read that volume control implimentation plays an important role in overall sound quality, as do those you outlined above, of course. The new SOTA Ayre preamp being a good example of the latest thoughts on volume control.

Thanks for that update John. Good news on the 3 sub outs.

One more question if you don't mind-

I read up on the new Wolfson 8741 dac. It would appear that they have the ability to control volume, presumeably in the digital domain.

Is the volume control for the new 888 based in the digital domain using the control from the Wolfson Dacs or is it a more typical analogue based volume control?

I have read that volume control implimentation plays an important role in overall sound quality, as do those you outlined above, of course. The new SOTA Ayre preamp being a good example of the latest thoughts on volume control.

We have always controlled volume on our AVRs and AVPs in the analogue domain - if you think about it you need to anyway for (legacy) analogue inputs in "direct" mode. I haven't checked how Charlie Hansen does it but knowing him it will be well executed :)

HTH.

John Dawson (Arcam)

Every time i think that Doug has shown how much of a nit he is... he steps it up.

How so?

Im afraid that statement is fundamentally incorrect. A total rewrite of software can certainly do far more than "tweak". That was the example I gave, and it was to this I referred. The example I gave is testament to that. Im not saying thats the case with the 600, just correcting your post.

We will have to wait for a test done with a video benchmark.

Im totally at a loss as to what you are trying to achieve here, other than crap all over another thread. I had hoped that one of the designers, who has previously had to school you, may contribute to the thread, but it looks like that may not happen now, .

Considering that arcam does not ever advertise their product with room correction I think you should be focusing on them.

3 SW outputs, balanced and unbalanced. 7.1 channels overall.

John Dawson (ARCAM)


Can those three SW outputs be setup and EQ'd separately, i.e. in different configurations, such as L/R + LFE?

Thanks.

PS I love my AVP700 / P1000 combo.

Will it have a update to get the over head channel that DTS and DD are coming out with.

Is it truely balanced end to end?

That would be great at that price point.

Is it truely balanced end to end?

That would be great at that price point. Does that mean the DSP has to be balanced?

Does that mean the DSP has to be balanced?

Roger:

If your path is:

DSP --> DAC --> Analog output it seems to me that it's the analog output of the DAC that should be differential (aka balanced).

Roger:

If your path is:

DSP --> DAC --> Analog output it seems to me that it's the analog output of the DAC that should be differential (aka balanced). But that's only the output end, not the input or the middle. Is that what's meant by end-to-end? Sounds more like a conventional differential DAC.

But that's only the output end, not the input or the middle. Is that what's meant by end-to-end? Sounds more like a conventional differential DAC.

But a DSP isn't working on anything but PCM data. At that level I don't see where the concept of differential/balanced really has meaning.

End-to-End implies differential analog input and output stages.

But a DSP isn't working on anything but PCM data. At that level I don't see where the concept of differential/balanced really has meaning.

End-to-End implies differential analog input and output stages.To you (and me), perhaps. There are some "audiophiles" who imagine that, like an analog device, the entire circuitry must be balanced throughout.

But a DSP isn't working on anything but PCM data. At that level I don't see where the concept of differential/balanced really has meaning.

End-to-End implies differential analog input and output stages.Seems to me the term "end-to-end" is therefore not an ideal term in a digital processor. It implies more than it can be.

So the correct answer to mmile's question >>Is it truely balanced end to end? That would be great at that price point.<< would be no, this cannot be done at any price point in a digital processor. It would be better to ask if the analog input and output stages are balanced. That is possible and reasonable.

Seems to me the term "end-to-end" is therefore not an ideal term in a digital processor. It implies more than it can be.

Welcome to audiophilia where miniscule differences are of monumental importance :D

So the correct answer to mmile's question >>Is it truely balanced end to end? That would be great at that price point.<< would be no, this cannot be done at any price point in a digital processor. It would be better to ask if the analog input and output stages are balanced. That is possible and reasonable.

If the output of the DAC(s) enters into a differential/balanced analog section I think it's quite fair to say that the solution is balanced end-to-end.

Welcome to audiophilia where miniscule differences are of monumental importance :D So this little excursion into semantics fits right in. :p

If the output of the DAC(s) enters into a differential/balanced analog section I think it's quite fair to say that the solution is balanced end-to-end. That sounds like any proper balanced output stage. What would be a product that does not so qualify? One that has no polarity inverter on pin3 of the XLR output?

Is there actually a clear distinction to be made between products that support balanced in/out and products that are truely balanced end-to-end? Or is it just lingo?

Of course the digital signal is not "balanced," but many DACs have two analog outputs that are plus and minus, and the signal could either remain balanced through to the analog outputs or combined at some point, as is more often the case. In many designs, the signals are combined using an integrated circuit with differential inputs and a single output, often followed by the analog filter or a part thereof.

So this little excursion into semantics fits right in. :p Sure. It's often half the game.

That sounds like any proper balanced output stage. What would be a product that does not so qualify? One that has no polarity inverter on pin3 of the XLR output? Most consumer equipment, even very expensive and bulky types, have single-ended inputs and outputs.

Is there actually a clear distinction to be made between products that support balanced in/out and products that are truely balanced end-to-end? Or is it just lingo?Again, yes in analog electronics. Some amps/preamps are fully differential with separate signal paths for each phase, from end-to-end. Others have balanced inputs, a single signal path and balanced outputs. There are folks who sneer at the latter. :cool:

Can anyone confirm if the AV888 and the AVR600 will use the same chassis and face plate? I'm going to be using the AVR600 for a while until the AV888 is released. Need to order a Middle Atlantic rack and was hoping I can use the same custom face/shelf when AVR600 eventually replaced with the 888.

Can anyone confirm if the AV888 and the AVR600 will use the same chassis and face plate? I'm going to be using the AVR600 for a while until the AV888 is released. Need to order a Middle Atlantic rack and was hoping I can use the same custom face/shelf when AVR600 eventually replaced with the 888.

There is a preliminary PDF of the 888 available for download from the sister forum in the UK. This question should be put to Arcam UK IMO who are the best people to give you an accurate answer.

There's a rave review of the AVR600 in the Many/June Widescreen Review. It isn't on their website yet, but the reviewer Peter Moncrieff calls it "a stunning advance in the state of the art...a reference benchmark....the finest sound I have heard in my life, from any system. Ever. Anywhere. Regardless of price. Period."

EDIT: I haven't read the whole review, but it is so hyperbolic in its praise that I really question the reviewer's objectivity.

how does this compare with Classe SSP-800?

Does anyone have an update on when the AV 888 is shipping?

Does anyone have an update on when the AV 888 is shipping?

I was told early June by my dealer and Arcam.

There's a rave review of the AVR600 in the Many/June Widescreen Review. It isn't on their website yet, but the reviewer Peter Moncrieff calls it "a stunning advance in the state of the art...a reference benchmark....the finest sound I have heard in my life, from any system. Ever. Anywhere. Regardless of price. Period."

EDIT: I haven't read the whole review, but it is so hyperbolic in its praise that I really question the reviewer's objectivity.

I can't seem to find a copy around here.. sucks. Any chance you can scan the article and email it to me ? :o

No pressure.. thought I would ask...:cool:

There's a rave review of the AVR600 in the Many/June Widescreen Review. It isn't on their website yet, but the reviewer Peter Moncrieff calls it "a stunning advance in the state of the art...a reference benchmark....the finest sound I have heard in my life, from any system. Ever. Anywhere. Regardless of price. Period."

Maybe Pete got a review sample for 65-70% (can't sell it for 12 months) off MSRP. :D

Maybe Pete got a review sample for 65-70% (can't sell it for 12 months) off MSRP. :D

I think reviewers normally get equipment on loan. But his praise for the unit is so over-the-top effusive that I suspect he will get compensated in some fashion. I now recall that the same reviewer did what I think of as the "holy guacamole" review of the AVR350.

I think reviewers normally get equipment on loan. But his praise for the unit is so over-the-top effusive that I suspect he will get compensated in some fashion. I now recall that the same reviewer did what I think of as the "holy guacamole" review of the AVR350.

I doubt that.. that would seriously discredit the magazine

Yes they do get equipment on loan for months at a time but they also get some smoking deals too... ;)

Yes they do get equipment on loan for months at a time but they also get some smoking deals too... ;)

I'm sure they get stuff on loan for long periods of time but I don't think that influences the reviewer. In my personal experience with the AVR600, it's the best I've heard. Can't say I disagree with the review. :)

I doubt that.. that would seriously discredit the magazine

No need to be so defensive. I'm not saying the AVR600 isn't the best thing since sliced bread. Perhaps it is, and perhaps not. To me personally, the jury is still out, though, because the review is written in a way that makes it simply less than credible.

It is now on their website, so here's an example of what i mean:

The bass from the AVR600 is so high in
quality and authority that, even driving conventional full-range loudspeakers,
it surpassed the quality and controlled authority of the best
I have heard from any and all dynamic subwoofers.
When you delete the subwoofer from the AVR600 setup menu, it
can spread the LFE .1 channel among all your large full-range loudspeakers...

Now, I have to ask, for people that don't use a sub, is the ability to route LFE to the other speakers unique to Arcam? The reviewer claims that "for the first time I heard bass from my system that obviated the need for any
added dynamic subwoofer"...I don't know if that claim is true, but if it is, perhaps he hasn't tried routing LFE to his 802Ds before, with other receivers or prepros?

His conclusion included this:

....You want to get the
AVR600 if you want surround space that is 10 times larger and much
better defined and more believable than you have ever heard before....

Surround space 10 times larger? That sort of hyperbole makes the reviewer less believable, at least to this reader.

No need to be so defensive. I'm not saying the AVR600 isn't the best thing since sliced bread. Perhaps it is, and perhaps not. To me personally, the jury is still out, though, because the review is written in a way that makes it simply less than credible..

:mad:DEFENSIVE! - ROAR!!:mad: j/k! :)

Seriously,

The review references bass. When I heard first this thing, I was there to audition a Krell S1000 vs the B&K Ref70 at my local dealer. I was looking for something to replace my Cary 11a.

I saw the Arcam there but it wasn't a consideration for me because it was a receiver and I was looking for a prepro. However, the Arcam was connected to a pair of Focal 1027's so I was curious how they sounded. The salesman played a few scenes from Master and Commander and I was blown away. He had the Arcam setup for 2 channel full range to the Focals (no sub). I asked the salesman to connect the same speakers to both the Krell and the Ref 70 so I could compare. Neither the Krell or the B&K came close.... the bass was incredible. PUNCH in the gut is what comes to mind.

When I finally got this baby home, the Arcam controlled my subs like to no prepro has in the past. I was getting clean, controlled bass with the tactical response I've been searching for.

A fellow AVS member stopped by for an audition. One of the first questions he asked me after listening... "do you have Butt Shakers in these seats?" No I do not.. :) I replied.

All I can say is, if you're able, try to audition one at your local dealer. I do plan to trade this up for the av888 when it's released so I'm using the preouts for now and I'm very happy.

All I can say is, if you're able, try to audition one at your local dealer. I do plan to trade this up for the av888 when it's released so I'm using the preouts for now and I'm very happy.

Thanks for your input. Based on your opinion and others like coldmachine's, but not Peter Moncrieff's, the 888 will be on the list to audition once I build a room.

Seems odd that the Arcam would have so much more bass. The difference between it and the other two should not be that great in that way. Frankly, it sounds like a setting may have been different -- maybe all the fronts were running full range in addition to the sub w/the Arcam? The Onkyo 9.8 has a 'double bass' setting that does this. Meridian can be configured this way as well.

Seems odd that the Arcam would have so much more bass. The difference between it and the other two should not be that great in that way. Frankly, it sounds like a setting may have been different -- maybe all the fronts were running full range in addition to the sub w/the Arcam? The Onkyo 9.8 has a 'double bass' setting that does this. Meridian can be configured this way as well.

I don't think "more" bass would be a fair statement. Controlled and accurate bass might be a better statement. You hear and feel the bass when expected where some processors seem to drop the ball here.