Any news or sightings at CES of the Anthem receiver(s) that was mentioned at CEDIA?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbc /forum/post/0
Why [is the MRX-500/700 better when using] "iPod" as a source? I thought the 300 had the same iPod connectivity/functionality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PGriff1051 /forum/post/19459189
Don't get me wrong, the 4810 is a nice unit with regards to features: audyssey, video processing, internet firmware updates, options to switch decoding modes via remote, but the sound of the Anthem is much better. Definately more dynamic (never been fond of the AL24 processing) and with ARC the soundstage is better and mids are much clearer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbc /forum/post/19460015
Agree on the USB (though most bluray players have this functionality build in).
Quote:
Originally Posted by favorini /forum/post/19460946
I have a Sub 12 with PBK and am planning to get the MRX 500 or 700. So I'm wondering whether it's better to run PBK and then ARC, or just ARC. I've heard two schools of thought:
1) Run PBK, then ARC, because PBK will fix the sub response and allow ARC to dedicate more resources to higher frequencies on the other speakers.
2) Just run ARC, because 3.0 does the lower frequencies well (same as PBK?) and you don't want multiple layers of digital processing if you can avoid it.
Any comments on this, especially from Nick? Might it depend on how much correction is need for the sub? I.e., if a lot, better to run PBK+ARC, if not much, just ARC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick @ Anthem /forum/post/19460875
One difference is that MRX allows not only flash stick but hard drive as well. When big name 1 TB drives sell for what 16 GB flash sticks did less than a year ago I'd say it's advantageous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by favorini /forum/post/19460946
I have a Sub 12 with PBK and am planning to get the MRX 500 or 700. So I'm wondering whether it's better to run PBK and then ARC, or just ARC. I've heard two schools of thought:
1) Run PBK, then ARC, because PBK will fix the sub response and allow ARC to dedicate more resources to higher frequencies on the other speakers.
2) Just run ARC, because 3.0 does the lower frequencies well (same as PBK?) and you don't want multiple layers of digital processing if you can avoid it.
Any comments on this, especially from Nick? Might it depend on how much correction is need for the sub? I.e., if a lot, better to run PBK+ARC, if not much, just ARC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony A. /forum/post/19461031
and to add to that comment, if one uses audyssey sub eq (svs as-eq1) to help out with multiple subs, should this be run before ARC?
also, how does ARC do natively when using 2 or more separate subs within a system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony A. /forum/post/19461031
and to add to that comment, if one uses audyssey sub eq (svs as-eq1) to help out with multiple subs, should this be run before ARC?
also, how does ARC do natively when using 2 or more separate subs within a system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gostan /forum/post/19461140
I was not able to make a direct comparison, but at initial glance, it appeared to me that the readout on the lcd face of the MRX receiver has larger letters/numerals than the AVM's and D2. For my older eyes, this is a welcome bonus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noxdowne /forum/post/19461415
So Nick in a summary, ARC in the MRX is a more accurate correction system than XT32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick @ Anthem /forum/post/19461314
With MRX and one sub - it depends on the room/speaker combo. You have to try and compare. PBK has twice the number crunching ability that ARC sub channel does, MRX-wise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick @ Anthem /forum/post/19460875
One difference is that MRX allows not only flash stick but hard drive as well. When big name 1 TB drives sell for what 16 GB flash sticks did less than a year ago I'd say it's advantageous. Browse by song, album, artist, playlist, or folder. It's quick too, except when there are a thousand things in the view and a one-time indexing is needed. If cover art is embedded in the file it shows on-screen when the song is played, except with MRX 300.
Since there are two USB ports, a big drive might be connected to the back panel with the front USB left open for other random mass storage devices or multimedia section software update. Both jacks can be used at the same time. Something not always seen on receivers with multimedia capabilities is seamless integration - it won't feel like you're switching to another device with generic graphics when using USB, internet radio, or iPod dock, and that's because of in-house design.
Wav up to 96 kHz is supported. Flac is not (might change via software some day - no promises) but then with memory this cheap it hardly takes more than "select all and drag" into Flac Frontend to convert everything back to wav.
-----------------------
Summary of feature or functional differences between the three models:
MRX 500 vs 300: Bigger power supply and transformer (still EI), USB, internet radio, and when optional MDX 1 iPod dock comes out, digital tap, faster navigation, longer file name display, album art.
MRX 700 vs 500: Toroidal transformer, HD Radio, RDS.
ARC and preamp and video sections are the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by favorini /forum/post/19461492
Just to clarify, if correction of the sub channel is "offloaded" to PBK, does that free up a corresponding number DSP resources to handle the other frequencies or are there fixed resources per channel or frequency range that will just go unused if no correction is needed in their domain? In other words, is there one big pool of correction resources (DSP) used across all channels/frequencies as needed, or is it partitioned in some way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PGriff1051 /forum/post/19461553
Nick,
Are there any plans to use the Lan port currently used for internet radio as a media player like Denon, Marantz etc. Being able to use more than a flash drive is great but it requires hooking and unhooking the drive to the computer to update files.
Would a NAS solve that or is that just Lan based as well
Thanks for any info
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP /forum/post/19459683
I'm pretty sure the question that many of us want to know is that if they're intending to use an Anthem receiver as a prepro, are there any advantages in going with the 700 over say the 300?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick @ Anthem /forum/post/19461689
It was considered, as was WiFi, but after surveying dealers and installers it was all decided against. The short answer... just leave it to the well known outboard boxes which can be connected as a source. They'll always be getting more features and price drops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick @ Anthem /forum/post/19461494
I do not know of any controlled tests that would answer this or any similar question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noxdowne /forum/post/19462191
Nobody has thought to compare the two "best" systems out there head to head to see which one does a better job?
Thats mindboggling.
I can get head to head comparisons on pretty much any consumer product in existance, but not on this.....
I just want to know if my 2k is better spent on a denon with 11.2 or a anthem with 7.1.
I am using external amplification and I want a good sound processor to fine tune my DIY speakers.
Does the 300 use the same sound processing as the 700?
Jeff