The entire reason for a processor rather than a receiver?What am I missing here?
Apples and oranges. You should not compare a dedicated processor with a receiver having to squeeze in 11 or 13 channels of amplications in the same chassis and all sharing the same power supply. Also the DAC used in processors like these will be considerably better so the potential argument of using a receiver as a processor and it being just as good does not hold.13.2 processing, but with no amplification, with all three sound formats supported, it's still £100 more than a Denon X8500, which has everything this has, plus full amplification on every channel.
"It boasts support for Dolby Atmos, DTS:X and Auro-3D, making it the only model that can handle all three immersive audio formats at anything approaching a sensible price."
What am I missing here?
The entire reason for a processor rather than a receiver?
Apples and oranges. You should not compare a dedicated processor with a receiver having to squeeze in 11 or 13 channels of amplications in the same chassis and all sharing the same power supply. Also the DAC used in processors like these will be considerably better so the potential argument of using a receiver as a processor and it being just as good does not hold.
The big upgrade on the arcam Av860 processor) over the 850 (AVR) was the the XLR PRE OUTS. Which gave the sonic improvement in lower noise floor.Not to call you out but even if I accepted your overall premise (which I don't) it's utterly wrong in this case.
The DAC's in the 8500 are the exact same AK4490's that the Marantz uses. You can pre out every channel on the Denon so avoiding the amplification stage if you want and use the exact same DAC's. The only vague argument you might have is that the design of the electronics and the proximity of the amplification circuitry MIGHT affect things. Personally I very very much doubt it.
The more I read about this unit and the more I think about this review the more irrationally angry I get both by the review and by the unit itself.
G
Yes, I say so in the second paragraph of the intro.Just wondering if this supports eARC
The big upgrade on the arcam Av860 processor) over the 850 (AVR) was the the XLR PRE OUTS. Which gave the sonic improvement in lower noise floor.
Think the same is true of the 8805 over AVRs in the Marantz Denon range.
Kevin
Check out the home cinemachoice review of the Arcam AV860. Has this quote:
“I did a side-by-side comparison of the AVR850 via its phono outputs and the AV860 via XLR (using Constellation Audio power amps and Wilson Audio speakers). What was immediately apparent was how superior the AV860 was. It had a depth and clarity that surpassed the receiver. The experience was similar switching to the AV860's phono outputs. You really will want to partner this with XLR hardware.”
Read more at Arcam AV860 AV processor review
Steve is this your experience with 8805?
Kevin
When it comes to audio equipment, it's worth looking at what the pros use in their environments. They don't use diamond encrusted speaker cables and power cords, they use regular off the shelf items like most of the rest of us. They do however use XLR wherever possible because there is a difference in the signals integrity when compared to RCA. They don't care about 'psychobabble' in recording studios, everything has to have proven itself to be genuinely beneficial before it's used.
I will admit that the benefits of XLR are only really noticable over longer distances and therefore are of limited value to most home users. Your unlikely to benefit if your power amp is sitting on top of your processor connected by a 1m cable, but place your power amps beside your speakers with 10m+ cables and that's where you will definitely want XLR cables. It's a niche within a niche but there are people who will benefit from an AV processor over an AVR.
Ps. Room correction cannot correct for errors in the input signal. Once the errors there, you cannot remove it.
I thought the ongoing discussion is about why anyone would pay so much more for a processor when they could buy a cheaper AVR and connect their amps to that. Balanced audio circuits are the primary reason. I'm definitely not a cable guy but to suggest that balanced connections are a fallacy is completely wrong. You seem to know how they work so I'm not sure why you cannot get your head around the advantages of in-built error correction. I will agree with you that in the home environment most people are unlikely to notice any difference between a processor and an AVR but I'm thankful that products such as this exist as it gives us the consumer choices.Not going to go into a deep discussion on this primarily because it's an expertise all of itself but also because it's not in any way relevant to this discussion as we're not talking about a balanced connection here.
And how does Dirac know about these issues? Room correction, as the name implies, is designed to correct for the rooms response hence why it is run during set up. The calibration mic is then disconnected and it has no idea what is happening acoustically from that point onward. You could move your seating position, rearrange furniture etc. Dirac cannot compensate for this because it doesn't know until it is run again. Just the same as it doesn't know your picking up interference everytime your heating switches on or your fridge door opens, these errors are not constant and so cannot be treated by room correction. Again I will reiterate that most people won't notice a difference, but there are some people who will benefit from this in-built error correction.If the signal weakens, you get phase or timing issues or you get a drop off of DB's in a few frequency ranges then Dirac can correct it.
I thought the ongoing discussion is about why anyone would pay so much more for a processor when they could buy a cheaper AVR and connect their amps to that. Balanced audio circuits are the primary reason. I'm definitely not a cable guy but to suggest that balanced connections are a fallacy is completely wrong. You seem to know how they work so I'm not sure why you cannot get your head around the advantages of in-built error correction. I will agree with you that in the home environment most people are unlikely to notice any difference between a processor and an AVR but I'm thankful that products such as this exist as it gives us the consumer choices.
And how does Dirac know about these issues? Room correction, as the name implies, is designed to correct for the rooms response hence why it is run during set up. The calibration mic is then disconnected and it has no idea what is happening acoustically from that point onward. You could move your seating position, rearrange furniture etc. Dirac cannot compensate for this because it doesn't know until it is run again. Just the same as it doesn't know your picking up interference everytime your heating switches on or your fridge door opens, these errors are not constant and so cannot be treated by room correction. Again I will reiterate that most people won't notice a difference, but there are some people who will benefit from this in-built error correction.
To perhaps end or move the XLR vs RCA debate see
Question - Phono or xlr
Conclusion from thread seems to be if you have XLR might as well use them. Improvement if any seems to be system dependent. My meridian 271 has 4 multichannel inputs RCA. XLR, trinov digital, storm digital. Plus Meridian Speakerlink 2 channel. The suggestion is as you progress up the processors in terms of quality you progress up the connections, perhaps because you can.
Kevin