Processor Shootout Arcam AV9, Lexicon MC12, Proceed AVP2, Upgrade Company Onkyo SC885

[welwynnick]

This is the thread that I’ve been looking forwards to all year, but I’ve been in several minds about what to call it.

1. Processor Shootout: Arcam AV9, Lexicon MC12, Proceed AVP2, Upgrade Company Onkyo SC885 Or:
2. Which is most important: Playback, Decoding, Conversion, or Amplification? Or:
3. How to Build the Best-Sounding System for the Least Money. Or:
4. Can an AV System Really Play Music?

I did a final year project on HiFi during my final year studying electronics and physics at university, worked in a high-end HiFi shop for a while, and I’ve been into electronic systems, audio and more recently video, ever since. I haven’t stopped learning about HiFi in twenty years, and I’m not about to stop, but a few things are falling into place now. Its been my ambition to get a system together this year that would perform well with both movies and music.

But how to go about it? There’s always lots of advice – advertising, reviews, tests, user feedback etc, but I found myself trusting less and less of the increasing amounts of information available. To find the answers that I wanted to know, I found I had to beg, steal or borrow equipment and use it for myself in order to make up my mind.

DISPLAYS:
Pioneer 42" 1080p plasma
Epson TW5000 projector

SOURCES:
Luxman PD300 / Alphason HR100S / AT OC9
Sky HD
Meridian 200 CDP
Meridian 263 DAC
Pioneer DV-79AVI
Samsung BDP1200
LG BH200
Denon 2500BTCI
Upgraded Denon 3800BDCI

AMPLIFIERS:
Sony DA9000ES MC Integrated
Pioneer SC-07 MC Integrated
Magnum IA 125 Stereo Integrated
Arcam AV9 processor
Lexicon MC12 processor
Proceed AVP-2 processor
Upgraded Onkyo PR-SC885 processor
Arcam FMJ P7
2 x Lynx Stratos monoblocks
2 DIY ICEPower 500ASP monoblocks

SPEAKERS:
Final HT80 electrostatics 5.1
Acoustic Energy Aegis Evo3 5.1
Acoustat Spectra 1100 electrostatics 2.0
Musical Fidelity MC4 2.0

SUBS:
Rythmik Direct Servo DS12
Velodyne HGS-15
Behringer DSP-1124 BFD / REW / RS 33-4050


So by fair means or foul, I’ve acquired a big pile of equipment, and I need to decide what to keep and what to get rid of (out of urgent necessity). I will start other threads about blu-ray players and power amplifiers, but this one is about audio pre-amp/processors.

Despite great experience with a Sony DA9000ES integrated amp, I think processors are central to a high-quality system. But how to chose the right solution from a system-level viewpoint? And how to reconcile the needs for good stereo and music performance with multi-channel AV? And what’s the right architecture to chose? A digital hub that would handle all the current digital audio sources would be very convenient, but I keep hearing how analogue interfaces can perform better than digital with high-end equipment. So maybe a high-quality legacy processor fed by a player with great analogue audio outputs is the way? Or maybe I need to hedge my options, and cater for all sources?

I did a player and processor shoot-out that I described in AVForums earlier this year, and I learned a great deal, but I didn’t have all the big players available then. This time I have some of the pretenders to the title of the best processor (except for the big ticket candidates). The Arcam and Proceed in particular have a great reputation for stereo performance. I was persuaded to get them solely by Zissou’s classic thread in AVS. The Lexicon is well known and I think it sounds great. The upgraded Onkyo is threatening to upset the apple-cart, but the Upgrade Company has an unusual business approach that many people have difficulty accepting. They claim their signature edition products can match any stock equipment at any price, which is a lofty claim that most cynic observers find hard to swallow. Especially those that maintain that all electronics sound alike when you do proper DBT tests. If you subscribe to that view, please stop reading now.

I wanted to put these claims to the test, and I’m concentrating on music performance. This seems to be the most difficult thing to get right. Some people believe that you need a certain type of sound for music (perhaps softer and more harmonic) and a different type for cinema (maybe more exaggerated and aggressive). I don’t really agree with that. Soft music sounds soft to me, and aggressive AV sound just sounds aggressive, and I don’t like either. I don’t believe it’s the responsibility of the system to create a type or style of sound – that’s the producer’s job. The system should replay what its been given, and most systems fall short of this, but do so in different ways that gives rise to discussion of style

So I’m going to listen to TV, CD, SACD, DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray material and give my view on which processors do it best. I’ll compare them with digital and analogue audio sources, in 16-bit and 24-bit formats, compresed and lossless, LPCM and bitstream, and see how they work out. In particular, I will try to get reviews from as many other interested people as I can as well. Processors don’t lend themselves to portability as they are so difficult to set-up, but I’ll see what I can do. I have a friend with a stock Onkyo SC886, which will be interesting to compare as a baseline (one that I’m very familiar with). This will take some time to do, so please be patient with my typing.

I don’t know what the answers are yet, so it’s going to be interesting!

Regards, Nick

[rded]

I will subscribe to this!!! Thanks Nick!

[naturephoto1]

Nick,

From experience, I know that this will take some time and effort. I look forward to the reported findings by you and others that will participate in these sessions in the UK.

Rich

[Johnny Vinyl]

This is definately a thread to subscribe to. I have a feeling there will be lots of opinion and discussion taking place in the posts to come. Perhaps I might even to able to learn a thing or two or three.....

John

[naturephoto1]

Hi Nick,

As far as some things to consider, in order to make the tests fair and equal, the following should be followed:

1) use identical power cords for the units being compared
2) use identical ICs for the units being compared
3) adjust the volume output of the units so that they are equal
4) When comparing players, even though they may differ for each disk copy as I have read like vinyl; use identical disks as the source for comparison. You may have to then switch the disk between the machines when you test players.

Rich

[Slec]

Originally Posted by naturephoto1

Hi Nick,

As far as some things to consider, in order to make the tests fair and equal, the following should be followed:

1) use identical power cords for the units being compared
2) use identical ICs for the units being compared
3) adjust the volume output of the units so that they are equal
4) When comparing players, even though they may differ for each disk copy as I have read like vinyl; use identical disks as the source for comparison. You may have to then switch the disk between the machines when you test players.

Rich

Great advice... if possible for some blind testing, that's even better, but I know that can be tough...

maybe do some work ahead of time with volume matching information written on a sheet with the equipment.

No pretty packed away stuff for these types of tests, put everything out in the open so that changing stuff around is easier.... man am i jealous

[THE_FORCE]

This should be interesting Nick.

[Clark Kent]

A very interesting topic that I will be watching closely.

[welwynnick]

Right - first few impressions, but they are only preliminary and not yet conclusive. I need to spend more time and try different material, speakers and cables.

Rather than build up progressively, I went right in a the deep end and set-up the Proceed. Phew. I played some CDs via sdpif and analogue, and compared it to the upgraded Onkyo. The source in each case was the upgraded 3800BD.

I think there were more similarities than differences. In both cases the digital inputs were a bit more detailed and up front, and the soundstage a bit flatter than analogue. I think the Onkyo was a bit more transparent, more resolving in complex pasages, had a bit more of everything, but it was a slim distinction.

Analogue in both cases seemed a bit band-limited, down-tilted and less obviously detailed, but was more natural and less forced. The soundstage had rather more depth and I could hear the bottom of the music, rather than being confronted by the peaks on the outside, so to speak. Overall, I preferred analogue to digital in both cases, but I would still switch backwards and forwards in due course.

At this point I'm not sure I could tell the difference between them over analogue, though thats not such a great surprise. One of my over-riding impressions from my previous shootout is that the audio quality is really defined and characterised by whatever is doing the D to A conversion. So I was probably listening to the difference between the player and the processors.

My overall impressions were very positive, and I think both processors were significantly more transparent than the stock Onkyo, and probably more controlled and restrained than the surprisingly exuberent Lexicon. Sometimes I thought the Proceed had a bit more pace than the Onkyo, and fell between that and the Lexicon in presentation, but it didn't seem to be repeatable.

Most of all, I think I need to get away from night-time listening so that I don't have to play quietly for fear of waking the kids.

BR, Nick

[naturephoto1]

Hi Nick,

Thanks for the initial impressions. I would like to comment that considering the reputation of the Onkyo 885 for music, that your observations indicate that the upgrade has made a substantial improvement in this area for both the analog and the digital side. For myself, I too prefer the analog presentation of the unit to the digital. However, and I have not compared it that closely, I do not know if it is less resolved for the analog versus the digital presentation. From my impressions the digital side sounds more "digital" and the analog side sounds more natural and "real".

Rich

[welwynnick]

Hi Rich,

I recall your comments about the comparison of the stock and upgraded Onkyos, but I think I’m probably a harsher critic of the stock unit than you. Its not bad, and it does have its own sonic attributes such as neutrality, and its failures are those of omission rather than addition, so it plays safe. However, I think it struggles to improve on the better current receivers such as the SC-07 (which I also have). I don’t have a stock 885/6 to hand at the moment, but I have some plans to compare them soon. I actually think that won’t prove much – the audible improvement is so great that even memory is sufficient to distinguish them, let alone a side-by-side comparison.

No, I wanted to compare it with the best processors, and get a measure of the improvement, not merely confirmation that there is some improvement. That’s why I went to the not inconsiderable trouble and expense of buying a Proceed AVP2 for this comparison, as I considered this to be the gold standard for processors (for music at least). I don’t think too many people will argue with that, so if I can show that the Onkyo matches up to the Proceed, then it will have gone from the bottom of the class to the top. The upgraded Denon 3800 sounds very good for sure, but that started from an altogether higher level, and didn’t have such a mountain to climb.

This brings me to the issue with system building. I thought the analogue inputs sounded very similar, and in fairness neither processor is actually doing much – line level in and line level out. People buy the 885/6 because it does both HBR decoding and D to A conversion, which is quite a big nut to crack, and difficult and expensive to do well. But players can also do that, so there is some redundancy, which begs the question about where in the system it should done? This is why I was asking David and you SOOO many questions before I bought the gear, and I’m only just beginning to work out the answers.

The problem is that cheap BD players can bitstream native audio and video to the Onkyo and achieve great results. Equally, the 3800 SE can feed analogue audio to a legacy processor like the Proceed, and also achieve great results. I would rather use digital connections with the Onkyo, as then all my sources can benefit from its performance (and believe me, even TV sounds great). But that may not achieve the best possible performance, and a couple of tests performed so far suggest analogue connections are still best. This is consistent with several comments in the BD players’ forum. And in the big scheme of things, $2000 isn’t too much for a legacy processor with that level of performance, let alone a really great HMDI processor. So which is the best way?

I don’t know yet.

Nick

[naturephoto1]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

Hi Rich,

I recall your comments about the comparison of the stock and upgraded Onkyos, but I think I’m probably a harsher critic of the stock unit than you. Its not bad, and it does have its own sonic attributes such as neutrality, and its failures are those of omission rather than addition, so it plays safe. However, I think it struggles to improve on the better current receivers such as the SC-07 (which I also have). I don’t have a stock 885/6 to hand at the moment, but I have some plans to compare them soon. I actually think that won’t prove much – the audible improvement is so great that even memory is sufficient to distinguish them, let alone a side-by-side comparison.

No, I wanted to compare it with the best processors, and get a measure of the improvement, not merely confirmation that there is some improvement. That’s why I went to the not inconsiderable trouble and expense of buying a Proceed AVP2 for this comparison, as I considered this to be the gold standard for processors (for music at least). I don’t think too many people will argue with that, so if I can show that the Onkyo matches up to the Proceed, then it will have gone from the bottom of the class to the top. The upgraded Denon 3800 sounds very good for sure, but that started from an altogether higher level, and didn’t have such a mountain to climb.

This brings me to the issue with system building. I thought the analogue inputs sounded very similar, and in fairness neither processor is actually doing much – line level in and line level out. People buy the 885/6 because it does both HBR decoding and D to A conversion, which is quite a big nut to crack, and difficult and expensive to do well. But players can also do that, so there is some redundancy, which begs the question about where in the system it should done? This is why I was asking David and you SOOO many questions before I bought the gear, and I’m only just beginning to work out the answers.

The problem is that cheap BD players can bitstream native audio and video to the Onkyo and achieve great results. Equally, the 3800 SE can feed analogue audio to a legacy processor like the Proceed, and also achieve great results. I would rather use digital connections with the Onkyo, as then all my sources can benefit from its performance (and believe me, even TV sounds great). But that may not achieve the best possible performance, and a couple of tests performed so far suggest analogue connections are still best. This is consistent with several comments in the BD players’ forum. And in the big scheme of things, $2000 isn’t too much for a legacy processor with that level of performance, let alone a really great HMDI processor. So which is the best way?

I don’t know yet.

Nick

Hi Nick,

My comment was in part in response to that thread on AVS that I would be happy to forget. I was just reiterating the point of the upgraded versus the stock unit. I did not wish to be too hard on the stock units because I suspect that many would question my observations. This was also part of my point of the long running thread here on Blu-ray.com.

Additionally, when the upgraded Onkyo 885 was compared in the listening sessions at the Upgrade Company facilities both in July of 2008 and June of 2009 we were comparing the upgraded Onkyo 885 to the much much more expensive 2 channel Preamps for the purpose of playing music to just indicate the level of the unit's performance.

In the case of either the Proceed AVP2 or the upgraded Onkyo 885 they are doing the work of a 2 channel Preamp when used with analog input for the purpose of listening to music.

Rich

[richteer]

Interesting reading, Nick!

[thezaks]

Hi Nick,

I'm not familiar with the AVP2, as I've never heard one. Apparently, it is quite known for its 2 channel analog performance. I have an Arcam AV8, so I look forward to your comparison of the upgraded Onkyo vs. your AV9 (both analog and digital), because that will give me a little idea of where I can go from here. I know this is probably going to take quite a bit of time, so no rush.

I previously had a Pass Labs X1 preamp and a Cary SLP-05 preamp, but I now use the AV8 as a preamp, which is definitely a drop in performance. I'm told that the new Arcam AV888 has better analog performance than the AV9, but it's also pricey. I'm hoping that maybe an upgraded Onkyo would help me recover some of the performance I lost going from my two-channel preamps to the AV8.

Dave just shipped my Pioneer BDP-05FD SE player, so I should see it next week and get a good sampling of his upgrades.

Thanks for the great info!
Dave

[naturephoto1]

Hi Nick,

One thing I forget to mention is that the Onkyo 885 units (stock and upgraded) should be in the Pure Audio Mode for the best audio performance. You should notice a difference in the performance. In this mode no added circuitry or processing will be used by the machine.

Rich

[welwynnick]

Hmmm, this reviewing stuff is hard work, at least while it’s not my day job. Setting up takes a long time; there are so many things to get wrong. The Onkyo is relatively straightforward, and even though I’m familiar with it, I had a hard time even getting analogue audio out of it. There are so many settings and connections that may be right or wrong, so I compiled a list for the record:

1. Listening mode
2. Digital input
3. Audio select
4. Pure audio
5. Monitor out
6. Input assign
7. Audio TV output
8. TV control enable
9. HDMI control
10. Speaker settings
11. Muting
12. Headphones
13. Zone 2/3 output
14. Record out
15. Bi-amp output
16. Power amp
17. Interconnects
18. Not to mention other pitfalls like 3800 LFE output level or auto DRC on the 885 L
19. And yes, I do use pure audio mode on the 885 J

And each processor has its own way of doing things, of course. It’s difficult to fit listening in around the family, so I've decided to split the system and have a separate review system in a different room. This should give some more flexibility, and I'm free to use the best speakers. Don't know why I didn't think of that before.

I haven’t fired up the Arcam yet, but I’m keen to do so, as it’s a keeper prospect. It has HDMI video switching, which is convenient, and most important of all, there’s a multi-channel audio input. The AVP-2 doesn’t have that, although there’s an AVP-2 +6 version that does have this, and is worth rather more. Realistically, the Proceed is in the frame because it’s the sound quality yardstick. Without multi-channel inputs, I can't keep it, even if the best system sound came from the 3800 SE plus AVP-2 with analogue connections.

Dave, I look forwards to hearing what you think of your Pioneer!

Nick

[richteer]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

Hmmm, this reviewing stuff is hard work [...]

It is! I working on a review for my speakers right now, and I'm having a devil of a time adequately conveying what I'm hearing. Oh well, practice makes perfect!

[welwynnick]

So today I finally did what I should have done all along, and split my kit into a video system in one room and an audio system in another. Although I want to achieve an AV system that can play music well, I want to listen to kit independantly of the rest of the family, so I tore everything down and set up the following in the second room:

Denon 3800 turbo
Arcam AV9
Onkyo 885 turbo
Arcam P7
Final Sound HT80's
Velo HGS-15

On this occasion I used the Final rear speakers for stereo duty, as these seemed to sound better than the fronts for some reason. After a poor experience with a 2.1 configuration with the Velodyne (my Rythmik is still being re-varnished) I now used high-level connections to the Velo, and this was more successful. The sub still couldn't keep up with the weightless Finals, but I felt I was gaining balance rather than losing transparency this way.

Anyway, this was an opportunity with a better-optimised system to try out the Arcam AV9. Using analogue connections, I thought it sounded clean, transparent, musical and perhaps a bit softer than I had been used to. This soon wore off though, and it just seemed natural and well-balanced. This was my first experience with the AV9, and it lived up to its reputation. Since it had HDMI video switching and a 5.1 analogue input, this would be a great AV system solution. I had been speculating for some time that a 3800/AV9 combo might make a better system than a bitstreaming player and a new processor.

Although I STILL haven't heard the 885 turbo with bitstreamed DTS MA (which I'm very much looking forwards to) I thought the Onkyo was more than up to the match. Good as the Arcam was (and I would be very happy with it in isolation) the Onkyo seemd to dig deeper into the music and extract a bit more of everything. It was detailed without being exagerated, pacy without being impatient, relaxed without being boring, and responsive to the mood of the music. The Arcam seemed to want to play in a certain way, and tended to stop short of anything that was shocking or challenging. Although none of the differences were huge, I thought the Onkyo had an ability to menace or startle where called upon, while the Arcam kept it safe.

I don't like the tendency of equipment to impose their character on music. It always annoyed me that Linn, Naim or Exposure equipment always seemed to play percussion the same way, like there was a cow-bell sound being applied to everything percussive, a strange sort of pushed / rhythmic / artificial dynamic. Neither do I like the analytical Audiolab / Tag / Bryston approach: detail at all costs, but no coherent re-assembly of the music. The Onkyo seems to be transparent to the artistic intent as well as the technical detail.

From time to time I think I noticed the Onkyo playing music slower than something else (Proceed or Arcam), and wondered if I liked that. It was a transient impression though, and livlier music dispelled that impression. The Denon and Onkyo get all the information and put it back into something that makes emotional sense. So far, I'm very happy indeed, and the Onkyo turbo in particular is so convenient. It will display a GUI on the HDMI output to a projector at the same time as processing, transcoding and switching every digital and analogue, audio and video signal as well as any single-function box. A master of all trades, without being that expensive.

Nick

[thezaks]

Nick,

Thanks so much for your comparisons of the AV9 with the Onkyo Turbo (cool way to name it, by the way). Sounds like the Onkyo Turbo makes for a better analogue preamp than the AV9 - so it would definitely be better than my AV8.

When I had my 2 channel system, I also noticed that it seemed to play slower. In my case, I attributed it to a lower noise floor - more quite between notes - which made things seem slower or more dramatic. I really miss that, now that I no longer have my 2 channel system, so if the Onkyo Turbo helps to bring that to the plate, I would definitely be interested. Do you think that what you are hearing might be due to a lower noise floor?

Thanks again,
Dave

[welwynnick]

Originally Posted by thezaks

Nick,
Thanks so much for your comparisons of the AV9 with the Onkyo Turbo (cool way to name it, by the way). Sounds like the Onkyo Turbo makes for a better analogue preamp than the AV9 - so it would definitely be better than my AV8.
Dave

Don't have much time, but I had a very good session between the Onkyo and Arcam on Sunday and tonight.

Briefly, both sound good on analogue pass through, and the sound of the player comes through - its dark and rich and vibrant. The Onkyo is a bit better though.

On spdif and optical input from the same CD on the same player, there is a significant difference. The Onkyo sounded great, very detailed, controlled and uncolored, and I half expected the Arcam to follow it close behind or even pull ahead, but it didn't. Even listening a day apart, there was a clear difference, and after the enthralling Onkyo turbo, I was wondering when things were going to end with the Arcam. The Onkyo was far ahead, and without a direct comparison, I think the Proceed would be too.

I'll spend a bit more time tomorrow.

Nick