Digital Processor Reviews

One can certainly make that argument based on "the value equation." However, I take note that you maintain "two separate front ends: one is 2-channel, the other is theater" and, I am guessing it is because you do not think the HTP-1 is up to the task for your more critical 2-channel music enjoyment. My music is multichannel as well as stereo and this review was an effort to maximize performance beyond what we expect from entry and mid-level HT processors. That effort is continuing.

BTW, I am coming to prefer dB25 outputs that, in effect, allow me to more easily manage the XLR connections in practice and, as you do, I use a selector box with them.

Home Concert Venue Made Possible

A very outstanding, challenging but rewarding effort by Kalman Rubinson and John Atkinson. I DO agree we are at the beginnings of fully being able create a Home Concert Venue (HCV) at home.

Hopefully the hardware and software will continue to improve.

Thanks for your pioneering efforts and encouraging even die hard 2 channel audiophiles to consider new options to 2 channel sound.

I've messed with surround sound for music since the 1970s. I'm pretty sure I tried tried every format that has come along since the single passive rear channel and even analog processing of stereo into multi-channel. When immersive sound formats appeared, I assumed it would just be more disappointment. When decoding stereo music, Dolby Surround (what you get with Atmos to to make stereo through 7.1 sound immersive. It sounds horrible processing stereo music. DTS Neural:X sounds better than Dolby Surround, but is still not as good as stereo playback of stereo music. Then I tried Auromatic processing (now just part of Auro-3D decoding of shources with 7.1 or fewer channels) and FINALLY had my mind blown by upconversion to 12 channels that sounds better than stereo. In the years since the immersive formats have appeared, Dolby Surround is still terrible sounding--dry, dull, uninvolving, gray, and just generally unappealing. Neural:X hasn't changed either. And Auro-3D upconversion to 12 channels is still my first choice for listening to stereo music that's only available in stereo. I'll choose Auro-3D upconversion even over stereo. Dolby thought Auro-3D was such a threat to their existence, that they engineered a way to stop their TrueHD/Atmos sound tracks from being processed with Auro-3D processing (in movies). Auro-3D sued Dolby and won. Dolby has also tried to hire-away key Auro-3D employees--all in the name of trying to make Auro-3D go away. Too bad they didn't spend that time and effort trying to make Dolby Surround work better instead of attacking a competitor. For Auro-3D processing of stereo, I use 12 speakers... one directly above the front L&R channels and one directly above either the side-surrounds or rear-surrounds. The 12th channel is what Auro-3D calls the voice of god, a channel directly overhead. The other 4 immersive height channels are close to the 9-foot ceiling... the side- or rear-surround height speakers are on wall-mount brackets and are box speakers aimed at the main seat. I find down-firing in-ceiling speakers sound pretty bad compared to box speakers aimed at the audience. In-wall speakers sound less-bad than down-firing in-ceiling speakers, but still not as good as box speakers for immersive channels. Auro-3D upconversion of stereo to 12 channels FINALLY does stereo better than stereo. You might not think there would be much discrete sound in Auro-3D upconverted stereo, and that's sort of correct. When you hear music in a live performance venue, the sound mostly comes from in front of you and reflected sound comes from everywhere. That's pretty much what you get with Auro-3D upconversion. There are some sounds that are at least somewhat directional (other than left-right), but mostly you get a realistic amount of "height" immersion that makes the music seem less "flat" and more spherical with a front bias as you experience it at concerts. Auro-3D upconversion gives you fantastic sound from stereo sources, but also from 4.0, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1 original recordings. Auro-3D processing of Atmos or DTS:X soundtracks even sounds better because studios are not paying for a sound engineer to create Atmos or DTS:X movie soundtracks. Instead, they just use Dolby Surround on the original 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack to get 11.1 channels and it sounds HORRIBLE with almost nothing appearing in the height channels for the whole length of the movie. You can get Auro-3D built-in to a fair amount of equipment... Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, and Arcam are installing Auro-3D in their products. Not necessarily every model of these brands will have Auro-3D. Generally it comes in mid-priced to high-priced models and NOT in lower-priced models. For those who need some sort of "magnitude of approval". Let's use a scale where a "10" is really excellent stereo music playback. Process that music with Dolby Surround, and you will be hard pressed to give anything higher than a "2" to sound quality compared to stereo. Switch to DTS Neural:X processing stereo music and you might feel like a "5" is an appropriate rating, with some possibly going as high as a "6". But process with Auro-3D and it's difficult to not want to give the music a "15" on that scale simply because the music is SO engaging. So musical, so enticing, and you don't even have to start with more than 2 channels. You don't even have to buy all your music again to enjoy this upconversion.

PS -- I've been a professional A/V equipment reviewer since 1995 and "into" stereo and surround sound since the early 1970s. I've even been published in Stereophile once, many moons ago. And I've known Kal Rubinson through online audio forums for years before either one of us were reviewing equipment professionally--and before the internet was live to the general public.

The Dante output performance would be nice to know. Would be nice to know if a bitperfect output that follows the sample rate of the input, up to 24/192, is output via the Dante port. Like it does with the AES outs.

A simple way to test the Dante output would be to install the Dante virtual sound card on any Windows or Mac PC. And feed the audio to it. You would find out the sample rate capability anyways. To go further the Dante input from the unit could be fed from the computer to a USB DAC via ASIO. Where sine wave test tones could be analyzed with the AP from the DAC analog outputs. Then compared to the same sine waves played back direct from the computer hard drive to the USB DAC.

J Gordon Holt IS proud of what you have reviewed and how you reviewed it.

I actually went to the old Harman Kardon Citation 7.0 processor and hooked it up to my AV7706 through the 7.1 multi-in, as when I tried Auro3D up-mixing, it was bass heavy. I'm extremely impressed by the HK's performance (I've owned it before in the 90's). I have a SU-9N connected from my PC to the HK. I use convolution on mains through Jriver and I also have PEQ generated filters for the subs. What I was startled by was the flat measurement of the Infinity Overture 1 that I use as a center channel on it's stand. Pans are seamless - as the Overture 1 now stands about as high as the center section of my Infinity Prelude P-FR's. It's as I remembered hearing the Fosgate 3a system with the MC220 speakers - everything disappeared and sound just floated in space...around, in front of, and behind the speakers. The rears were subtle...not blaring just adding ambiance. I'm going to see if they have music that I listen to in Atmos, as I would like to hear a mix and compare it to my current up-mixing situation.

Thank you for this article, it is a valuable resource:
1) I've been looking for a testing file for Atmos playback--thanks for the Immersive Audio Album link. It's a nice demo and quick confirmation of channel levels. I was hoping for something like the AIX Blu-rays that have test tracks of 5.1 & 7.1 DD/DTS/LPCM pink noise for each channel and some combined. For instance, I use the track with combined front-right + Right-Surround (and ditto for left side) to hear the fantom image on the sides, then I tweak the distance settings of the surround on my Marantz A/V processor until that image sounds solid in the side locations between the front and surround channels.
2) I was pondering purchasing that Yellow Point disc, but found the album on Apple Music which is in both Atmos & Lossless simultaneously! It sounds fantastic, and I will eventually compare to my 2-channel HDTracks download.
3) which brings me to my next point, I listen to AppleTV 4K connected via HDMI and found the sound quality of "Lossless" and "Atmos" recordings not as satisfactory compared to two-channel CD rips (or HDTracks downloads) played back from my hard drive connected to my Oppo UDP-203 and connected to the Marantz AV7702mkII via HDMI. For instance, Lorde's Pure Heroine 24/48kHz downloaded from HDTracks in 2014 sounds more dynamic and detailed (with better 'microdynamics'?) than the Apple Music versions. I am wondering if some kind of volume normalization or something else is making it seem less dynamic to me. (I also tried increasing the HDMI input level on the Marantz for the AppleTV). Two-channel comparisons with other albums (like Michael Jackson's BAD & Dangerous albums) also sounded less 'powerful' or impactful via Apple Music (I'm not an audio reviewer).
4) Another nice feature of the AppleTV is that I can browse music using the Apple Music app on my iPhone, and have it play back & control the app on the AppleTV without using AirPlay. Airplay is limited to stereo, sounds inferior, and uses the phone's volume control. But when I am sending it correctly--connecting to my AppleTV's home theater configuration name, the volume is controlled thru my preamp and it is receiving Atmos playback if the albums are in that format. When I tried Apple's new Classical music app (when it first became available), I could not get it to output Atmos either from my phone or via using only that app on the AppleTV 4K.
I'm looking forward to your follow-up with the Amazon FireTV setup.