Anthem Mrx 310/510/710

[blizzard76]

I'm curious to hear if anyone has had any thoughts/experiences with the above AVRs? I've been looking at the X4000 to use as a preamp, but have been reading some good things about the Anthems.

[BugPowderDust]

I have the Anthem D2v and love it to bits.

Aside from a little niggling HDMI handshaking stuff that I'm struggling with on a Mac Mini, it's flawless, sounds incredible and the tune-ability of the unit is second to none. Makes any Audyssey stuff sound second rate.

The new Anthem AVRs have a new software interface for config of the EQ etc. Check this forum for some screen shots etc (start around page 1400-ish): http://www.avsforum.com/t/678260/anthem-d2-d2v-avm50-avm50v-arc1-tweaking-guide

I haven't seen the new AVR's in the flesh but you're unlikely to be disappointed.

[blizzard76]

Thanks recur, I ended up going for the MRX510. I read great things about it, and was curious to try a receiver from a less 'mainstream' brand. Clef HiFi offered a great price which sealed the deal.

Everything has been great so far. I really love the fact that the receiver is quite feature-lite, instead focussing on the key things (IMO) that a receiver should do. The configuration is logically laid out and easy to use. My old Yamaha seemed to have options everyone, including some that could only be accessed through the front panel etc. With the Anthem I feel like I'm in control.

I've run ARC, which was very easy to use. The system sounds great and bass is how I like it - there when needed but not overpowering (you can always boost the bass if that's your thing).

I'd been using my Theatron amp with the Yamaha RX-V1800, and I'm now using it with the Anthem. I need to spend a bit more time to form a proper opinion about sound quality. Whilst happy, any improvement is subtle in real terms - I think at this point my speakers are the limiting factor (B&W 685/HTM62).

There were a few key reasons for the purchase - HDMI 1.4, room correction, improved preamp etc and so far I'm very happy.

Edited March 17, 2014 by cinemafan

[mmu16]

The MRX series from Anthem are really good receivers. Fantastic sound quality and ARC is pretty darn good. Used to have a MRX500 (Older model) and loved it, however the lack of adequate HDMI inputs (had only 3 from memory) made me upgrade. The D2V is in another league though! One of the best pre's in the world irrespective of price.

[tigger384]

I have recently upgraded to the Anthem MRX 710 from a Yamaha rxv1800 and other than a problem with the usb lead to set the ARC have found the unit an improvement over the Yamaha but its early days yet to give a proper impression of the unit.

[blizzard76]

Hi mate, congrats on purchase. We both went through a similar upgrade. Did you get the USB issues solved?

[Snoopy8]

Thanks recur, I ended up going for the MRX510. I read great things about it, and was curious to try a receiver from a less 'mainstream' brand. Clef HiFi offered a great price which sealed the deal.

Thank you for the hint. They made me an offer I could not refuse and I now have the MRX 710.

Everything has been great so far. I really love the fact that the receiver is quite feature-lite, instead focussing on the key things (IMO) that a receiver should do. The configuration is logically laid out and easy to use. My old Yamaha seemed to have options everyone, including some that could only be accessed through the front panel etc. With the Anthem I feel like I'm in control.

I've run ARC, which was very easy to use. The system sounds great and bass is how I like it - there when needed but not overpowering (you can always boost the bass if that's your thing).

Came from an ancient Denon 2805 and was expecting a large improvement given that it is a few steps up in the range and with a decade plus in technology improvements. It delivered in spades, with the ARC delivering the cream. Had a problem getting ARC running, but this was user error. Tried to run software from a wireless laptop, and it required both the AVR and laptop to be wired.

One thing I liked was the smaller footprint. It is slightly shorter and significantly less deep than the 2805, and weighs a little bit more. I would have trouble fitting other higher end AVRs into the space that I had, and still have enough room for circulation and cooling.

I'd been using my Theatron amp with the Yamaha RX-V1800, and I'm now using it with the Anthem. I need to spend a bit more time to form a proper opinion about sound quality. Whilst happy, any improvement is subtle in real terms - I think at this point my speakers are the limiting factor (B&W 685/HTM62).

There were a few key reasons for the purchase - HDMI 1.4, room correction, improved preamp etc and so far I'm very happy.

Not using a power amp and unlikely to do so. I have powered fronts, with (another ancient) Mordaunt Short Genie sub-sats for the surrounds. The MRX 710 has ample power for the surrounds. What ARC did was to seamlessly blend all the speakers together, with clear separation of channels and excellent dialogue. The limitation, for some time, is the sub, but nevertheless the results are still very good. I was thinking that the satellite surrounds needed to be changed as well, but this new setup with MRX 710 & ARC have reduced the urge/need. In summary, delighted with the upgrade.

[BenH]

Hi Anthem owners

I have been researching for a new receiver and after reading good things about Anthems decided to pop into Carlton AV for a listen.

The staff were not big fans of how Anthems sounded, but were happy to demo against a couple of other receivers taking the time to make sure all the settings were right etc (although they don't run room correction on any of the receivers in store as they are always moving things about). They described the sound as too bright, thin, harsh and I must admit that listening against a NAD and Cambridge Audio, it did sound this way.

I did a bit more research as I wanted to know why people always say Anthem are good for 2 channel music and found a couple of references where people have said that music via the digital inputs is not great. My previous listening session had been with a bluray player connected to the receiver via HDMI.

I went in again yesterday and got them to hook up both the HDMI and analogue connections from the bluray player to the Anthem and they setup one source as HDMI and another as Analogue with processing turned off. The difference in 2 channel music was very noticeable. The Analogue connection with processing turned off would have been more in line with the NAD and Cambridge, but I didn't do any sort of comparison.

While it's good to know that you can get good music out of it, there are a lot more digital only sources these days, and movies obviously contain music that will be coming via HDMI.

So my questions for you owners:

1. Do you listen to music via digital or analogue inputs?

2. Do you find music via the digital inputs bright/harsh?

3. Does (or can) ARC do anything to fix the brightness/harshness?

I will take one home for a demo,but would appreciate the input from experienced users.

Thanks

Ben

[lucmor444]

While not an Anthem owner I would suggest that ARC is one of the key reasons for purchasing one. I appreciate the set up difficulties for CAV but I don't think they have given justice to the unit by not running ARC. I reckon you should try a dealer who has run ARC on a unit and listen to any differences with ARC on and off.

[SimonNo10]

+1 on running ARC as I'm an owner of the D2v and after owing many other processors including an Audyssey Pro Kit paired with a NAD T-175HD processor, IMO ARC is just better with room correction. It's outstanding and the difference is huge once it's run and despite the issues I've had with my unit (100% now with the new 3D board installed for free) I'm very happy with the sound.

[BenH]

Thanks guys.

CAV are happy to loan one for home demo (and recommend that) to get a better idea of how it's going to sound in your own environment. I imagine this is the best way and probably even more important when evaluating room correction.

The staff I have spoken to at CAV do say that "ARC is supposed to be the best room correction", but they also say "no room correction is any good and your better using your own judgement". I don't blame them for having preferences and recommending the equipement they prefer and don't believe they are pushing things based on margin. It just seems like there are a lot of users out there who believe room correction makes a big difference.

Simon, it's interesting to hear your comparion of ARC to audyssey on NAD as I was also considering NAD. (I think I might have bought my Legend Kangas off you)

I would still like to hear from current owners of MRX-x10s on how 2 channel analogue with processing bypassed compares to 2 channel digital and 2 channel digital with ARC enabled. I believe it's probably established that 2 channel digital with ARC enabled is better than 2 channel digital without ARC.

Thanks

Ben

[Snoopy8]

So my questions for you owners:

1. Do you listen to music via digital or analogue inputs?

2. Do you find music via the digital inputs bright/harsh?

3. Does (or can) ARC do anything to fix the brightness/harshness?

I did not buy my Anthem for music, but decided to test it out. Music is flac digital and no, it is not bright nor harsh. With a good system, the details come out, which may appear bright/harsh for some. Yes, ARC does something - see below...

While not an Anthem owner I would suggest that ARC is one of the key reasons for purchasing one. I appreciate the set up difficulties for CAV but I don't think they have given justice to the unit by not running ARC. I reckon you should try a dealer who has run ARC on a unit and listen to any differences with ARC on and off.

I will be surprised if any dealer can afford the time to calibrate all their AVRs; say they have 30 in store x at least 15 mins each, and then need to re-calibrate when they swap speakers etc. Yes, it would nice but maybe not practical...

+1 on running ARC as I'm an owner of the D2v and after owing many other processors including an Audyssey Pro Kit paired with a NAD T-175HD processor, IMO ARC is just better with room correction. It's outstanding and the difference is huge once it's run and despite the issues I've had with my unit (100% now with the new 3D board installed for free) I'm very happy with the sound.

Glad to hear this. I have not had any experience with Audyssey nor YPAO etc, so am cautious when singing the praises of ARC. As I pointed out earlier, made a significant difference for my HT.

I would still like to hear from current owners of MRX-x10s on how 2 channel analogue with processing bypassed compares to 2 channel digital and 2 channel digital with ARC enabled. I believe it's probably established that 2 channel digital with ARC enabled is better than 2 channel digital without ARC.

Decided to do an unfair comparison. Current music goes from DAC via XLR cable to powered speakers. Tested using DAC to Anthem via analogue input then pre-out to powered speakers. Expected that the current setup to beat the Anthem route for clarity and detail which it did! No contest, so onto the Anthem itself.

Anthem has the ability to 1) bypass processing on analog input 2) enable or disable ARC. Not much difference with bypass on analog input. ARC made the music "smoother" (which may be equivalent to your less bright/harsh?). Note that the Anthem does 2.1, ie it engages the sub, for stereo. Another thing is the Anthem Music processing which enables all speakers, and this is better than Dolby ProLogic II and DTS neo (am actually listening in this mode to my favourite music while writing this). In summary, Anthem is decent with stereo, but do not expect it to compete with a dedicated stereo system with good components.

The quality of the DAC determines how good the digital music sounds. So when you are asking about 2 channel digital versus 2 channel analogue, you need to compare it with your system components in mind. If your DAC on your CD (or other source) is better than the Anthem, then you should use it, otherwise use the Anthem.

[lucmor444]

Sorry for going off topic - in respect to the matter of dealers setting up their systems for audition - in this instance CAV have the best possible solution (ie home demo). But in respect to a dealer having a large set of variables to manage, I would have thought that one possible and reasonable option would be for the dealer to have a unit configured for one particular set of speakers (even though different speakers could be used and the unit may need to be swapped in and out of the system). This would at least allow the dealer to demonstrate the benefits of a particular/compelling selling point of a product.

Just my thoughts anyway if I was a buyer and with no experience whatsoever as to the complexities needing to be managed as a dealer.

Edit - poor spelling fixed

Edited April 11, 2014 by lucmor444

[Snoopy8]

Sorry for going off topic - in respect to the matter of dealers setting up their systems for audition - in this instance CAV have the best possible solution (ie home demo). But in respect to a dealer having a large set of variables to manage, I would have thought that one possible and reasonable option would be for the dealer to have a unit configured for one particular set of speakers (even though different speakers could be used and the unit may need to be swapped in and out of the system). This would at least allow the dealer to demonstrate the benefits of a particular/compelling selling point of a product.

Just my thoughts anyway if I was a buyer and with no experience whatsoever as to the complexities needing to be managed as a dealer.

Edit - poor spelling fixed

I do agree and wish dealers would do at least 1 or 2 combinations of equipment. But it would then open the possibility of distorting comparisons when choosing more than then AVR. I like this AVR but not that speaker because you have not calibrated it. Not suggesting they would or should do it, but why not calibrate only the equipment with the highest margins ? (sorry, being cynical here...)

Had Clef Hifi set up ARC, and I could do a compare, I would have purchased there and then. As it is, I did more research before I committed.

[lucmor444]

I do agree and wish dealers would do at least 1 or 2 combinations of equipment. But it would then open the possibility of distorting comparisons when choosing more than then AVR. I like this AVR but not that speaker because you have not calibrated it. Not suggesting they would or should do it, but why not calibrate only the equipment with the highest margins ? (sorry, being cynical here...)

Had Clef Hifi set up ARC, and I could do a compare, I would have purchased there and then. As it is, I did more research before I committed.

I also agree with your concerns - I was thinking from the point of comparing ARC on or off and seeking to compare only one variable. So that would not be about testing the speaker but rather assessing the benefits that ARC may bring to one set up by switching ARC on and off while all other things remain constant.

[cwt]

Just mention generally that it would be a mistake to categorize all ARC systems as having the same capability ; the fact that the anthem pre pro's perform ARC @ 96khz and the last gen avrs downrez to 48khz would be a good idea to have the dealer confirm Not that this is a factor unless you want every last dreg of a 24/96 hdtrack download As you can see in the following article the idea of using a pc to do the heavy lifting is a nice attribute over that other popular room eq starting with 'a' - at least with the cheaper models that make do with filter coefficient production in the avr instead [ their single chipsets arent the best ..]

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/audio-calibration/audio-calibration-reviews/anthem-room-correction-arc-system-part-1/page-9-room-gain.html

What’s New in ARC 1M

• Connects via ethernet.
• A higher level of digital signal processing allows for even greater precision in correction curves.
• Print ‘before and after’ room-measurement graphs

• .

[BenH]

I did not buy my Anthem for music, but decided to test it out. Music is flac digital and no, it is not bright nor harsh. With a good system, the details come out, which may appear bright/harsh for some. Yes, ARC does something - see below...

Decided to do an unfair comparison. Current music goes from DAC via XLR cable to powered speakers. Tested using DAC to Anthem via analogue input then pre-out to powered speakers. Expected that the current setup to beat the Anthem route for clarity and detail which it did! No contest, so onto the Anthem itself.

Anthem has the ability to 1) bypass processing on analog input 2) enable or disable ARC. Not much difference with bypass on analog input. ARC made the music "smoother" (which may be equivalent to your less bright/harsh?). Note that the Anthem does 2.1, ie it engages the sub, for stereo. Another thing is the Anthem Music processing which enables all speakers, and this is better than Dolby ProLogic II and DTS neo (am actually listening in this mode to my favourite music while writing this). In summary, Anthem is decent with stereo, but do not expect it to compete with a dedicated stereo system with good components.

The quality of the DAC determines how good the digital music sounds. So when you are asking about 2 channel digital versus 2 channel analogue, you need to compare it with your system components in mind. If your DAC on your CD (or other source) is better than the Anthem, then you should use it, otherwise use the Anthem.

Thanks for testing. Definitely sounds like I need to test using ARC at home.

By brightness/harshness I was meaning things like female vocals were showing a fair amount of sybilance that wasn't there via analogue bypass on Anthem, and on NAD/Cambridge, but was there on Anthem via HDMI.

You make a valid point about the DAC, but the tests were with a Denon bluray player (not sure of the model, but looked like a decent quality one), so while better than a bigw dvd player, it is probably not audiophile. I would have thought the DAC's in the Anthem should have been of equal quality, but it didn't sound that way. Maybe it's something to do with the HDMI implementation. When I test I will test coax/optical as well as HDMI and see if there is any difference.

Ben

[Snoopy8]

I understand what you mean by brightness/harshness. I was a NAD fan and continued using its stereo/CD players even after I switched to Denon for HT. NAD then was producing rubbish, tacking on 3 channels to their stereo receivers, and it took them a long time to get it right for HT.

Just run the ARC in automatic mode in your set up, look at the comprehensive report and listen to see whether you get an improvement.

The ARC magic for my setup was the blending of top end stereo speakers with old sub sat speakers, to become one very good system. What was surprising was the crossover settings, with the satellites set at 130-140Hz and the stereo at 160 HZ ! And the front speakers are rated to 35 Hz. Oh the indignity!!! But as one reviewer said, get over it – the results speak for themselves.

May still one day salve the wounded pride, and lower the front crossover...

[mmu16]

Thanks guys.

CAV are happy to loan one for home demo (and recommend that) to get a better idea of how it's going to sound in your own environment. I imagine this is the best way and probably even more important when evaluating room correction.

The staff I have spoken to at CAV do say that "ARC is supposed to be the best room correction", but they also say "no room correction is any good and your better using your own judgement". I don't blame them for having preferences and recommending the equipement they prefer and don't believe they are pushing things based on margin. It just seems like there are a lot of users out there who believe room correction makes a big difference.

Simon, it's interesting to hear your comparion of ARC to audyssey on NAD as I was also considering NAD. (I think I might have bought my Legend Kangas off you)

I would still like to hear from current owners of MRX-x10s on how 2 channel analogue with processing bypassed compares to 2 channel digital and 2 channel digital with ARC enabled. I believe it's probably established that 2 channel digital with ARC enabled is better than 2 channel digital without ARC.

Thanks

Ben

Mate imho for music i only use the analogue outs. well i use a separate CD player just for that. basically you could bypass the receiver's DAC and use the DAC's in your source. depends which piece has the better DAC/implementation.

[POV]

Mate imho for music i only use the analogue outs. well i use a separate CD player just for that. basically you could bypass the receiver's DAC and use the DAC's in your source. depends which piece has the better DAC/implementation.

You need to check this out, it depends on the reciever, but most do volume control in the digital domain, and therefore run your analogue input through it's ADC, process volume etc, and then DAC to the amps. You are actually adding another level of processing by doing this, and would be better off running just digital into the AVR in this circumstance. As i said, though not all AVR's do this. The two that spring to mind that don't are Cambridge Audio and Arcam, both of which have a full analogue only path.

Couple of years back some of us here in Perth went on a bit of a blind teasting campaign and we tested analogue vs digital in froma CD player into several common brand AVR's set onto their version of 'direct'.. Most people were able to pick a difference reliably.

My take on this is CEC AVR's (Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc) are really digital devices designed to be run in the digital domain...

[mmu16]

Good point POV. I have tried both digital and analogue outs and my ears prefer the analogue connection. I defeat any processing on the receiver by activating pure direct mode (Yamaha's version of killing all non essential processing) and it bypasses the signal straight through from the CDP to the power amp. However, in all honesty I prefer listening to music via a dedicated 2 channel setup since my HT speakers are more geared towards..well, HT!

[Snoopy8]

Thanks for testing. Definitely sounds like I need to test using ARC at home.

By brightness/harshness I was meaning things like female vocals were showing a fair amount of sybilance that wasn't there via analogue bypass on Anthem, and on NAD/Cambridge, but was there on Anthem via HDMI.

You make a valid point about the DAC, but the tests were with a Denon bluray player (not sure of the model, but looked like a decent quality one), so while better than a bigw dvd player, it is probably not audiophile. I would have thought the DAC's in the Anthem should have been of equal quality, but it didn't sound that way. Maybe it's something to do with the HDMI implementation. When I test I will test coax/optical as well as HDMI and see if there is any difference.

Ben

Just curious about the results of your testing at home and what AVR you ended up with...

[BenH]

Just curious about the results of your testing at home and what AVR you ended up with...

I was waiting to mount my rear speakers before taking one home. Speakers were mounted Friday and I will arrange to borrow one in the next week or so.

Ben

[Snoopy8]

I was waiting to mount my rear speakers before taking one home. Speakers were mounted Friday and I will arrange to borrow one in the next week or so.

Ben

Make sure you also get the calibration kit which comes with a stand, calibrated mike, usb cable, CD

Decided to do an unfair comparison. Current music goes from DAC via XLR cable to powered speakers. Tested using DAC to Anthem via analogue input then pre-out to powered speakers. Expected that the current setup to beat the Anthem route for clarity and detail which it did! No contest, so onto the Anthem itself.

Did further testing and correcting my statements. "Expected that the current setup to beat the Anthem route for clarity and detail which it did!" for the default (automatic) calibration. However, when I tweaked the calibration to use the full range of the front speakers, there was only a small difference for music.

Anthem has the ability to 1) bypass processing on analog input 2) enable or disable ARC. Not much difference with bypass on analog input. ARC made the music "smoother" (which may be equivalent to your less bright/harsh?). Note that the Anthem does 2.1, ie it engages the sub, for stereo. Another thing is the Anthem Music processing which enables all speakers, and this is better than Dolby ProLogic II and DTS neo (am actually listening in this mode to my favourite music while writing this). In summary, Anthem is decent with stereo, but do not expect it to compete with a dedicated stereo system with good components.

With full range tweak, bypass processing on analog input, and no ARC, the Anthem is much closer than I anticipated for stereo. With ARC on, there is some smoothing, but it is acceptable. It appears that Anthem have done a good job on the analog inputs for stereo. Please note that I am using the pre-pro output to my powered speakers and have not tested the amplifier stage.

The default automatic ARC calibration continues to be my preference for HT. The ability to blend the speakers and sub woofer into a seamless HT experience is what wows me. Note that some people are underwhelmed by this because they are used to/prefer a hot sub woofer and/or fronts. You can still do this by tweaking the room gain, crossovers, full range speaker settings. However, give the default calibration an extended trial and you may get to appreciate and like what the film maker/studio intended for the movie audio.

Tried the full range front speaker ARC calibration for HT. Even though it used the full range down to 35Hz (and lower), the overall bass was less and the experience felt less immersive. Tried tweaking the front and sub woofer cross overs as well, but it called attention to those speakers. Will keep the full range front speaker ARC configuration for stereo use only.

[BugPowderDust]

+1 on running ARC as I'm an owner of the D2v and after owing many other processors including an Audyssey Pro Kit paired with a NAD T-175HD processor, IMO ARC is just better with room correction. It's outstanding and the difference is huge once it's run and despite the issues I've had with my unit (100% now with the new 3D board installed for free) I'm very happy with the sound.

Agreed. They are temperamental bastards but when they are tuned and behaving themselves, you will struggle to find a better sounding setup than something tuned using ARC.