Anthem MRX-700 Review

Hey Alex,

I appreciate your feedback and have to agree that my wording on the topic you refer to could stand some improvement. I’ll attempt to clarify my intended message.

You wrote: First, if your player is generating “multi-channel PCM via HDMI”, you’re already using the receiver’s DACs — is this a roundabout way of suggesting that the Anthem’s DACs aren’t up to snuff?

A: No, that was not what I intended to suggest at all. You are correct in asserting that, if an SACD’s DSD stream is converted to LPCM and delivered via HDMI, the receiver in question is using its DACs. The reason I suggested that the results in this scenario are rarely as good as a premium player’s DAC’s has more to do with the DSD to LPCM decoder quality and process. I’ve found that, with many players, the on-board DACs do a better job than the on-board DSD to LPCM converters. A player that delivers DSD via HDMI to a receiver that can decode DSD AND has great DACs built in is a different story.

You wrote: Second, you can obviously play SACD over analog (in stereo), or over its digital audio output (in multichannel, if your SACD happens to be multichannel, which many aren’t, anyway).

Answer: The first part there is accurate, you can always go two-channel. However, it is not possible to play SACD via optical or digital coaxial output. Many have believed this to be because of bandwidth restrictions but, if I’m not mistaken, bandwidth isn’t the problem. It’s DRM (digital rights management) There’s just no support for DSD in the spdif/AES specification. I did read once that the PS3 at one point could pull it off but that the ability was removed by Sony. Not sure if that is true or just rumor. Also, I most of my SACDs are multi-channel and many of them Hybrid as well.

You wrote: Third, recent studies have shown that neither average people nor audiophiles can tell the difference between CD and SACD recordings any better than random chance, under double-blind conditions, so why do you say “results rarely sound as good”?

Answer: As for why I suggested that “results rarely sound as good”, I’ll refer back to the whole DSD decoded into LPCM thing. As for the study you mentioned, I believe you are referring to the year-long AES study which some believe debunk the assertion that there is no perceivable quality difference between SACD and CD playback. There are plenty of audiophiles who question the testing methods and equipment used in that study. I am not one of them, necessarily, I just don’t have the time or inclination. But, that there is debate over that study indicates to me that the results achieved probably don’t tell the whole story.

I will concede that, as far as bitrate and frequency response goes, there isn’t a ton of difference between SACD and CD but when it comes to dynamic range, the difference is clearly audible and, frankly, that’s what I care about most.

For me, the real difference between SACD and CD comes down to audible details in the recording, dynamic range and multi-channel capability. I can play an SACD, point out a certain sound buried in the background of the recording that is clearly audible, pull out the CD version of the same record, play the same segment and the sound in question is not audible.

Personally, I would love to lay SACD to rest and start buying music on Blu-ray discs instead. Then we could have uncompressed audio in Dolby, DTS or via LPCM, in stereo or multi-channel and play it back on equipment many of us already have. Such a beast exists, but there are few selections available. Sounds a lot like SACD, right?

Maybe its a moot discussion, since high resolution, digitally delivered music files are becoming more popular and more manufacturers are making great equipment to accept the stream and play it back. What do you think?

“conspicuously absent is a set of 7.1 analog inputs, a feature we expect to see in a product of this class and price point. This means no SACD or DVD-Audio playback unless your player can decode it and output it via multi-channel PCM via HDMI and even then, results rarely sound as good as a premium player’s d/a converters.”

These sentences are just kind of weird.

First, if your player is generating “multi-channel PCM via HDMI”, you’re already using the receiver’s DACs — is this a roundabout way of suggesting that the Anthem’s DACs aren’t up to snuff?

Second, you can obviously play SACD over analog (in stereo), or over its digital audio output (in multichannel, if your SACD happens to be multichannel, which many aren’t, anyway).

Third, recent studies have shown that neither average people nor audiophiles can tell the difference between CD and SACD recordings any better than random chance, under double-blind conditions, so why do you say “results rarely sound as good”?

Given their goal of making a receiver with minimal legacy support, it doesn’t seem odd at all. This receiver doesn’t do S-video, tape dubbing, or even have a phono-preamp. I’ve used all 3 of those features on my own receiver this year, while I’ve never in my life needed 7.1 analog input. The number of players with 7.1 analog output but no HDMI has got to be tiny.