High end processors VS low end processors/receivers, hardware differences?

[Guest]

I was wondering if anyone had some objective data or even and explanation as to why a high end processor would sound better then a low end processor/receiver. I understand that subjective listening plays a role in what people prefer and that some audiophiles look at audio more as a hobby but is there a hardware reason that impacts sound quality? I am not talking about double blind tests and the side that states everything sounds the same but as of yet I have not found any objective data that would justify this night and day difference. I have searched the internet for sometime and found a profile on photo bucket that has quite a selection of photo's, I will post them below.

Thank you.




Theta digital casablanca III





















Arcam FMJ AVR600/FMJ AV888















B&K reference 70








Cary cinema 11a






Classe SSP-800














Krell evolution 707







Lexicon MC-12







Mark Levinson Nº 40







Mcintosh MX135 MX136

[Nolan B]

Here is a response from Classe when asked

"With respect to the SSP 800 what exactly is it doing to a PCM signal which sets it apart from other SSPs? I assume that the DACs alone is not what separates the 800 from other SSPs. "

A. PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) is the most common form of digital audio. It appears fairly simple, consisting of the data and the clocks. The data can be either a one or a zero, while the bit clock defines the moment when transitions between ones and zeros may occur. The basic idea is that you want the data to be accurate and the timing to be precise so that the signal gets put back together (turned into analog) exactly as it was taken apart (sampled into the digital domain).

Since cheap digital audio products can actually work, we know it isn’t particularly expensive to get sound from a digital circuit. What is exponentially more difficult and expensive, however, is getting that last few percent of performance. This where the magic in high-end audio has always been.

It’s hard to be both specific and complete when there are so many factors that contribute to the overall performance of the SSP-800. I can site specific examples like the processing power of the Texas Instruments DSP.

HD Audio involves more data than ever, so data integrity is a feature of processing power. Try to express the fraction 1/3 in the digital domain. You have 0.33333…, which is an example of the fact that digitization involves approximation. With HD Audio, we are handling more data than ever and performing more calculations than ever. Having a DSP which can do many different tasks while also maintaining the highest precision was one of the objectives of the SSP-800 design. We use a Texas Instruments platform which can process at up to 1800 Million Instructions per Second (MIPS). Compare that with the most common DSP used in other processors (including one costing over $20,000) and you’ll find them using a 300 MIPS part. Decoding Dolby TrueHD can use up about 270 MIPS, not leaving enough for EQ or other processor intensive post-processing functions. The TI processor works in 64-bit double-precision mode with floating point arithmetic (the decimal point can float anywhere in the number, giving small numbers higher accuracy). All this is to say that today, the SSP-800 has a monster of a processing engine. When the new dual DSP board is released, we will use a newer DSP chip, capable of up to 2800 MIPS—and there will be two of them.

Other topics for discussion could be the masterful way power and ground are distributed within the 6-layer mother board, or how circuit trace lengths are calculated and optimized, or the use of LVDS (Low Voltage Differential Signaling) to minimize jitter (timing errors in the clock) and eliminate common ground between digital and analog signal paths. There’s also our sample rate conversion and re-clocking of the signals entering the DACs, etc. But the key to it all is attention to detail throughout the design. I’m sure there are also some details I can’t point out because our engineers have tended to them without even consciously thinking about it. Like a chef in a familiar kitchen, certain methods come naturally to an experienced professional.

We also consider the reliability and stability of the design and whether digital circuits create radiated or conducted noise that detracts from the performance of other nearby circuits. However, everything we do has a single clearly defined purpose: to supply the DACs with exactly what they need (accurate, precisely timed data and an incredibly low noise floor to allow the highest possible resolution and dynamic range).

The SSP-800 is special, but it does not owe that quality to any one part. I guess the cooking analogy works pretty well. Different chefs may have access to the same ingredients but come up with different results. Some are clearly better than others and sometimes two dishes might both be judged to be good, but the results appeal to different tastes. Using a more expensive wine in a reduction won’t necessarily improve its flavor or texture, so it’s both the ingredients and how they are used that matters. In the end we use our own senses to decide what works and what doesn’t. The DACs themselves are only one (although not unimportant) factor in the overall results.

[impala454]

Very interesting post. And nice compilation of images.

I am no expert with this stuff so just ignore me if I sound like an idiot. But on reading the Classe guy's response I have a couple of comments:

1. He mentions the TI processor doing 1800 MIPS vs some other processors using 300 MIPS, and then mentions how that doesn't leave a lot of instruction cycles for EQ or other functions. What I'm curious about is, he mentions that decoding Dolby TrueHD can use up about 270 MIPS, but he doesn't mention how many cycles the other "processor intensive" functions use. Now I have not written audio EQ software before, but have been a software developer professionally for several years. I cannot imagine some of these other functions in a audio processor taking all that much in terms of processor power. EQ software to me would just be a bunch of simple equations to adjust the output levels to each channel appropriately. It wouldn't be anything nearly as complicated as decoding compressed audio. Not to mention other processor functions like running menus and such should not require much more processing power than a digital watch.

2. Other than the processor the only things he mentions are LVDS and pathing on the motherboard, things which are pretty standard in any kind of digital electronics.

3. He mentions the cooking analogy, but I have to disagree wholeheartedly with that. These devices are essentially computers. If I hand the same pile of computer parts to two people, and they both connect all the parts properly, they will end up with the same computer. Software, on the other hand, is a whole different ballgame, and IMHO where the real differences lie.

Now this is no diss on Classe, just interesting to see things which seem rather common, or parts built by another company being mentioned as what sets a specific brand apart from another. I think it'd be interesting to see what other manufacturers' reps have to say as well.

[Hdale85]

One of the biggest differences between high end and lower end AVR's and Processors is DAC's and DSP's used. But it's not just the parts being used but rather the implementation as well. You could have 2 designs with the same exact parts and have someone that makes a small error or misjudgment due to cost savings in the way a trace is wired or something on the PCB and it can make a huge difference in sq because maybe the way they put it has more chance to pick up noise or something of the sort. I agree that software can play a huge role as well though.

[Chris D]

Wow, great pics! :T

[impala454]

One of the biggest differences between high end and lower end AVR's and Processors is DAC's and DSP's used. But it's not just the parts being used but rather the implementation as well. You could have 2 designs with the same exact parts and have someone that makes a small error or misjudgment due to cost savings in the way a trace is wired or something on the PCB and it can make a huge difference in sq because maybe the way they put it has more chance to pick up noise or something of the sort. I agree that software can play a huge role as well though.

Right but his question directed to the Classe rep was in regards to the SSP 800 vs other Classe processors. I'd hope that there is not some massive difference in the quality of the build just between two models at the same company.

Also of note (IMHO) is it would be interesting to actually find out where all of these products are physically manufactured. It wouldn't shock me to learn that competing brands (whether high end, low end, or both) get partially or even completely assemebled in the same plants.

[Nolan B]

Right but his question directed to the Classe rep was in regards to the SSP 800 vs other Classe processors. I'd hope that there is not some massive difference in the quality of the build just between two models at the same company.
.

Actually my question was meant to ask what the difference between the 800 and other processor in general...not just classe..but perhaps he didnt i see it that way

[impala454]

Oh I see. I thought asking about other SSPs was referring to the Classe model numbers.

[Williammaxtor]

Here is a response from Classe when asked

"With respect to the SSP 800 what exactly is it doing to a PCM signal which sets it apart from other SSPs? I assume that the DACs alone is not what separates the 800 from other SSPs. "

http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3510.asp

Denon 3808;
Processor(s) – Bit Depth and Type 2 - 21366 x 1 and 21367 x 1 32-bit Floating Point

http://www.analog.com/en/embedded-processing-dsp/sharc/adsp-21367/processors/product.html

MFLOPs 2400

http://www.analog.com/en/embedded-processing-dsp/sharc/adsp-21366/processors/product.html

2x MFLOPs 1998

I think the denon can handle its self, in fact it has more processing power then the classe SSP-800 because the non upgraded DSP board in the SSP can not handle audyssey or trinnov room correction.

One of the biggest differences between high end and lower end AVR's and Processors is DAC's and DSP's used. But it's not just the parts being used but rather the implementation as well. You could have 2 designs with the same exact parts and have someone that makes a small error or misjudgment due to cost savings in the way a trace is wired or something on the PCB and it can make a huge difference in sq because maybe the way they put it has more chance to pick up noise or something of the sort. I agree that software can play a huge role as well though.

But they don't use better chips or DAC's and they don't measure better so where this increase in sound quality coming from?

[Hdale85]

Who doesn't?

[aweil]

Very interesting post. And nice compilation of images.

I am no expert with this stuff so just ignore me if I sound like an idiot. But on reading the Classe guy's response I have a couple of comments:

1. He mentions the TI processor doing 1800 MIPS vs some other processors using 300 MIPS, and then mentions how that doesn't leave a lot of instruction cycles for EQ or other functions. What I'm curious about is, he mentions that decoding Dolby TrueHD can use up about 270 MIPS, but he doesn't mention how many cycles the other "processor intensive" functions use. Now I have not written audio EQ software before, but have been a software developer professionally for several years. I cannot imagine some of these other functions in a audio processor taking all that much in terms of processor power. EQ software to me would just be a bunch of simple equations to adjust the output levels to each channel appropriately. It wouldn't be anything nearly as complicated as decoding compressed audio. Not to mention other processor functions like running menus and such should not require much more processing power than a digital watch.

2. Other than the processor the only things he mentions are LVDS and pathing on the motherboard, things which are pretty standard in any kind of digital electronics.

A PCM representation of a music waveform is a continuous (discrete) time bitstream, right? In order to perform EQ it may be some simple equations, but one can either do an FFT to get frequency data in which case the equations are simple, then do an inverse FFT to get the data back into the time domain, or implement some digital filters in the time domain which have the effect of manipulating the frequency content in the way desired. However, this consists of adding/subtracting/multiplying any number of past data with the present data to get the result you desire. This can quickly use large processing power because of the large number of data points required to calculate any one time domain data point.

[Williammaxtor]

Who doesn't?

Any high end processor, DAC's are cheap.

https://www.htguide.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=465635

A TI DSD/PCM 1796 which measures better then the xtreme DAC's in the $30,000 theta are worth $2.95.

[Hdale85]

Measures better in which regards? Like I said there are many things that can effect SQ and it's not always the DAC selection. There are some processors using DAC's that cost something like 50 bucks a piece which is highly expensive for an MFG to use. You are also generalizing all companies but there are man man audio companies a lot of which people haven't even heard of.

So just because a DAC measures better doesn't mean it is better. It may measure better in distortion but the other DAC may have some amazingly good jitter reduction. Or maybe they use a DAC with poor onboard jitter reduction and build their own outboard jitter reduction and reclock. There are many many ways to implement a DAC and the DAC is just the beginning of the chain. There are good ways and bad ways, generally cheaper AVR's have poor/cheap implementations.

[Nolan B]

Any high end processor, DAC's are cheap.

https://www.htguide.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=465635

A TI DSD/PCM 1796 which measures better then the xtreme DAC's in the $30,000 theta are worth $2.95.

Its not just a DAC.

Its funny but DACs are getting brand recognition as if DACs alone make quality i.e. Pioneer 09 has Wolfson DACs. As if that determines sound quality. The DAC helps, but its about how its implemented. A high end manufacture will have a team of people who know how to use that DAC as part of a bigger picture to produce high end audio quality. Others may use the same DAC to create something much less...after all my iPod has Wolfson DACs :W


High end audio quality certainly seems to be an Art. While Hardware plays a part its the implementation which sets the hi end from everything else. The difference arn't sublte either.


Sure the DAC may cost $2.50, but that has very little to do with the overall quality. Think about how much seeds cost for Pinot Noir...then think about how different the end result can taste depending on the wine maker

[Williammaxtor]

Its not just a DAC.

Its funny but DACs are getting brand recognition as if DACs alone make quality i.e. Pioneer 09 has Wolfson DACs. As if that determines sound quality. The DAC helps, but its about how its implemented. A high end manufacture will have a team of people who know how to use that DAC as part of a bigger picture to produce high end audio quality. Others may use the same DAC to create something much less...after all my iPod has Wolfson DACs :W


High end audio quality certainly seems to be an Art. While Hardware plays a part its the implementation which sets the hi end from everything else. The difference arn't sublte either.


Sure the DAC may cost $2.50, but that has very little to do with the overall quality. Think about how much seeds cost for Pinot Noir...then think about how different the end result can taste depending on the wine maker

So you agree that high end audio does not use better DAC's. How does the high end impliment DAC's better then any one else?

Measures better in which regards? Like I said there are many things that can effect SQ and it's not always the DAC selection. There are some processors using DAC's that cost something like 50 bucks a piece which is highly expensive for an MFG to use. You are also generalizing all companies but there are man man audio companies a lot of which people haven't even heard of.

Which companies use $50 DAC's, and why would you assume that because a DAC cost more it would sound or perform better?

So just because a DAC measures better doesn't mean it is better. It may measure better in distortion but the other DAC may have some amazingly good jitter reduction. Or maybe they use a DAC with poor onboard jitter reduction and build their own outboard jitter reduction and reclock. There are many many ways to implement a DAC and the DAC is just the beginning of the chain. There are good ways and bad ways, generally cheaper AVR's have poor/cheap implementations.

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/50/_pdf

First off jitter is over rated and you can thank the high end for that. How does a cheap AVR have a poor implementation?

[Nolan B]

So you agree that high end audio does not use better DAC's. How does the high end impliment DAC's better then any one else?

I dont have an absolute opinion or belief that high end manufactures do or do not use high end or mid level DACs, I more believe they pick the one which works best with the overall sound they are after.

I think the question about how one implements DACs better then another is an industry secret, and surely each brand does not make that info public. I do know the job for make audio isn't done before or after it passes the DAC.
Not that I know this part to be true, but I wouldnt be surprised to find out that DACs contribute to maybe 5-10% of the overall sound quality.

What I do know is that you cannot draw a direct line between DAC and final sound quality. Its not that simple as many wish it was.

[Mig17]

In theory,
Processor use better curcuit design and better components such as, Capacitor, Resistor, OPA ... so that I will sound better ..
But In practical I found many Processors are rubbish like Rotel 1098, or Anthem D1, Cary cinema 6...
Among the receiver Arcam AVR 300 or AVR 350 sound good but too smooth

[Alaric]

many Processors are rubbish like Rotel 1098, or Anthem D1, Cary cinema 6...

Wow.That seems an impressive list of "rubbish". May I ask what was so much better as to make those products seem so bad?

[Hdale85]

Kind of seems like this guy is here just to bash people? You ask questions we give you answers. I can't tell you how an implementation may be better because its always different. A lot of times cheaper electronics use rather poorly designed ground planes. This can sometimes introduce more noise and distortion into the circuit then a higher end unit. Also Jitter reduction is not over rated at all. I've built a few DIY DAC's and I can easily tell the difference between them. One of my DAC's I built has pretty good on board jitter reduction but I added an outboard reclocking crystal as well as some better jitter reduction and there was a large improvement. It may be hard for you to understand this as you may not of experienced it. Heck maybe you don't really have much experience with this stuff at all and you are just out to bash everything just because you think you can. I really don't know but you have 4 posts and you seem like you want to pick a fight or something.

[Mig17]

I heard Cary cinema 11a but I do not like it
But I like very much the Cary Cinema 11 which was discontinued
I also love Nuforce AVP 17 and Arcam AVR 300 for SQ
I am trying to have a listen to the well claimed Classe 600 SSP I cant until now

[KahunaCanuck]

Kind of seems like this guy is here just to bash people? You ask questions we give you answers. I can't tell you how an implementation may be better because its always different. A lot of times cheaper electronics use rather poorly designed ground planes. This can sometimes introduce more noise and distortion into the circuit then a higher end unit. Also Jitter reduction is not over rated at all. I've built a few DIY DAC's and I can easily tell the difference between them. One of my DAC's I built has pretty good on board jitter reduction but I added an outboard reclocking crystal as well as some better jitter reduction and there was a large improvement. It may be hard for you to understand this as you may not of experienced it. Heck maybe you don't really have much experience with this stuff at all and you are just out to bash everything just because you think you can. I really don't know but you have 4 posts and you seem like you want to pick a fight or something.

I agree, why does it seem some people just wanna scrap all the time on the internet? If you don't believe what anyone says, and want truly "objective" answers, then you need to go and test all of them yourself in true double blind testing...good luck with that. Other than that you are stuck with people's personal opinions, unless some of the engineers who build these units happen upon this conversation...

[Alaric]

I heard Cary cinema 11a but I do not like it
But I like very much the Cary Cinema 11 which was discontinued
I also love Nuforce AVP 17 and Arcam AVR 300 for SQ
I am trying to have a listen to the well claimed Classe 600 SSP I cant until now

Thanks for the reply. I was just wondering what you've compared them to , and it's a list of nice stuff. :T The Nuforce kind of surprised me at first , but after their zoom up to the "high-end" , they don't seem to be getting the accolades they did originally. Interesting. What speakers were used in your listening sessions? I'm curious as to the synergy aspect of source/processor/amp/speakers. Also , as important as room treatments and WAF are , I'm looking forward to your input. Thanks!

[Mig17]

Nuforce had some problems with realiabilty
But it actualy sound quite impressive with movie dialoge
I have Rotel amps, Dynaudio front speakers with KEF Q60c or Jmlab cobalt CC800 center
I am still in search of non-HDMI processor Classe SSP-300 or SSP-600 if I can afford

[Mig17]

I want to tell you that Anthem processor only sound good with Toshiba DVD player

If it is not Toshiba DVD the sound is awful and Anthem should be avoided, there are a lot of better and cheaper proceesor
More expensive does not mean higher SQ

[Alaric]

Very nice. I wonder what a more forward speaker would sound like with the Nuforce? Or a more sensitive speaker? I was very interested in Nuforce a while back , but demo units weren't an option and I had reservations about D Class amps.

[Williammaxtor]

I think the question about how one implements DACs better then another is an industry secret, and surely each brand does not make that info public.

Industry secret when one can open the top and see exactly what has been done?

Kind of seems like this guy is here just to bash people? You ask questions we give you answers.

So far people have given me subjective opinions.

Also Jitter reduction is not over rated at all. I've built a few DIY DAC's and I can easily tell the difference between them. One of my DAC's I built has pretty good on board jitter reduction but I added an outboard reclocking crystal as well as some better jitter reduction and there was a large improvement.

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/50/_pdf

Sorry but under blind/double blind tests jitter is not audible unitl 750ns, 750,00ps.

[Hdale85]

Well you already have your mind made up so why do you keep posting?

[Hdale85]

Industry secret when one can open the top and see exactly what has been done?

Sorry but this is BS as well. You can't see what's going on inside a 5 layer PCB let alone something with even more layers which some companies use.

[Nolan B]

Industry secret when one can open the top and see exactly what has been done?

You arnt getting it...

But I think you know that :W

[Williammaxtor]

Well you already have your mind made up so why do you keep posting?

No, objective data has proven what is correct and real.

Sorry but this is BS as well. You can't see what's going on inside a 5 layer PCB let alone something with even more layers which some companies use.

I guess, does the high end now use some type of cloaking system to hide their parts? The number of layers in a PCB board are just used to connect parts its not like parts are hidden inside the boards.

You arnt getting it...

But I think you know that

Oh I get it, high end audio is more of a hobby then anything else and subjective opinions go a long way.

[Alaric]

No, objective data has proven what is correct and real.



I guess, does the high end now use some type of cloaking system to hide their parts? The number of layers in a PCB board are just used to connect parts its not like parts are hidden inside the boards.



Oh I get it, high end audio is more of a hobby then anything else and subjective opinions go a long way.

You're absolutely right. WalMart crap is the equal of Rotel and Classe. Good job , you found out the secret. You should go get some Bose and laugh at the rest of us. Then go away.

[ThomasW]

Somebody needs to get a life......

http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showtopic=80371&pid=1373722&mode=threaded&start=

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=109780

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/290756/high-end-processors-vs-low-end-processors-receivers-hardware-differences

http://www.xtremeplace.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=65213.0

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/1/581691.html

http://www.avforums.com/forums/audio-processors-power-amps/1039896-high-end-processors-vs-low-end-processors-receivers-hardware-differences-4.html

http://www.avrev.com/forum/preamps-audio-video/3749-high-end-processors-vs-low-end-processors-receivers-hardware-differences.html

http://www.soundsolutionsaudio.com/forum/index.php?/topic/30164-high-end-processors-vs-low-end-processorsreceivers-hardware-differences/page__p__552889&#entry552889

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/420392-high-end-processors-vs-low-end-processors-receivers.html

http://www.audioforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24823

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=73503

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/high-end-processors-vs-low-end-processors-receivers-hardware-differences-435570/