Boutique brands, are they really worth it?

[Tony V.]

With many boutique brands available like Emotiva, Anthem and Arcam just to name a few what are your thoughts? Do they offer alot more reliability or features for the cost? Ive been concerned that they tend to be so far behind in features like HDMI versions and surround modes that they are still outdated before they hit the market.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

With many boutique brands available like Emotiva, Anthum and Arcam just to name a few what are your thoughts? Do they offer alot more reliability or features for the cost? Ive been concerned that they tend to be so far behind in features like HDMI versions and surround modes that they are still outdated before they hit the market.

Hey Tony. I think that these brands tend to offer greater performance in objective ways. They also often have a more personal customer service approach.

The negative is they do tend to get behind on the newest technology, have had clunky firmware with some SNAFU'S in the past, and sometimes don't have access to the same chips and chip software that the big companies have for extended periods of time.

While I really like NAD, I can also say that having uses one of their Receivers recently and playing with its BluOS setup, while very good, the hardware was less than elegant. A small USB dongle of sorts hanging off the back of the receiver. My guess was it wasn't feasible to build this in and sell it at a reasonable price, but I also don't think a company like Sony would ever release such a product.

As for value, depends on what you value. All of these companies sell products that demonstratively measure better. They also all use room correction which I think is better than anything used by the big brands. dirac in two of them and ARC in one of them.

If I was in a position to buy a new receiver today it would probably be one of the NAD units. If I had a bigger budget and Emotiva releases their Atmos upgrade already, I would buy one of their processors.

 

[Tony V.]

DIRAC and ARC are well designed room correction Ill give you that! and most certainly give them an edge But Im not really cretin that they measure better if you are speaking of the processing quality? DACs as well as the internal design in the mid to high end receivers are as good as audibly can be expected. You have even said yourself that signal to noise ratio in many units is so good now that its not a concern.

Thoughts?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

DIRAC and ARC are well designed room correction Ill give you that! and most certainly give them an edge

OTOH, the implementations of Dirac are not above criticism.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

DIRAC and ARC are well designed room correction Ill give you that! and most certainly give them an edge But Im not really cretin that they measure better if you are speaking of the processing quality? DACs as well as the internal design in the mid to high end receivers are as good as audibly can be expected. You have even said yourself that signal to noise ratio in many units is so good now that its not a concern.

Thoughts?

Well now we are getting into objective and subjective. I can't comment on the subjective, I have no idea if they sound better or not. I would need to spend some time with each of these units. When I say measure better, I just mean they do tend to have a bit lower noise, lower distortion, better channel separation, etc. The best AV processors have well over 100db's of channel separation. The best receivers I could find were the NAD and Arcam's, and they were in the 80's to low 90's. The top of the line from Yamaha, Denon, and Onkyo all were in the high 70's to low 80's. Is that an audible improvement? I don't know?

Is a device that measures .01% audibly identical to one that measures .005% thd? I don't know. I know that it would highly depend on the harmonic structure of that distortion. I also know that typically your speakers would be contributing far more audible distortion.

I like the NAD because of DIRAC. That's really it. I wouldn't use its built in amplification and as you mention, top tier Denon and Yamaha use really excellent top tier DAC's anymore.

I get hung up on numbers sometimes that I know probably don't matter, but just like the idea. I would never steer someone else to spend their money that way, but I find it alluring. Like a Dac/Preamp from SPL that has 130db's of dynamic range and distortion so low you can barely measure it. Does it sound superior to a receiver? I don't know? The idea that it can actually come closer to reproducing true 24 bit though is intriguing to me.

A lot of these performance parameters certainly would make no difference in most systems as most systems would have a noise floor that is far too high and a speaker system that could not take advantage. What is the value of 130db's of dynamic range if the system in question isn't even going to reproduce anywhere near that. What is the purpose of a noise floor that is 120db's down if your room noise floor is 50db's or more?

I did forget to mention reliability. While I've had my share of bad products before from boutique brands, I will say that most of my high end stuff is still around. Most of the cheap stuff died after a few years (even if it wasn't so cheap). I've owned 4 receivers in the last 10 years. I still have the amplifiers I purchased 15-20 years ago and they work fine.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

OTOH, the implementations of Dirac are not above criticism.

You have far more experience with those different systems than I do. I've only used the software and NAD software. The NAD software was ok, a little clunky.

The mic sucks with the NAD and I think you have commented that is true across the board. The response that the NAD mic came up with was so far from correct I would not want it doing a full range correction.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

You have far more experience with those different systems than I do. I've only used the software and NAD software. The NAD software was ok, a little clunky.

I am referring from the insertion of the Dirac EQ prior to bass management in the signal path. Correct placement is after BM because it should effect individual speaker channels and not source channels.

The mic sucks with the NAD and I think you have commented that is true across the board. The response that the NAD mic came up with was so far from correct I would not want it doing a full range correction.

I have had no experience with the DL implementation in the NAD but ARCAM permits one to use any other calibrated mic.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

I am referring from the insertion of the Dirac EQ prior to bass management in the signal path. Correct placement is after BM because it should effect individual speaker channels and not source channels.

I have had no experience with the DL implementation in the NAD but ARCAM permits one to use any other calibrated mic.

NAD allows the same, any mic you want. I feel the included mics should come with a warning though if used with the full version of DL.

As to your first comment I have no idea where it is in the signal chain. I'll have to ask my NAD contact. Unfortunately I don't think Dirac has any control over the placement.

What is your main concern with its placement before the bass management jsntead of after? I haven't used a reciever with dirac in my own system. I use the software which means that bass management must happen after dirac in the signal chain. I imagine this only impacts the bass, correct?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

As to your first comment I have no idea where it is in the signal chain. I'll have to ask my NAD contact. Unfortunately I don't think Dirac has any control over the placement.

Indeed. I had a long talk with Dirac at AES in November. They are aware of the issues and are working with their clients.

What is your main concern with its placement before the bass management jsntead of after? I haven't used a reciever with dirac in my own system. I use the software which means that bass management must happen after dirac in the signal chain. I imagine this only impacts the bass, correct?

https://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-69

 

[Talley]

For the purpose of this thread:

Lots of the other receivers/processers etc can offer something... it's up to you to determine that something. Personally the XMC-1 does everything I need it to but I understand it doesn't for some. There are other ways....

OPPO 205 directly to an amplifier is one... need room correction/bass management... then get the minidsp product to go in the middle of the opp and amp.

Whats wrong with that?... sure it's capable enough.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Indeed. I had a long talk with Dirac at AES in November. They are aware of the issues and are working with their clients.


https://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-69

Ah yes!!!! I remember this now. Yes this is a concern.

Glad they are working on it, but I wonder how they can fix it without a bigger change to how Dirac works?

 

[Tony V.]

Kal, good to see you here.

Thanks everyone for your input

 

[Matthew J Poes]

I think Kal has brought up a good point. The more boutique or esoteric brands have their merit, especially around sound quality, but they are smaller and that can be more of a problem for product implementation. Firmware has been a common issue for Oppo, Emotiva, NAD, Arcam, etc. I haven't found this to be as true of the big brands, but I will say that as of recently it seems everyone treats the public as their Guinea pigs. We get software that just isn't ready for prime time. If you do seriously consider a brand like we are discussing here, you might want to check the forums to see if people are complaining about the software glitches.

The other side of this is that some big name products have fatal flaws in the design or software that is never fixed. It seems these boutique brands spend more time trying to fix them. They also are more future proof. Emotiva and NAD has done a good job making their processors fairly modular and future proof allowing you to spend a modest amount of money to gain the hot new features, while still keeping the great sound and build quality you had.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

There are abiding issues that distinguish among mainstream products (Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Onkyo, etc), audiophile/enthusiast products (NAD, Arcam, Emotiva, Anthem, etc.) and high end products (Krell, DataSat, Classe, Bryston, etc.) The first group, because of their large volume, seems to be able to more easily manage and implement new features. The other two have checkered histories since in doing this and, often, are a bit behind on the task and/or in getting it perfected. Anthem is pretty good in this aspect and so is Bryston although they are pretty conservative in their implementations. I have hope that the revived Classe might do much better now with the Denon/Marantz engine behind them.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Harman acquired Arcam not long ago didn't they? Arcam has always been way overpriced in my opinion. GULP on that Arcam processor price. I guess if you believe you are getting that much better sound quality improvement, you might fork out the bucks for their product... as with any other high-end line. I've had quite a few of them in my room over the years and never have heard a difference outside of what the various equalization systems produce... some menus and settings more preferable than others. I'll admit though... if I had the money, I'd probably buy McIntosh (fabulously cool looking) or Lexicon (loved my DC-1 back in the day), or some other boutique brand.. and as long as I can get the same sound as I hear now, I'd be happy. Not sure it could get any better for my ears... I feel like I'm chasing something that just isn't there.

Arcam and Anthem appear to be up to date on HDMI HDR and HDCP as of right now. Emotiva is dragging a bit on their final implementation of features on the XMC-1, but with Dirac Live and 9 manual PEQ filters per channel... it's what I'd consider the most robust... once they start shipping again. $3K seems like a good chunk, but I suppose if you need the features it offers, it would be worth it. I wouldn't mind owning one... and may at some point in time. I was certainly no fan of their first processors, but they've come a long way since then... especially with the implementation of Dirac Live.

I am a firm believer in Dirac Live, although the PBK (Perfect Bass Kit) and ARC program did a superb job on my Expression 13A's in that lower range. I haven't tried the full version of ARC since my AVM50, which was several years ago, but if the PBK is any indication, I'd say it's pretty good.. and it's priced right there with the XMC-1.

I just sold my CX-A5100 processor in favor of the new NAD T-758 V3 with Dirac Live full... one of the more reasonably priced Dirac Live based units. Never been a fan of YPAO, but I had the miniDSP DDRC in the chain with DL. Now I can remove it and let the NAD do it all. I'm tinkering with the idea of an AVM60 too... but not sure why I'd need it, other than for the fun of comparison for a year or so.

It should be interesting to see what happens with Classe... and perhaps Arcam.

I dunno... I am not so sure the question is if the boutique brands are "worth" it, but more so, it's if you want it and can "afford" it. I think for those that can afford it, it might very well be worth it, although you might not really need it.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Harman acquired Arcam not long ago didn't they? Arcam has always been way overpriced in my opinion. GULP on that Arcam processor price. I guess if you believe you are getting that much better sound quality improvement, you might fork out the bucks for their product... as with any other high-end line. I've had quite a few of them in my room over the years and never have heard a difference outside of what the various equalization systems produce... some menus and settings more preferable than others. I'll admit though... if I had the money, I'd probably buy McIntosh (fabulously cool looking) or Lexicon (loved my DC-1 back in the day), or some other boutique brand.. and as long as I can get the same sound as I hear now, I'd be happy. Not sure it could get any better for my ears... I feel like I'm chasing something that just isn't there.

Arcam and Anthem appear to be up to date on HDMI HDR and HDCP as of right now. Emotiva is dragging a bit on their final implementation of features on the XMC-1, but with Dirac Live and 9 manual PEQ filters per channel... it's what I'd consider the most robust... once they start shipping again. $3K seems like a good chunk, but I suppose if you need the features it offers, it would be worth it. I wouldn't mind owning one... and may at some point in time. I was certainly no fan of their first processors, but they've come a long way since then... especially with the implementation of Dirac Live.

I am a firm believer in Dirac Live, although the PBK (Perfect Bass Kit) and ARC program did a superb job on my Expression 13A's in that lower range. I haven't tried the full version of ARC since my AVM50, which was several years ago, but if the PBK is any indication, I'd say it's pretty good.. and it's priced right there with the XMC-1.

I just sold my CX-A5100 processor in favor of the new NAD T-758 V3 with Dirac Live full... one of the more reasonably priced Dirac Live based units. Never been a fan of YPAO, but I had the miniDSP DDRC in the chain with DL. Now I can remove it and let the NAD do it all. I'm tinkering with the idea of an AVM60 too... but not sure why I'd need it, other than for the fun of comparison for a year or so.

It should be interesting to see what happens with Classe... and perhaps Arcam.

I dunno... I am not so sure the question is if the boutique brands are "worth" it, but more so, it's if you want it and can "afford" it. I think for those that can afford it, it might very well be worth it, although you might not really need it.

I look forward to your impressions. I think the NAD is a steal. In a perfect world they would turn the 777 into an 11 channel model with all UCD amplifier modules, but...that's probably not going to happen for $2000 or less.

If I was a rich man, I would probably look at one of the many 13+ channel models. I like the flexibility they offer and overall quality. Datasat makes a superb product with the best room optimization in the business. Not just the inclusion of DIRAC, but a correctly designed bass management system with appropriate levels of flexibility. These processors are good enough to satisfy my audiophile desires too, but I just can't afford them. Hopefully I can review some of the higher end models from NAD, Acurus, Storm, etc. to see if they are comparable for a more reasonable sum of money. The new Lexicon lineup is interesting as well. DIRAC and all! The biggest problem I see with most of these is a lack of flexibility in the bass management to really optimize the system. I know this is because of usability, if they provided such tuning facilities, the average user would be overwhelmed and unhappy, but for people like me, I would love it.

 

[ddude003]

"Not sure it could get any better for my ears... I feel like I'm chasing something that just isn't there."

After reading these last posts by Sonnie and Matt it leaves me wondering if you are missing that sparkle, air and soundstage of a tube preamp or even a tube amp? I know that many Martin Logan ESL owners have been on a search for Nirvana only to find a synergy with ESL speakers and Tubes... I see that McIntosh has a new tube pre/ss hybrid Amp... PS Audio has a new BHK signature line of tube pre and tube ss hybrids also...

I know these are Stereo and not HT systems and there is more than one way to skin the HT cat...

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Nope... not missing anything here. I've had several tube amps, preamps, etc... most have sounded as good, but just not better. I've heard well over 100 different systems (owned a few dozen)... ranging all the way up to $200,000... none of which sounded any better than my system... and most sounded worse because they were not setup properly. For the most part, it's just not the equipment, it's the setup, proper speaker placement in relation to the listening position, and then proper frequency matching of speakers, which can easily skew the imaging, sound stage and depth acuity.

I do believe boutique brands have their place in systems for those that can afford them... and as stated earlier, even if it might not improve my sound, there are some expensive models I wouldn't mind owning.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

"Not sure it could get any better for my ears... I feel like I'm chasing something that just isn't there."

After reading these last posts by Sonnie and Matt it leaves me wondering if you are missing that sparkle, air and soundstage of a tube preamp or even a tube amp? I know that many Martin Logan ESL owners have been on a search for Nirvana only to find a synergy with ESL speakers and Tubes... I see that McIntosh has a new tube pre/ss hybrid Amp... PS Audio has a new BHK signature line of tube pre and tube ss hybrids also...

I know these are Stereo and not HT systems and there is more than one way to skin the HT cat...

I too have owned numerous tube amps and preamps over the years. Can't say they sounded better per say. More different. I've owned Audio Research, Wavac, Jolida, Dynaco, and listened in my own system or Mcintosh, Conrad Johnson, and Cary Audio. I've owned numerous single ended tube amps. They have their own magic to be sure, but it's best described as different. A lot of that gear had some reliability problems at some point which was expensive to repair. The main reason I don't own the Wavac 805 SET amp anymore was cost to repair. That amp was given to me and I just couldn't afford to keep it. When I had to par down my gear I sold all the tube gear because I didn't feel I was missing anything and couldn't justify keeping it.

Class A and Tube amps give off a ton of heat as well. The old 805 and Audio Research both would heat my room to uncomfortable levels quickly. No matter how much better they may sound there was no living with that heat, especially in the summer.
My latest audio candy obsession has actually been an infatuation with the new breed of insanely low noise amplifiers recently released to the marker. They are the first analogue gear ever made to even come close to the theoretical dynamic range of the best digital formats. Benchmark audio and SPL both make such amps, and the Hypex Ncore amps are a close second to those.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Nope... not missing anything here. I've had several tube amps, preamps, etc... most have sounded as good, but just not better. I've heard well over 100 different systems (owned a few dozen)... ranging all the way up to $200,000... none of which sounded any better than my system... and most sounded worse because they were not setup properly. For the most part, it's just not the equipment, it's the setup, proper speaker placement in relation to the listening position, and then proper frequency matching of speakers, which can easily skew the imaging, sound stage and depth acuity.

I do believe boutique brands have their place in systems for those that can afford them... and as stated earlier, even if it might not improve my sound, there are some expensive models I wouldn't mind owning.

I think the best of the boutique brands offer products that are better made and have better service. These brands are often smaller and sold through specialty retailers. The service you get is better. I own plenty of mainstream gear and none of it has lasted. The only reason my Onkyo is still around is that it had a bunch of board failures that ultimately were covered over a very extended warranty (hdmi fiasco). That extended its life. My musical fidelity, Acurus, acoustic solid, and Perreaux gear are all 20 years old and going strong. Each has had an issue here or there and were repaired at no or little cost at the time.

My Onkyo has a terrible app system and the wifi remote never works. It can't be discovered over my wifi, even a direct connection does not allow reliable IP control. The NAD and Bluesound always worked, and most high end gear I've used has been similar.

My brand new Sony top of the line blu-ray player is a joke. The software is passable at best. The wifi remote was gutted and is as non-intuitive as it gets. It's very slow to connect and often can't discover the player. It also randomly shuts down in the middle of watching movies. Sony's solution is to say, nobody else has these problems maybe the next generation will work better (these problems are well documented by users).

The problem for boutique brands, as you know, is that they can't develop new products at a fast enough pace to be competitive. I recently got some insight into why these brands struggle to release Atmos processors. I feel bad for them, it's an uphill battle.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

I still have an Onkyo 805 that has lasted since it's release without one hiccup, and it has played daily for 10-12 hours on average since day one... in an open front cabinet with no ventilation.

@Tony V. ... not sure if you still have your 805, but we both know those have been solid as a rock, despite others have heat issues with them.

I think the boutique brands are perhaps beginning to see the value in user upgrades, whether it be via modules or software, so them keeping up might not be so difficult going forward.

 

[Travis Ballstadt]

If boutique brands can't develop new products fast enough to stay competitive, what's that say about me? I guess I can't afford to buy new products enough to stay relevant. Just don't tell that to my enjoyment.

If you want to be on the cutting edge and have to have the latest greatest newest tech on Day 1, then the boutique brands probably won't solve your issues. What they do, however, is allow those of us with limited disposable income to enjoy much higher quality sound and features than we may be able to from the major players.

And don't forget the most important thing they add to the market, they keep the major players honest.

 

[Tony V.]

What they do, however, is allow those of us with limited disposable income to enjoy much higher quality sound and features than we may be able to from the major players.

The problem I see with this is that boutique brands are rarely ever affordable to people with limited budgets so not really true. And I dont think that they "have higher sound quality" compared to the mid to higher end receivers available for less cost.

 

[Tony V.]

What they do, however, is allow those of us with limited disposable income to enjoy much higher quality sound and features than we may be able to from the major players.

The problem I see with this is that boutique brands are rarely ever affordable to people with limited budgets so not really true. And I dont think that they "have higher sound quality" compared to the mid to higher end receivers available for less cost.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

The problem I see with this is that boutique brands are rarely ever affordable to people with limited budgets so not really true. And I dont think that they "have higher sound quality" compared to the mid to higher end receivers available for less cost.

Oh I don’t know, I tend to think there are some greater differences than this suggests. Looking just at receivers, the boutique brands we have been talking about have been shown to have more power and often lower noise and distortion. NAD consistently exceeds the competition with all channels driven. Their cheapest receiver sells for around $1200 and has 11 channels of processing and 7 channels of amplification. I think that’s pretty good. Add to that a most honest set of performance specs and I think it offers better sound at attainable levels. Moving into somewhat more esoteric boutique brands often adds better Dacs, better analogue stages, and even better amps. Both Emotiva and Arcam offer high end receivers with excellent Dacs, analogue stages, and serious built in amplification on par with excellent external amps. The Emotiva that is soon to be released is even a fully balanced and dual differential design.

As of late many mainstream brands have begun providing very misleading power specs. So much so that a number of them have been reported to the FTC and are under investigation. I find this a disturbing trend.

I just switched in an Outlaw Audio 976 processor in place of my Onkyo receiver. Without getting into any kind of subjective audiophile superlatives I can say that the noise floor of the system dropped from slightly audible to inaudible. I currently have 3 mainstream receivers in my house, all have a slight hiss, and the hiss seems to be in the low level circuits as it shows up on the analogue outs. This Outlaw is dead quiet, as was the NAD I was using before it. Lowering the noise floor helps increase dynamic range so that’s a plus to me.