ASR pretty much said my current AVR is close to POS. They didn't test an Arcam AVR31 but the closest model they tested which has the same digital section scored very poorly. I think it sounds great and is a considerable improvement on my previous gear, much more of an improvement than I was expected.
This sounds a lot like sour grapes about buying a piece of gear that got a bad review.
When testing an AVR, ASR is mainly concerned with how accurate the DA conversion is and how clean the power amps are. If the digital section of the AVR31 tested poorly, it probably was. And i never read the AVR31 review, but ill bet he never said any of what he measured was audible. He dosent do listening tests for AVRs. The shortcomings of a "close to POS" product may not even be audible these days.
But ASR compares measured DAC performance against the best available, which is typically a moving target anyway. Because an AVR31 didnt objectively compare well to the best available does not mean its going to sound bad. And it would be a tough call to say the best available will sound noticably better than the AVR31. But you say your current system sounds better than your previous system. So maybe some of it is audible.
The ASR evaluation of the power amp section is more telling, and in my opinion, more important. Its not difficult or even expensive to find high performance power amps these days. And that is a traditional weakness of recievers from the beginning and why many prefer seperates. I do.
If the ASR review shows a poorly measuring amp section, its a red flag. High noise, not meeting published power rating, frequet shutdowns, stability construction, excessive heat, I'd pay attention to this stuff if i were buying an AVR. That, a digital section that isnt broken, and the features you want.
Also Arcam took note of ASR's results and changed something in the DAC config, but years later ASR has neither re-tested it nor withdrawn the now potentially irrelevant poor results. So I take ASR results with a huge pinch of salt.
So Arcam believes ASR testing is meaningful enough to make product changes based on what was found. That alone gives me a better appreciation for Arcam.
Most equipment ASR tests are loaned and belong to readers. So he wouldant have had that unit to test anyway. If Arcam felt strongly about it they could have shipped him a new updated unit to test. I doubt he would have refused it. There are some instances where the manufacturer made changes based on ASR test results and sent updated samples to ASR for retest and if warranted ASR ammended the review.
Tell me, who in your world removes old reviews? I just read one today from 2003. And who updates a 3 or 5 year old review on thier own? It dosent happen in my experience. The reader can determine how old a review is, and that should be considered as well.
