Benchmark LA4 vs. Anthem STR Preamps

They are totally different units.

The LA4 aims for minimum circuitry and maximum transparency. Reports I’ve read say it succeeds at the latter. It has few features; it’s just a highly transparent line stage and attenuator.

The STR Preamp (as @erik_squires said) has digital room correction, digital tone controls, digital crossover for 1 or 2 subs, a built-in phono preamp, and a DAC. It does a LOT more than the LA4, and I think it sounds quite good while doing it. (I own one.)

Your nephew could hardly have chosen two more different units. Once he thinks about his priorities, his choice should be clear.

P.S. I’m afraid Erik was mistaken in saying the STR Preamp has digital streaming built in. It does not. An external stream renderer (such as those by Bluesound, Auralic, or others) is needed for that.

@audiotroy - Something you said interests me but got garbled. It was this:

the wavelet offers an easy to use eq fub. Function that the anthem does not

Could you clarify, please?  Thanks!

@yyzsantabarbara - Regarding using a PC vs. hardware RCS. Devices like the Anthem and Wavelet use more powerful computers for generating filters, which is the computationally intensive part -- I suspect it involves numerical optimization. Convolution in playback is handled by specialized hardware (DSP chips) in the preamps. I have no way of comparing such DSP hardware to a PC (better, worse, more efficient, whatever), but by using the external computer to make the filters, it seems they have sidestepped many of the issues with dedicated hardware.

Of course, with time, correction techniques will develop and may need more powerful playback DSP; but in time, everything becomes obsolete, anyway. IMO the simplicity of the Anthem or Wavelet paradigm is a reasonable tradeoff for many people. (I don’t like having a PC in my music room, though I understand that many users use them with great pleasure and success.) More than one way to do things, it seems to me.

@yyzsantabarbara - Interesting approach to audio. I'm sure it sounds great. For what it's worth, I've been using DSP for over 15 yrs and  examined Acourate several times. I was never a professional developer, but a scientist who spent quite a bit of time programming in several languages. Acourate looked far too complex for me, also. My fondest wish would be a superb room that doesn't need DSP. What I've got is one that cries out for it, and a DSP system that is easy to use, does a very good job of room EQ and integrating subs, and is *almost* as flexible as I'd like. It's a good compromise for me.

Yes, you did. Thanks for the link to the STR review. I think that for most users, the STR will be the more rewarding product (vs. the LA4).