Marantz AV7005 Networking A/V Processor Review

[admin]

Marantz has released a solid feature packed product with their new AV7005 Networking A/V Processor. It doesn't quite go the extra mile in terms of features but its audio and video performance are top notch. The AV7005 really delivers; I just couldn't fault its sonic performance. Channel separation abilities are much better from what I've heard with the Marantz SR6003 A/V receiver which was not quite in the same league. The Anchor Bay video-processing chip offers excellent upscaling performance, while High Definition performance is equally impressive. Marantz's approach to hide the main display behind a front plate gives the unit a clean look. It can be matched with the new MM7055 or MM7025 multichannel amplifiers that also come with their new portview design. Highly recommended to the discriminating Audioholic wanting a high performance separates solution at a reasonable price.



Discuss "Marantz AV7005 Networking A/V Processor Review" here. Read the article.

[avliner]

Hats off to you Frans!

Very nice review of a very nice processor indeed!
Oh, BTW, be welcome to the AH Reviewres family though.

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Good review.

You mentioned that XLR offers 6dB over regular unbalanced RCA connections.

But I thought this only applies to "fully balanced" designs from input to output.

Since most pre-pros are not "fully balanced", including the $7,500 Anthem pre-pro, I assume that the Marantz pre-pro is also not "fully balanced".

[gene]

I should probably clarify that part of his review. You get a boost of 6dB at the pre/pro but the matching amp balanced inputs are usually 6dB lower to compensate. Thus the net gain is unchanged if the pre/pro balanced output is 6dB hot and the matching balanced amp is 6dB lower than unbalanced.

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So in general, a balanced design should theorectically offer better SNR compared to an unbalanced one.

But this is more the case of a "fully" balanced design, right?

[gene]

ut this is more the case of a "fully" balanced design, right?

Correct, also lower distortion too. Very few amplifiers are fully balanced from input to output however.

[ratso]

never mention your poop again. thank you.

[jostenmeat]

Thank you for the review.

Regarding the Audyssey portion, I am glad that you finally gave it a shot and have been pleasantly surprised. You should know however that distance and level settings are relative, and not absolute. So, the levels are not necessarily off.

Also, the distance accuracy of Audyssey has been stated by Chris to be finer than 0.1' ft, IIRC. If you describe your setup to him, you might ask how this might have happened. Perhaps additional filters with certain speakers means that new delays have been created. But, yeah, 10cm is what, like 0.0003 of a second?

Marantz has always been a generation behind with Audyssey tech. They only even released the XT version when the XT32 became available with other brands. Historically, they are sometimes known not to have enough processor power to simultaneously use Audyssey with things like advanced codec decoders, or matrixing for extra channels. I doubt this would be an issue with this processor, however.

[GranteedEV]

Great review! Poor Frans had to take apart his brand new pre.. hilarious!

curious if the improved channel separation he noticed was in the pre-amp or moreso his new amplifier.... he is comparing a pre-pro/amp to a receiver... Did he test the new amplifier with the old SR6003's preouts? Thanks.

Also I'm curious if Frans could elaborate on this part:

"I played "Life in Technicolor II (Vocal)" by Coldplay and "Wonderful Life" by Hurts. Before I tried Audyssey, both songs sound like the way my mornin' poop looks like (all mashed up and one big pile). And after you ask? Same thing! So I guess it has nothing to do with EQ. Then I remembered what they taught me back at the university: "garbage in = garbage out". Nice songs, sure, but obviously mastered by a deaf three year old. Audyssey won’t change any of that."

While that's certainly true, I want to know if the AV7005 removed the old marantz "M-DAX" feature. Thanks.

[Frans]

Thanks for your comments so far. I hope the absence of objective measurements isn't bothering you guys too much. I'm pretty sure Audioholics will release a bucket of those with the SR7005 review.

While that's certainly true, I want to know if the AV7005 removed the old marantz "M-DAX" feature. Thanks.

Actually, Marantz upgraded M-DAX with a new version. In my experience, the low setting seems to work on high frequencies more than it does the low end. The new version sounds a bit more "refined" than the previous version included with the SR6003 (among other models). The high setting is way too "boomy" for my taste. Excuse me for using What's Hifi-esque terminology. I'll try to explain.

As you all know M-DAX tries to restore details in the recording that are lost due lossy compression. MP3 compression trashes a lot of the exciting high frequencies and M-DAX will help you with that. There's a pretty easy way to put M-DAX to the test. I've listened to Queen recordings a lot and Freddie Mercury's famous overbite-"S" tones gets raped in 128KB/sec MP3's. The low setting of M-DAX restores this rather well. The high setting is usually too much for my taste and artificial sounding. The new M-DAX version works better, but stay clear of the high setting because both low and high frequencies are put into overdrive. You'll get tired of it quickly. I assume this setting is useful only when not using a subwoofer or something.

There's usually no need for M-DAX when listening to 256KB/sec AAC purchased in iTunes. There are pretty good. To me this is an indication M-DAX is mostly designed for MP3's in the 128 / 192 bitrate range. Making it perfect for for internet radio and Last.FM.

I don't think the issues I encountered with those two songs are down to EQ or room issues. I tried just about any setting on the AV7005 to iron out the uncomfortable sounds, but to no avail. Interesting, I think!

I promise won't mention any more poop, Ratso. Unless you're referring to the review as a whole. That you have to take up with Gene.