Marantz 8805 review - very poor measurements

[Brian Smith]

Please see the following review at Audiosciencereview. Do a search for Marantz 8805 to find the review. Sorry I can't post links yet. Perhaps someone else can link to the review.

In the review they state the 8805 has worse performance "than a stand alone $100 DAC" and is "far from state of the art." I'm not much of a technical guy but these numbers do indeed look bad, especially for a reference $4500 processor.

I'd love for Gene and other Audioholics to weigh in on this review. Gene do you think the 8805 does indeed measure this poorly?

Thanks guys!

 

[Verdinut]

Please see the following review at Audiosciencereview. Do a search for Marantz 8805 to find the review. Sorry I can't post links yet. Perhaps someone else can link to the review.
Thanks guys!

See the following links which should pretty well answer your query:

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/audiosciencereview-com-legit.114728/#post-1315589

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/marantz-sr8012-11-2ch-imax-enhanced-av-receiver-review.114289/#post-1305786

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Please see the following review at Audiosciencereview. Do a search for Marantz 8805 to find the review. Sorry I can't post links yet. Perhaps someone else can link to the review.

In the review they state the 8805 has worse performance "than a stand alone $100 DAC" and is "far from state of the art." I'm not much of a technical guy but these numbers do indeed look bad, especially for a reference $4500 processor.

I'd love for Gene and other Audioholics to weigh in on this review. Gene do you think the 8805 does indeed measure this poorly?

Thanks guys!

This is one of the biggest reasons you should not read other so-called reviews.

Whoever said the AV8805 has worse performance than a $100 DAC has got to be kidding.

Take a look at the specs of all the DAC available and tell us those numbers - SNR, Dynamic Range, THD, Crosstalk, FR, etc.

Even the cheapest DACs will have awesome numbers that are better than most separates as a whole.

Takeaway message - DAC is such an extremely mature technology that the difference between the best DAC and the worst DAC is INSIGNIFICANT and completely inaudible to the human ear.

So don’t even bother comparing DAC as a single entity. Look at the complete SYSTEM.

 

[Irvrobinson]

This is one of the biggest reasons you should not read other so-called reviews.

Whoever said the AV8805 has worse performance than a $100 DAC has got to be an imbecile.

Take a look at the specs of all the DAC available and tell us those numbers - SNR, Dynamic Range, THD, Crosstalk, FR, etc.

Even the cheapest DACs will have awesome numbers that are better than most separates as a whole.

Takeaway message - DAC is such an extremely mature technology that the difference between the best DAC and the worst DAC is INSIGNIFICANT and completely inaudible to the human ear.

So don’t even bother comparing DAC as a single entity. Look at the complete SYSTEM.

You should be as much an imbecile as Amir.

He actually measures with SOTA AP equipment, and from a purely objective performance standpoint the 8805 does indeed suck. Its deficiencies may not be audible, but it is a poor implementation. If I spent that much on an 8805 I'd be very annoyed.

 

[Brian Smith]

<< Take a look at the specs of all the DAC available and tell us those numbers - SNR, Dynamic Range, THD, Crosstalk, FR, etc. >>

I see your point however you can't just look at the DACs used and assume they measure well when implemented in a system as a whole. You have to factor in the full schematic and the final output. A member of their forum, using other test methodologies, also confirmed the poor numbers.

Has anyone else measured the 8805 or 8802 to dispute these numbers? I know hometheaterhifi did measurements of the 8802, however I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to determine wither the results were good or bad.

We need Gene with a good set of numbers.

For what its worth I have no horse in this race. I'm just curious if the 8805 is poorly designed and measures poorly. For what its worth he did test other receivers and I don't believe any tested as poorly. Seems like an apples to apples comparison, no?

 

[Good4it]

Don’t be shy, say what you really meant Irv.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Has anyone else measured the 8805 or 8802 to dispute these numbers?

@PENG should chime in. He actually discussed this with Marantz engineers, and they don't dispute the measurements.

I own a Marantz receiver, and while it's good enough for our modest HT system, I probably won't buy another Marantz product until they have changed their ways.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

You should be as much an imbecile as Amir.

He actually measures with SOTA AP equipment, and from a purely objective performance standpoint the 8805 does indeed suck. Its deficiencies may not be audible, but it is a poor implementation. If I spent that much on an 8805 I'd be very annoyed.

Who the heck is Amir?

What are you, his boyfriend?

Throw some X at yourself and hold on to your pantyhose.

I didn’t realize he has a doctorate degree in equipment measurement.

Who cares what he uses to measure. Did he measure it accurately and properly?

Who verified his measurements?

To imply that a $100 DAC “outperforms” $4K AVP is ridiculous.

But to be fair, I didn’t read his review. I was just annoyed at that statement.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

<< Take a look at the specs of all the DAC available and tell us those numbers - SNR, Dynamic Range, THD, Crosstalk, FR, etc. >>

I see your point however you can't just look at the DACs used and assume they measure well when implemented in a system as a whole. You have to factor in the full schematic and the final output. A member of their forum, using other test methodologies, also confirmed the poor numbers.

Has anyone else measured the 8805 or 8802 to dispute these numbers? I know hometheaterhifi did measurements of the 8802, however I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to determine wither the results were good or bad.

We need Gene with a good set of numbers.

For what its worth I have no horse in this race. I'm just curious if the 8805 is poorly designed and measures poorly. For what its worth he did test other receivers and I don't believe any tested as poorly. Seems like an apples to apples comparison, no?

These day I recommend Yamaha, not Marantz or Denon.

But there’s no way a flagship Marantz could measure poorly unless the unit was defective or there was something wrong with the measurements. And who verified his measurements anyway?

 

[Brian Smith]

These day I recommend Yamaha, not Marantz or Denon.

But there’s no way a flagship Marantz could measure poorly unless the unit was defective or there was something wrong with the measurements. And who verified his measurements anyway?

Another member on the forum tested the Marantz and came up with very similar results. Also, Marantz is aware of the measurements and does not dispute them according to a poster. I guess the biggest issue is what measurements can we point to that dispute his findings? I don't believe there are any. Also, please remember the site has tested various other receivers/processors with better results.

I wonder if the Denon 8500 measures as poorly? I would assume they use a similar topology?

 

[Irvrobinson]

Who the heck is Amir?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-bit-about-your-host.1906/

What are you, his boyfriend?

We've never met. However, Madrona Digital was the dealer from which I purchased my Salon2s.

Throw some X at yourself and hold on to your pantyhose.

I didn’t realize he has a doctorate degree in equipment measurement.

There's no such degree. Pantyhose? Really?

Who cares what he uses to measure. Did he measure it accurately and properly?

Who verified his measurements?

Sometimes equipment manufacturers, like Benchmark Media. There are lengthy threads with manufacturers' comments and verification.

To imply that a $100 DAC “outperforms” $4K AVP is ridiculous.

But to be fair, I didn’t read his review. I was just annoyed at that statement.

Then, to be fair, you don't really know what you're talking about.

You're a scientist, Andy, and you're better than this.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

1. you don't really know what you're talking about.
2. You're a scientist.

1. Okay, maybe not about his review or measurements.
2. Sure I am pharmacist. But when that clock hits 3:00 PM, I’m an Audioholic dammit.

And 3. Perhaps trying to stir things up around here might have fueled my colorful expressions.

Of course, if I have communicated with this Amir at all, I wouldn’t be calling him out in any way.

But still, okay, if it is really true that the AV8805 measures poorly, I am in denial. I can’t believe it unless Gene measures it and confirms it.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Okay, after doing some reading on that site, I will take back any harsh words I said and apologize.

I am more used to seeing the typical SNR, Crosstalk, FR, THD.

Can anyone interpret the measurements that Amir did into what we would normally see?

I noticed that some of the reviews (like Yamaha MX-A50 got SNR of 96dB at 5W 22.5kHz BW) show SNR. I assume it is Unweighted since it didn't say "dBA" or "A-weighted"?

What is the SNR 22.5kHz BW @ 5 watts for the Marantz AV8805?

It can't be 45dB (when we factor in the THD beyond 5kHz), can it?

Is "THD" really > 1% above 10kHz?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I wonder if the Denon 8500 measures as poorly?

I would be a little "concerned" about the whole X3500/4500/6500/8500 series until we see new measurements.

 

[Andrein]

Okay, after doing some reading on that site, I will take back any harsh words I said and apologize.

I am more used to seeing the typical SNR, Crosstalk, FR, THD.

Can anyone interpret the measurements that Amir did into what we would normally see?

I noticed that some of the reviews (like Yamaha MX-A50 got SNR of 96dB at 5W 22.5kHz BW) show SNR. I assume it is Unweighted since it didn't say "dBA" or "A-weighted"?

What is the SNR 22.5kHz BW @ 5 watts for the Marantz AV8805?

It can't be 45dB (when we factor in the THD beyond 5kHz), can it?

Is "THD" really > 1% above 10kHz?

Someone else needs to apologize, not you.

 

[lovinthehd]

Maybe it's just that legendary Marantz "warmth". LOL.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Maybe it's just that legendary Marantz "warmth". LOL.

I heard that the Marantz only measures "poorly" if you use 4V. If you use 2V, it should measure much better.

 

[PENG]

Maybe it's just that legendary Marantz "warmth". LOL.

Marantz

Please see the following review at Audiosciencereview. Do a search for Marantz 8805 to find the review. Sorry I can't post links yet. Perhaps someone else can link to the review.

In the review they state the 8805 has worse performance "than a stand alone $100 DAC" and is "far from state of the art." I'm not much of a technical guy but these numbers do indeed look bad, especially for a reference $4500 processor.

I'd love for Gene and other Audioholics to weigh in on this review. Gene do you think the 8805 does indeed measure this poorly?

Thanks guys!

It is not a fair comparison. The 8805 is not just a DAC, there are a lot more items between the DAC output and the pre out, such as multiplexors, preamp/vol control, HDAM.

 

[PENG]

I know hometheaterhifi did measurements of the 8802, however I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to determine wither the results were good or bad.

Some of the measurements were likely taken under similar conditions, but not all. One obvious difference was the signal input and output levels. There could be some difference in how they set up the AP unit too, but we don't have the details.

For what its worth I have no horse in this race. I'm just curious if the 8805 is poorly designed and measures poorly. For what its worth he did test other receivers and I don't believe any tested as poorly.

Amir never even implied it was poorly designed, measured poorly, yes but that "tone" at 35 kHz appeared to be the main if not only culprit. I doubt you can hear it at even a high level of -45 dB and you are not going to get anywhere near 4 Vrms at 10 kHz to a power amp to begin with.

Seems like an apples to apples comparison, no?

I would say no for sure, Amir has only published tests on a few AVR on that site, a Denon, Pioneer and Sony were all I could find, and they were not tested with a 10 kHz signal, at the same high input and output level as he did on the AV8805. For the tests that were done to all of them, the AV8805 clearly came out on top.[/QUOTE]

 

[PENG]

Maybe it's just that legendary Marantz "warmth". LOL.

You must be reading my mind. Unfortunately that is not likely the case. According to Maranz "Marantz has selected slow roll-off filters for DAC output for many years. If it attenuates before 22.05 kHz, then the audio band will not be flat and the sound quality will be sacrificed. "

That basically confirmed that Amir got it right, no mistake in his the measurements, and his suspected reason (i.e. DAC filter setting) seems right on too. The thing is, Marantz response clearly indicated they aim for the audio band to be flat, and that is their policy, not some artificial warm sound. In this case it seems they aim for slow roll off to a fault, in order to preserve flat response byond 22.05 kHz.

The response came from their engineering team though, not marketing.