Marantz AV 10 installed: - Early Review and Impressions.

[TLS Guy]

This is an example of a situation where a completely blind test would have been very interesting but it would have been difficult because the previous AVP had the intermittent problem unless it had been possible to catch it at its best. Another difficulty would be due to the complexity of setup.

In any case, it's great to see that the AV10 is a major improvement.

Doing an AB test would be a wiring and switching nightmare on a system like this. It would have introduced so much artefact on its own account to be meaningless.

Anyhow you are only a six hour drive away from here, so come and listen for yourself. We have a nice guest suite. You should really hear what a TL speaker system can do. There is no bass coloration to upset the mids and HF. There is total clarity and realism. The lack of coloration is on a par with the best electrostatic speaker systems like the Quad ESL. All ported and sealed systems color the bass to varying degrees.

 

[lovinthehd]

The biggest improvement is how Atmos works. The two previous AVPs only gave mild improvement over the upmixer, and some improvement on perspective. However this new unit is a massive upgrade in Atmos sources. The acoustic reflections of the venue are perfectly reproduced, where before they were minimal. Also the depth of the sonic field and instrument localization is night and day better.

So I have to conclude that the Atmos performance of the previous two units was totally incompetent and inadequate. I suspect is likely the case on the AVRs also. It could just be the DACs were not up to the task, in which case it was unethical to include it, on the units. I suspect this is actually likely the case. It is also very unfair to Dolby labs.

I think to lay out Atmos with all the channels it has available takes a lot of space. This unit is huge and weighs 37 lb and does not contain a single power amp. This leads me to believe that an Atmos AVR is essentially a 'nonstarter' and an engineering nonsense.

The improvement on other sources is more subtle but definite, and I think the markedly improved SNR is to a large degree responsible. But in any event all sources have a detail and cleanliness not present previously. Having said that, the last unit was not working properly for the last month. So it had to have had at least one failing component, and so in the last month, which would be the recent memory, SQ was quite possibly and even likely below par. So this could be a possible factor, but I don't think all of it. This speaker system is sounding better than I ever remember it.

So, I was upset at having to make this cash outlay, but in the end I have decided it was actually worth every last cent, and I should have bought it, instead of the AVP 7706. But all's well that ends well as they say.

Just going from having issues for a while to new gear with none could be a nice advantage/experience. Of course an AB comparison would be extremely hard to do well otoh, but still could be very interesting as to how much a difference the new circuitry/dacs may have or not. Atmos has changed spec at all lately?

 

[TLS Guy]

Just going from having issues for a while to new gear with none could be a nice advantage/experience. Of course an AB comparison would be extremely hard to do well otoh, but still could be very interesting as to how much a difference the new circuitry/dacs may have or not. Atmos has changed spec at all lately?

I am not aware of any change in Atmos specs. I just think that Dolby need a stricter certification process. They certify sound bars for "Heaven's sake"! So it is all about dollar revenue for Dolby and not critical certification. I think you could get a dead dog certified.

My hunch is that DACs are being installed in gear that can not properly support Atmos. That is my strong suspicion from this debacle.

 

[dlaloum]

Atmos has changed spec at all lately?

Might not be a matter of "lately"

We are comparing processors designed and released years ago (with then current Atmos software versions) to one released and updated this year the AV7706 is a 2020 model (or was it earlier?)... it's software may be 5 years old. (depending on what was included in firmware updates.... )

personally I doubt the difference is DAC related, my best guess is software updates from Dolby.

 

[lovinthehd]

I am not aware of any change in Atmos specs. I just think that Dolby need a stricter certification process. They certify sound bars for "Heaven's sake"! So it is all about dollar revenue for Dolby and not critical certification. I think you could get a dead dog certified.

My hunch is that DACs are being installed in gear that can not properly support Atmos. That is my strong suspicion from this debacle.

I don't put much into the Atmos brand, it's spread too thinly among not only with hardware but recordings. if you can sell certification like THX and others for a variety of "levels" for different levels of remuneration. How dependent on dac is particularly isn't something I've seen mention of that I can think of....was thinking it was more processing power involved, but perhaps mapping of the additional sound points? Haven't really dug into Atmos as I don't want to install appropriate speakers.

 

[TLS Guy]

Might not be a matter of "lately"

We are comparing processors designed and released years ago (with then current Atmos software versions) to one released and updated this year the AV7706 is a 2020 model (or was it earlier?)... it's software may be 5 years old. (depending on what was included in firmware updates.... )

personally I doubt the difference is DAC related, my best guess is software updates from Dolby.

I am not going to give them a pass on that. I did all the firmware updates, and if Atmos was updated and the DAC could handle them, then it should have improved over time, but didn't. So, I'm going to stick for now with my proposition that the unit was incapable of properly reproducing Atmos streams.

 

[PaulBe]

The DACs can only convert what is presented at their inputs. And, we've had fine DACs for 20 years, yet similar products with the same DACs sound different.

We are told that the new ATMOS and DTS codecs are different. And, every source I play through the AV10 sounds better than they did with my old processor - CD, SACD, PCM, Dolby in different coding, DTS in different coding.

I wish I could narrow down to a specific improvement in the AV10, or a specific lack of capability in older processors, but I can't do that. Marantz made a better product in the AV10 than they did before. It's better than my previous processor.
There is a balance and resolution in the AV10 I haven't heard outside of SOTA 2 channel reproduction in the past - I can now forget the system and relax into the source.

Also, the function of the AV10 is a vast improvement from my previous processor. I no longer have to fight to make the processor work.

 

[TLS Guy]

The DACs can only convert what is presented at their inputs. And, we've had fine DACs for 20 years, yet similar products with the same DACs sound different.

We are told that the new ATMOS and DTS codecs are different. And, every source I play through the AV10 sounds better than they did with my old processor - CD, SACD, PCM, Dolby in different coding, DTS in different coding.

I wish I could narrow down to a specific improvement in the AV10, or a specific lack of capability in older processors, but I can't do that. Marantz made a better product in the AV10 than they did before. It's better than my previous processor.
There is a balance and resolution in the AV10 I haven't heard outside of SOTA 2 channel reproduction in the past - I can now forget the system and relax into the source.

Also, the function of the AV10 is a vast improvement from my previous processor. I no longer have to fight to make the processor work.

You are correct. I have the same experience, but I wish I knew precisely why, but I don't. So I think perhaps we blame speakers for more then we should. The fact is the improvement is undeniable. The biggest barrier to quality in my view is speakers though. What I heard recently from current offerings, appalled me. I heard a $45,000 a pair set of speakers that was really not very good and not a patch on the speakers in my family room.
Speakers remain a big problem, and I think that comes from the fact that it takes years of experience to really get the feel of how to build a really good speaker. It is so akin to being a skilled instrument maker.

 

[Trell]

So competently implemented DACs really do sound different? That should be measurable, but should I get rid of my RME Audio devices now?

 

[TLS Guy]

So competently implemented DACs really do sound different? That should be measurable, but should I get rid of my RME Audio devices now?

No, and I won't be getting rid of mine. The bigger issue though is to question whether we a measuring the right things. What I am getting at is that most measurements are static and continuous. We don't typically listen to those sort of sounds. So my be we need to look closer at more dynamic and instantaneous ways of collecting data.

 

[PaulBe]

You are correct. I have the same experience, but I wish I knew precisely why, but I don't. So I think perhaps we blame speakers for more then we should. The fact is the improvement is undeniable. The biggest barrier to quality in my view is speakers though. What I heard recently from current offerings, appalled me. I heard a $45,000 a pair set of speakers that was really not very good and not a patch on the speakers in my family room.
Speakers remain a big problem, and I think that comes from the fact that it takes years of experience to really get the feel of how to build a really good speaker. It is so akin to being a skilled instrument maker.

I’m having trouble reconciling “perhaps we blame speakers for more then we should”, and “Speakers remain a big problem”. I’m not trying to test you.

I do realize that sound reproduction is not sound recreation. It’s an analogy and always will be an analogy. Accuracy with a speaker is a flawed concept. Thankfully, our ears were created to tolerate all kinds of natural and artificial distortions and still hear intelligible sound. Perhaps the closest concept of accuracy in a speaker is a Quad ESL-63.

I have heard mediocre department store speakers sound good with great electronics. I have never heard good speakers sound good with mediocre electronics.

Different kinds of speakers interact in different ways with any reasonably normal home listening space. Polar response vs frequency is a big factor. The list of things that are deemed important changes from time to time. It’s hard to be released from the ‘circle of confusion’.

Perhaps we do blame speakers far more than we should, and listening spaces remain a big problem. Everyone should try listening to their setup (if possible) in an outdoor environment. It’s a real ear-brain opener.

Like you, I build my own speakers. The 7 floor channels are all the same drivers, same crossovers, and similar cabinets. I have a lot of opinions, but, the most important thing to me is ‘match the channels’ – this is hard to almost impossible to do completely when including the height channels. Next is ‘integrate into the listening space’ – using a real room’s flaws to help you if possible. Reasonable room correction is much easier if you follow these two things. My goal is to make the room disappear when and where I can, and make the room part of the ‘instrument’ when and where I can’t make the room disappear.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The bigger issue though is to question whether we a measuring the right things. What I am getting at is that most measurements are static and continuous. We don't typically listen to those sort of sounds. So my be we need to look closer at more dynamic and instantaneous ways of collecting data.

So we can’t just look at some DAC or some SINAD numbers and say that one AVP should sound the same as another?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I have heard mediocre department store speakers sound good with great electronics. I have never heard good speakers sound good with mediocre electronics.

What’s an example of mediocre electronics?

A $5K Emotiva?

 

[Trebdp83]

Yeah, this one is going sideways now. What of two channel signals via Direct mode in the 7705, 7706 or AV 10? I do not believe there would be any significant differences there. Dolby has improved their product. But, not all signals are the Dolby kind or played using the Dolby Surround up mixer.

The material previously played on an old player connected to the 7.1 EXT. IN will now also benefit from a digital connection and the AV 10’s DSP. Yet, no word on any of this and just the continued, and unproven claims of the better Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround Processing in the AV 10. It would not be unscrutinized by a new poster but for some reason we are all just supposed to take it at face value here.

 

[PaulBe]

I hope you saw something more in my post than an opportunity to bash a company’s product that you don’t sell.

I did use an Emotiva RMC-1L. It was my first experience with an ATMOS processor. I used it and fought with it for over 5 years, and learned a lot along the journey. I still have the old RMC-1L sitting in the box. I can’t in good conscience sell it to anyone. I hope Emotiva does better with their new Plus series. I bought a Marantz AV10 to replace the RMC-1L and moved on. The AV10 makes me smile a lot.

While this thread is mentioning DACs, I use an Emotiva XDA-3 and it is a fine product. It uses an ESS DAC chip. I also use a Benchmark DAC3 HGC. It is a finer product and uses ESS DAC chips.

I see products at your site that you consider references. They are fine products. I consider the Benchmark components I have to be references. I use their performance to judge everything else.

 

[PaulBe]

Yeah, this one is going sideways now. What of two channel signals via Direct mode in the 7705, 7706 or AV 10? I do not believe there would be any significant differences there. Dolby has improved their product. But, not all signals are the Dolby kind or played using the Dolby Surround up mixer.

The material previously played on an old player connected to the 7.1 EXT. IN will now also benefit from a digital connection and the AV 10’s DSP. Yet, no word on any of this and just the continued, and unproven claims of the better Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround Processing in the AV 10. It would not be unscrutinized by a new poster but for some reason we are all just supposed to take it at face value here.

The 2 channel sound I get out of the AV10 is very close to what I hear through my Benchmark HPA4 preamp.

 

[dolynick]

It would not be unscrutinized by a new poster but for some reason we are all just supposed to take it at face value here.

It has not gone unnoticed.

The 2 channel sound I get out of the AV10 is very close to what I hear through my Benchmark HPA4 preamp.

I think his point is that other claims of this sort would be met with an ASR-light type of "DACs have been a solved problem for years" and the like.

For the record, I'm fine with some willingness to accept the testimonial and I'm sure TLS firmly believes he's hearing an improvement. Audio objectivism certainly has its place and uses but I find it presumptuous of its proponents to insist that we know absolutely everything about how to measure things and as it relates to how an individual perceives sound. I'm willing to accept that the truth may lie somewhat in the middle ground in this case.

 

[TLS Guy]

So we can’t just look at some DAC or some SINAD numbers and say that one AVP should sound the same as another?

The answer to that question NO. The reason is because those measurements ignore the fourth dimension of the universe, which is TIME.

SINAD tells you nothing about time, which is another way of saying phase coherent equipment and comparing one piece of equipment to another.

I have long been concerned about the time relationships of audio equipment. The tendency is to say because this is difficult and gear, especially speakers, are awash in time misalignments, that it does not matter. Oh, but it does!

The SNR improvement of the AV 10 over the 7706 is huge and would by itself result in audible improvement.

However, I have taken a lot of trouble to minimize phase shifts/time shifts in my speaker designs. It is almost impossible to avoid in speakers and have a decent FR. My front three do have some time shift at 2,500 Hz, but the other points of crossover are time coherent.

The surrounds have a very minimal time shift at 3000 Hz, the rear speakers only have a time shift at 180 Hz, where I doubt it is significant, through the rest of the range they are time coherent. The ceiling Atmos speakers have no time shift.

So, yes this unit does sound better on two channel, but the improvement becomes more noticeable as you add channels.

So my strong hunch is that the improvement I am hearing is down to time. That will not show up in SINAD.

Again, I did not buy my AV 10 with the expectation that would be a highly noticeable improvement in SQ. I bought it because I am trouble averse, and the 7707 and 7706 had worn out their welcome for reliability. I have to say though, that the superb SNR of the AV 10 was a consideration. As you add channels a good SNR becomes of increasing importance. The fact the room is totally, and I mean totally silent with no signal, I believe is a significant contributor to the improved SQ.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yeah, this one is going sideways now. What of two channel signals via Direct mode in the 7705, 7706 or AV 10? I do not believe there would be any significant differences there. Dolby has improved their product. But, not all signals are the Dolby kind or played using the Dolby Surround up mixer.

The material previously played on an old player connected to the 7.1 EXT. IN will now also benefit from a digital connection and the AV 10’s DSP. Yet, no word on any of this and just the continued, and unproven claims of the better Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround Processing in the AV 10. It would not be unscrutinized by a new poster but for some reason we are all just supposed to take it at face value here.

I think if you were some other dude saying the AV10 sounded better or another preamp sounded better, there would be a lot more criticism.

But TLS Guy probably gets more "slack" than most people do.

I think many of us are just thinking, "Well, the AV10 has a lot better measurements than his older Marantz AVP, and TLS Guy really loves his new AV10". And just leave it at that.

 

[TLS Guy]

I think if you were some other dude saying the AV10 sounded better or another preamp sounded better, there would be a lot more criticism.

But TLS Guy probably gets more "slack" than most people do.

I think many of us are just thinking, "Well, the AV10 has a lot better measurements than his older Marantz AVP, and TLS Guy really loves his new AV10". And just leave it at that.

I wish it was that simple, but it is not. The issue is that we have ignored the fourth dimension in audio for far too long. It could very well be that this speaker system can show the improvement, but a lot of others would not. In fact I suspect most would not.