Marantz AV 10 installed: - Early Review and Impressions.

[TLS Guy]

Whose instructions? How did you position the mic? You still use it outside of eq for level/distance?

Yes, I do use it for level and distance, it seems to get that right, the only thing in need of tweaking were the sub outputs but they were very close. Actually unlike the other units the Audyssey curve was very close to my curve from my measurements. So that seems to be improved on this unit from the previous ones.
So the speakers are essentially flat at 1 meter from the speakers, Apart from the roll off of the center and side surrounds, at 47Hz and 52Hz respectively, second order roll off at that point. The room curves at the listening positions look like they should. You should never aim for a flat line at the listening positions. The room has no nasty peaks or suck outs, as per design, and the speakers are very flat with the left and right main getting to 20 Hz no problem. The rear surrounds get very close to that. The system can produce full concert levels and never sounds in any way stressed.

 

[lovinthehd]

Yes, I do use it for level and distance, it seems to get that right, the only thing in need of tweaking were the sub outputs but they were very close. Actually unlike the other units the Audyssey curve was very close to my curve from my measurements. So that seems to be improved on this unit from the previous ones.
So the speakers are essentially flat at 1 meter from the speakers, Apart from the roll off of the center and side surrounds, at 47Hz and 52Hz respectively, second order roll off at that point. The room curves at the listening positions look like they should. You should never aim for a flat line at the listening positions. The room has no nasty peaks or suck outs, as per design, and the speakers are very flat with the left and right main getting to 20 Hz no problem. The rear surrounds get very close to that. The system can produce full concert levels and never sounds in any way stressed.

Better, but yes the xt32 is widely viewed as a better version. Did you use the editor app? How did you edit the cuirve? How did you measure results? Same ears that like your new pre-pro?

 

[TLS Guy]

Better, but yes the xt32 is widely viewed as a better version. Did you use the editor app? How did you edit the cuirve? How did you measure results? Same ears that like your new pre-pro?

I use omni mic and it discs and programs. It is a good system for speaker evaluation.

 

[PaulBe]

That didn't answer the question particularly. I know you don't like Audyssey, that's not news. Just checking more than expecting much.

What tools do you use to manage your system and room?

 

[Trell]

You know you are a very rude type of bloke, mend your ways.

You can be very rude as well, just saying, so perhaps we both can take your advice to heart?

 

[Trebdp83]

Everybody could try to be more helpful and respectful when posting in somebody else's thread. But, where is the fun in that s#%t?

 

[Trell]

Everybody could be try to be more helpful and respectful when posting in somebody else's thread. But, where is the fun in that s#%t?

Yup, and there are the many replies of his along with recalling what the poster posted earlier, or is it only new posters that will be shot down rudely for saying that they hear differences among good DACs, but not backed up with evidence?

 

[TLS Guy]

Yup, and there are the many replies of his along with recalling what the poster posted earlier, or is it only new posters that will be shot down rudely for saying that they hear differences among good DACs, but not backed up with evidence?

It is because the major differences are in the processing, which is resulting in perceptual, sound stage and ambience changes. I have no idea how to quantify that and certainly don't have the equipment to do it. However, it is night and day obvious.

On the previous units ambience was only marginally improved. However, with the AV 10 you really hear the acoustic of the hall, and the resounding echo from roof rear and sides, with correct and realistic timing. The improvement is not subtle but obvious leading to a big breakthrough in realism. I have no idea how to quantify that.

 

[Trell]

It is because the major differences are in the processing, which is resulting in perceptual, sound stage and ambience changes. I have no idea how to quantify that and certainly don't have the equipment to do it. However, it is night and day obvious.

On the previous units ambience was only marginally improved. However, with the AV 10 you really hear the acoustic of the hall, and the resounding echo from roof rear and sides, with correct and realistic timing. The improvement is not subtle but obvious leading to a big breakthrough in realism. I have no idea how to quantify that.

Exactly my point that it's the DSP and not DAC IC or the two filters assuming a competent DAC implementation.

 

[TLS Guy]

Exactly my point that it's the DSP and not DAC IC or the two filters assuming a competent DAC implementation.

Others though, may not get the same experience as a lot of systems have surround speakers far removed from the sound signature of the front speakers.

I designed all the speakers, and they all sound very similar. The surrounds are the speakers I designed and built to monitor my radio broadcasts and recordings. After symphony concerts in the Chester Fritz auditorium, players would crowd into the Green Room to hear parts of the concert. They served as really accurate monitor speakers. The surround backs are my studio monitors from ny Grand Forks days, that I used for critical editing and playback to the musicians, especially the conductors.

The point being that the reverberant field and direct field from this system are going to have very close sonic signatures. My gut tells me that if the reverberant field is a significantly different sonic signature from the front a lot of this benefit will be lost.

 

[PaulBe]

Others though, may not get the same experience as a lot of systems have surround speakers far removed from the sound signature of the front speakers.

I designed all the speakers, and they all sound very similar. The surrounds are the speakers I designed and built to monitor my radio broadcasts and recordings. After symphony concerts in the Chester Fritz auditorium, players would crowd into the Green Room to hear parts of the concert. They served as really accurate monitor speakers. The surround backs are my studio monitors from ny Grand Forks days, that I used for critical editing and playback to the musicians, especially the conductors.

The point being that the reverberant field and direct field from this system are going to have very close sonic signatures. My gut tells me that if the reverberant field is a significantly different sonic signature from the front a lot of this benefit will be lost.

The sonic signatures will be the same if all the speakers are the same - same drivers, same crossovers, same crossover frequencies.

Similar voicing (similar sound) does Not = the same. The industry's idea of voicing is just marketing if the above isn't applied. You can't correct a room with speakers that don't have same drivers, same crossovers, and the same crossover frequencies. IF you have all these things, very little room correction is needed.

Simple example -
I wouldn't use different speakers for L & R just because they 'sound similar'. The image would never be coherent.

 

[TLS Guy]

The sonic signatures will be the same if all the speakers are the same - same drivers, same crossovers, same crossover frequencies.

Similar voicing (similar sound) does Not = the same. The industry's idea of voicing is just marketing if the above isn't applied. You can't correct a room with speakers that don't have same drivers, same crossovers, and the same crossover frequencies. IF you have all these things, very little room correction is needed.

A simple example - you wouldn't use different speakers for L & R just because they 'sound similar'. The image would never be coherent.

That is mainly because of the ambient field and does not apply to the others. I actually use different drivers for my center speaker. I use coaxial drivers in the center for reasons of coherence and radiation pattern. It works really well, and when you move across the sound stage you hear zero difference in tonality. A good FR with a mirroring off axis response is what is required to get the job done.

 

[PaulBe]

That is mainly because of the ambient field and does not apply to the others. I actually use different drivers for my center speaker. I use coaxial drivers in the center for reasons of coherence and radiation pattern. It works really well, and when you move across the sound stage you hear zero difference in tonality. A good FR with a mirroring off axis response is what is required to get the job done.

The recordings' ambient field is on the recording, whether natural or synthetic. The room is Not the ambient field of the recording.

I understand you use different drivers and are happy with the sound. I don't care if they offer 'exactly' the same sense of tonality. The same sense of tone can be a different waveform. Images require consistency in waveform. There is no coherence with different waveforms between channel pairs. Any pair in a multichannel recording is a channel pair. Images in a multi-channel recording sometimes use more than 2 channels. An acoustic multichannel recording uses all the channels to create image.

Similarness can still be pleasant, and sometimes very pleasant. Sameness is what is required to get the job done.

A good pro soundstage uses all the same floor speakers.

The THX standards were designed so the average consumer could physically and financially handle multi-channel HT systems - small speakers all around, and 80Hz crossovers to Subs. In a small room, a consumer could use something like Bose cubes all around, add a small Sub, and still get great 5.1, 7.1 HT. A system like that, with exactly the same speakers, will produce better multi-channel imaging than any other system, no matter the cost, where the speakers are just 'similar' in tonality.

 

[TLS Guy]

The recordings' ambient field is on the recording, whether natural or synthetic. The room is Not the ambient field of the recording.

I understand you use different drivers and are happy with the sound. I don't care if they offer 'exactly' the same sense of tonality. The same sense of tone can be a different waveform. Images require consistency in waveform. There is no coherence with different waveforms between channel pairs. Any pair in a multichannel recording is a channel pair. Similarness can still be pleasant, and sometimes very pleasant. Sameness is what is required to get the job done.

A good pro soundstage uses all the same floor channels.

The THX standards were designed so the average consumer could physically and financially handle multi-channel HT systems - small speakers all around, and 80Hz crossovers to Subs. In a small room, a consumer could use something like Bose cubes all around, add a small Sub, and still get great 5.1, 7.1 HT. A system like that, with exactly the same speakers, will produce better multi-channel imaging than any other system, no matter the cost, where the speakers are just 'similar' in tonality.

That really only applies if the speakers are equally lousy. If the speakers are excellent and accurate everything will be fine.

 

[PaulBe]

That really only applies if the speakers are equally lousy. If the speakers are excellent and accurate everything will be fine.

Denial is Not a river in Egypt.

 

[TLS Guy]

Denial is Not a river in Egypt.

Saying that all speakers have to have the same drivers is daft. That is as stupid as saying that when you make a recording all mics have to be the same, whereas they all have specialized functions.

This is especially true of the front stage where the center and left and right have different functions and application.

I researched and experimented with this while I was designing my front stage, and the center speaker has a very specialized function and has to be optimally designed for that purpose.

I can assure you that what you are saying is just wrong. I don't give a hoot what THX say about it, they are wrong about more than just that.

 

[PaulBe]

Saying that all speakers have to have the same drivers is daft. That is as stupid as saying that when you make a recording all mics have to be the same, whereas they all have specialized functions.

This is especially true of the front stage where the center and left and right have different functions and application.

I researched and experimented with this while I was designing my front stage, and the center speaker has a very specialized function and has to be optimally designed for that purpose.

I can assure you that what you are saying is just wrong. I don't give a hoot what THX say about it, they are wrong about more than just that.

You are speaking beyond your depth. It's a common theme here. We can agree that the AV10 is a fine AVP.

 

[dlaloum]

Others though, may not get the same experience as a lot of systems have surround speakers far removed from the sound signature of the front speakers.

I designed all the speakers, and they all sound very similar. The surrounds are the speakers I designed and built to monitor my radio broadcasts and recordings. After symphony concerts in the Chester Fritz auditorium, players would crowd into the Green Room to hear parts of the concert. They served as really accurate monitor speakers. The surround backs are my studio monitors from ny Grand Forks days, that I used for critical editing and playback to the musicians, especially the conductors.

The point being that the reverberant field and direct field from this system are going to have very close sonic signatures. My gut tells me that if the reverberant field is a significantly different sonic signature from the front a lot of this benefit will be lost.

To some degree the differing voicing of non matched speakers can be overcome using the target curves of Audyssey/Dirac...

I use base response of my fronts as target for all the other speakers to assist in matching the voicing.

In this age of RoomEQ - voicing has the potential for becoming less of an issue.

Of course there are flaws / resonances which will still identify differing speakers - but that will remain applicable for any situation in which the speakers aren't identical! - and the better the speakers, the less such flaws crop up.

 

[TLS Guy]

To some degree the differing voicing of non matched speakers can be overcome using the target curves of Audyssey/Dirac...

I use base response of my fronts as target for all the other speakers to assist in matching the voicing.

In this age of RoomEQ - voicing has the potential for becoming less of an issue.

Of course there are flaws / resonances which will still identify differing speakers - but that will remain applicable for any situation in which the speakers aren't identical! - and the better the speakers, the less such flaws crop up.

What this new member does not understand is that I have been building speakers for 70 years plus, and my speakers all sound remarkably similar, no matter what the design. You can play any of the bed layer speakers and any of my three systems and you will hear a remarkably similar sound. It is not like auditioning in a dealer and every speaker sounds remarkably different and that includes the same brand! They all measure very well. That means as opera singer move across the stage you hear no change as they move from center to right or left. The front scene is totally seamless.

 

[PaulBe]

To some degree the differing voicing of non matched speakers can be overcome using the target curves of Audyssey/Dirac...

I use base response of my fronts as target for all the other speakers to assist in matching the voicing.

In this age of RoomEQ - voicing has the potential for becoming less of an issue.

Of course there are flaws / resonances which will still identify differing speakers - but that will remain applicable for any situation in which the speakers aren't identical! - and the better the speakers, the less such flaws crop up.

Here is a comparison of two different perfect speakers. One has a 12dB/oct LR crossover. the second one has a 24dB/oct LR crossover. They have perfect frequency response. They have perfect crossovers at the same frequency. Assume the same drivers. The perfect phases are entirely different. The only place that the speakers are close to being in phase is at 20Hz. At higher frequencies than the crossover frequency, the drivers are almost out of phase. Have your ever reversed the phase with one channel and noticed what happens to the sound? How do you intend to correct this with room EQ over the bandwidth of the speakers if they are different? All real speakers are worse.

These two perfect speakers have the same voicing but you will never be able to correct them to each other.

The respective system phase curves are the grey and dotted blue curves. The green and dotted purple curves are the driver responses with their crossovers. The driver specific text in the pic is meaningless for this example.