Marantz 8805 review - very poor measurements

[PENG]

I'm not at all sure I trust Amir's measurements.

His measurements are not inconsistent with others such as the one by hometheaterhifi.com's and soundandvision.com's (though that one was for the AV8802A). Based on his measurements on many other devices, I have no reasons not to trust his.

There's an interesting review of the DAC used in the 8805 here https://www.absolutesound.com.sg/blog-2/2017/9/7/why-did-teac-use-the-ak4490-dac-in-the-ud-503-teac-x-akm-special-round-table-discussion and the measurement provided and the discussion don't seem to bear out Amir's conclusions.

That group of people were not in the non biased position obviously. Also, that graph presented may not be an apple to apple comparison as it seemed to be just noise vs frequency whereas Amir's was show the FFT spectrum THD+N vs frequency. It also appeared to have been measured as a standalone DAC, whether it was presented by AKM or TEAC I have no idea, do you? Either way, it wasn't the same implementation. Amir measured the DAC performance via the pre out, so aside from different implementation, the numbers were also at the mercy of the upstream circuitry and components such as the volume control.

Still, the difference doesn't seem significant except the spikes in Amirs, that were due to the slow roll off filter Marantz chose.

I am a EE and measurement is a tricky thing. I'm not saying Amir didn't see what he saw, but given what I hear from the 8805 and given what the folks who make the DAC say I don't have a lot of faith that whatever he saw has anything to do with the sound.

It isn't a tricky thing if the operator knows what he is doing and follow AP's instructions where applicable. I am sure Amir is a good operator as he has tested so many products over years. As to what you hear, that's your subjective experience that may or may not apply to others.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I'm not at all sure I trust Amir's measurements. There's an interesting review of the DAC used in the 8805 here https://www.absolutesound.com.sg/blog-2/2017/9/7/why-did-teac-use-the-ak4490-dac-in-the-ud-503-teac-x-akm-special-round-table-discussion and the measurement provided and the discussion don't seem to bear out Amir's conclusions. I am a EE and measurement is a tricky thing. I'm not saying Amir didn't see what he saw, but given what I hear from the 8805 and given what the folks who make the DAC say I don't have a lot of faith that whatever he saw has anything to do with the sound.

As an EE, which published measurements do you trust more than Amir's?

 

[PeterEBailey]

It is interesting to read how the electronics perform with baseline test, but in the end all that really matters is how it performs when processing sound.

 

[lovinthehd]

It is interesting to read how the electronics perform with baseline test, but in the end all that really matters is how it performs when processing sound.

Is that still a measurement of performance particularly vs mere preference?

 

[PeterEBailey]

To be honest, sub audible is totally insignificant. All that matters is the sound quality.

 

[lovinthehd]

To be honest, sub audible is totally insignificant. All that matters is the sound quality.

How do you define "sound quality"?

 

[PeterEBailey]

That's a great question. The portable transistor radios of the sixties were utter rubbish, so the closer the it sounds to a live performance the better.

 

[lovinthehd]

That's a great question. The portable transistor radios of the sixties were utter rubbish, so the closer the it sounds to a live performance the better.

Well, that's quite a swing from a modern pre-pro to an old transistor radio all in one unit (including transducer). Radio at that time was a fair amount of rubbish, too. I was more curious if you thought processing of audio followed some mystical distortion induced path vs a cleaner path....

 

[PeterEBailey]

I'd go for a cleaner path. In that regard, I'm uncertain if the underlying poor performance impacts on the audible quality. In the end, I guess you just have to trust your ears and go for what sounds best to the listener.

 

[lovinthehd]

I'd go for a cleaner path. In that regard, I'm uncertain if the underlying poor performance impacts on the audible quality. In the end, I guess you just have to trust your ears and go for what sounds best to the listener.

Meh trusting one's ears depending on setup for comparison, mood, etc is problematic. Cleaner path I think works very well, tho. I trust measurements on electronics more than trying to listen to every bloody box out there....

 

[PeterEBailey]

I totally agree, but I'm not convinced a cleaner path is all that matters when selecting equipment.

 

[lovinthehd]

I totally agree, but I'm not convinced a cleaner path is all that matters when selecting equipment.

Sure, some preference may come into play but sonically? Just how would you determine that and compare to a wide range of gear? Seems the cleaner path is a better guide and has been borne out in my own experiences. Some like tubes and vinyl....meh.

 

[PeterEBailey]

I do apologise if I described it awkwardly, but I'm sure you know what I'm after.

A clean path is always going to beneficial, but it ain't necessarily going to be the defining criteria.

It would be fantastic if a complex surround processor could be as clean as a simple DAC, but I'm sure the complexity means it is going to be an impossibility and therefore an unrealistic comparison. Perhaps if the processor was in one box and a DAC for every channel was in its own separate box it might be achievable. Indeed that would be my ideal, but sadly the manufacturers don't see it as a viable product. Perhaps digital out for each channel instead of unbalanced RCA outputs wouldn't such a big ask.

Currently it is extremely difficult to preview equipment, so there needs to be a way to compare apples with apples and narrow the selection process.

 

[lovinthehd]

I do apologise if I described it awkwardly, but I'm sure you know what I'm after.

A clean path is always going to beneficial, but it ain't necessarily going to be the defining criteria.

It would be fantastic if a complex surround processor could be as clean as a simple DAC, but I'm sure the complexity means it is going to be an impossibility and therefore an unrealistic comparison. Perhaps if the processor was in one box and a DAC for every channel was in its own separate box it might be achievable. Indeed that would be my ideal, but sadly the manufacturers don't see it as a viable product. Perhaps digital out for each channel instead of unbalanced RCA outputs wouldn't such a big ask.

Currently it is extremely difficult to preview equipment, so there needs to be a way to compare apples with apples and narrow the selection process.

Complex processors are very comparable to "simple" dacs whatever those are. This is old tech. Trying to determine "differences" in audio quality by ear is more sketchy IMO.

 

[PeterEBailey]

Perhaps I shouldn't have referred to a DAC as simple as it can be complex. However a DAC is not a complex device like a surround processor.

I do completely agree it is difficult determining differences in audio quality, particularly when previewing it outside your environment as something is always going to be different. It seems like a no win situation. Should you accept seasoned reviewers opinions as they have compared similar equipment or just go with your gut feeling?

 

[lovinthehd]

Perhaps I shouldn't have referred to a DAC as simple as it can be complex. However a DAC is not a complex device like a surround processor.

I do completely agree it is difficult determining differences in audio quality, particularly when previewing it outside your environment as something is always going to be different. It seems like a no win situation. Should you accept seasoned reviewers opinions as they have compared similar equipment or just go with your gut feeling?

LOL seasoned reviewers....those pickled in alcohol or something? I find seasoned reviewers of the subjective type to be fairly useless....like anecdotes from casual comparisons. I don't ascribe much to "gut feelings" tho.

 

[PeterEBailey]

I agree it is funny, but I don't see any other options. Maybe compare a few reviews as there must be some who are more ethical than others.

 

[lovinthehd]

Why

I agree it is funny, but I don't see any other options. Maybe compare a few reviews as there must be some who are more ethical than others.

Don't see the point of a subjective review for this kind of gear at all. Unless it's just explaining options/features. Ethics somewhat, just the vagueness of a personal experience more....

(and would likely view your subjective opinion similarly....now, if you had an interesting valid comparison to consider, that could be different).