Marantz AV 10 installed: - Early Review and Impressions.

[Trell]

I personally believe pursuing so called room correction is "fools gold". I don't use room correction and have no problems getting good uniform sound throughout the room. I don't have Dirac, but would never purchase it. Any versions of Audyssey have been a marked downgrade of all my systems, which have sounded far better without it. The way Dirac is conceived I can be certain it would substantially downgrade this system.

I believe that trying to "correct" a room this way is going down the wrong road. I think in essence that most domestic rooms as encountered are not suitable for multi channel audio, and especially not atmos, which I think really requires a dedicated room built from the ground up. My strong hunch is that most rooms would actually sound their best with 2.1 or 3.1 systems and no more. When I visit friends homes I try and conceive the possibility that an Atmos could possibly work in any room in the house. I am yet to find one. This is what I see as the defining limitation of this technology.

I have a room with a 2.1 system and a room with a 3.1 system. Adding more channels in either of those rooms could not possibly be of any benefit and a certain downgrade. This is what is really the limiting factor with this technology. To make it work as envisaged really requires a total design an approach.

Strangely enough, many people, even on this forum, says that they get very nice multi channel sound even when using an AVR and room correction. And room correction is needed to kick down bass peaks in almost all rooms, unless they design and build a house with audio as a very important requirement. That's very expensive, though.

Your new AV 10 is very nice but it also costs more than my 5 speakers (Canton Vento, 4 Ohm) and 2 subwoofers (SVS SB3000), and these are fairly decent. They also works well being driven by an AVR, even though they are 4 Ohm, but then I don't listen at Reference Level in a big room either.

 

[PENG]

The technology is mature, well understood, and replicable.

The software / firmware on the other hand.... (!!)

I can agree to a point. The thing is, for DSP, even the hardware can be improved, significantly. I disagreed with TLSGuy in many occasions but his claims that he heard so much better Atmos SQ upgrading from the 7705 to the AV10 seems credible and I believe in his case it is a combination of much improved SINAD (in this case, the 7705/06 is noisy enough relatively speaking for a quiet room for that to be a factor) and DSP hardware, likely software as well. The technology might be mature, well understood and replicable, but cost is also a factor so more recent products such as an AVR has the advantage that higher quality parts such as the various ICs used in them are much cheaper now and can be applied more freely on products in general.

 

[Trell]

A microphone is not an ear-brain connection. Room correction schemes give variable results. Pursuing room correction at midrange frequencies and above is 'fools gold'.

Agree, and the only reason I considered to upgrade my Denon 2015 model AVR is that the 2016 model got an app where you could choose how high up in frequencies Audyssey XT32 should correct. I thought it expensive (and wasteful) to buy a new AVR just for that and not knowing if it made any difference in my case.

I do have two Genelec 2.1 setups that have Genelec room compensation (it's what Genelec calls it) for desktop use, and that mostly just knocks down bass peaks. Works very well for me and my wife. Actually, she essentially stopped using headphones after getting the Genelec 2.1 setup.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

My strong hunch is that most rooms would actually sound their best with 2.1 or 3.1 systems and no more. When I visit friends homes I try and conceive the possibility that an Atmos could possibly work in any room in the house. I am yet to find one.

Just because YOUR FRIENDS don't have the room for ATMOS doesn't mean MOST ROOMS are not suited for ATMOS.

MOST of MY FRIENDS have 15x18 rooms. Some have 13 x 15 and 14 x 16 rooms. So MOST rooms I've been to are just fine with at least ATMOS 5.1.2.

 

[Trell]

Just because YOUR FRIENDS don't have the room for ATMOS doesn't mean MOST ROOMS are not suited for ATMOS.

MOST of MY FRIENDS have 15x18 rooms. Some have 13 x 15 and 14 x 16 rooms. So MOST rooms I've been to are just fine with at least ATMOS 5.1.2.

So your friends don't build a house around their HT?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So your friends don't build a house around their HT?

No, most people I know of don't seem to care as much as we do about HT.

But still, their rooms are decent sizes.

 

[TLS Guy]

No, most people I know of don't seem to care as much as we do about HT.

But still, their rooms are decent sizes.

It is not the size, but where windows are an openings. Unless home architecture in Georgia is very different from midwestern home architecture I would expect the same constraints to apply. Apart from this HT room which otherwise would have been two bedrooms, all the other rooms are totally unsuitable for anything other than 2.1 or 3.1.

At the lake our main greatroom was not even suitable for two channel.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I’m inclined to agree. Great, can’t be the enemy of good.

 

[TLS Guy]

So your friends don't build a house around their HT?

And I didn't either, I just put that space to good use.

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

 

[lovinthehd]

I personally believe pursuing so called room correction is "fools gold". I don't use room correction and have no problems getting good uniform sound throughout the room. I don't have Dirac, but would never purchase it. Any versions of Audyssey have been a marked downgrade of all my systems, which have sounded far better without it. The way Dirac is conceived I can be certain it would substantially downgrade this system.

I believe that trying to "correct" a room this way is going down the wrong road. I think in essence that most domestic rooms as encountered are not suitable for multi channel audio, and especially not atmos, which I think really requires a dedicated room built from the ground up. My strong hunch is that most rooms would actually sound their best with 2.1 or 3.1 systems and no more. When I visit friends homes I try and conceive the possibility that an Atmos could possibly work in any room in the house. I am yet to find one. This is what I see as the defining limitation of this technology.

I have a room with a 2.1 system and a room with a 3.1 system. Adding more channels in either of those rooms could not possibly be of any benefit and a certain downgrade. This is what is really the limiting factor with this technology. To make it work as envisaged really requires a total design an approach.

Curious, you used the Audyssey XT32 with all mic positions and at least the Editor App with your new unit?

 

[TLS Guy]

Curious, you used the Audyssey XT32 with all mic positions and at least the Editor App with your new unit?

I did run Audyssey, but don't use it. I calibrated with Omni mic measurements and my ear. Anyhow it sounds really good and keeping Audyssey off cuts out a redundant layer of processing.

 

[TLS Guy]

Just because YOUR FRIENDS don't have the room for ATMOS doesn't mean MOST ROOMS are not suited for ATMOS.

MOST of MY FRIENDS have 15x18 rooms. Some have 13 x 15 and 14 x 16 rooms. So MOST rooms I've been to are just fine with at least ATMOS 5.1.2.

That is only part of the equation, windows, built in structures and above all openings to other spaces all come into question. I don't know homes in your area, but here we have very few houses suitable for surround audio, and that is because they are very open plan and there is no place to put the surrounds, and often a location for the front three that would not lend itself to using surrounds. The pictures I showed you are very typical of this region in the midwest, and the reason is to get good air mixing and uniform heat in our brutal winters. It has been this way a long time as far as I can tell as the older homes also follow this plan.

If you think you could put a decent surround system is the spaces I pictured be my guest. Those sort of spaces are very typical here. My AV room is not, and would usually be a couple of bedrooms, so that would be five, which would be typical of a home with this floor area of 4,800 Sq.ft. Even if you tried, the family would not want the sound audible over a full level of the home. This is the major barrier to acceptance I am certain. So a focus on surround type audio is misguided and cost effective 2.1 and 3.1 systems would have acceptance. Instead they are priced out of the market, generally have limited input versatility and no bass management. No wonder most are driven to soundbars!

As usual the MBAs and marketer types have it wrong. What a surprise!

 

[lovinthehd]

I did run Audyssey, but don't use it. I calibrated with Omni mic measurements and my ear. Anyhow it sounds really good and keeping Audyssey off cuts out a redundant layer of processing.

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

 

[TLS Guy]

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

To answer more specifically yes, I did use all of those features and had the mic at all listening position. I followed instructions to the letter. But Audyssey Eq is now switched to off. I just did it for comparison and interest.

 

[lovinthehd]

To answer more specifically yes, I did use all of those features and had the mic at all listening position. I followed instructions to the letter. But Audyssey Eq is now switched to off. I just did it for comparison and interest.

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

 

[TLS Guy]

I’m inclined to agree. Great, can’t be the enemy of good.

Yes, that is my point. When you come to the Twin Cities next you should pay a visit here.

 

[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.

 

[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?