Marantz AV 10 installed: - Early Review and Impressions.

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[TLS Guy]

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.

View attachment 73922

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

I am not daft, the phase of the three front speakers are precisely matched. The surrounds are minimal phase designs, and anyway with the huge change in location, phase is not an issue. I do not use room correction as it is not required. There is no significant out of phase condition, and Audyssey is happy in the speaker distance and levelling.

 

[TLS Guy]

What problem are you having with my example? If you are using high level crossovers with RCL parts, all speakers are minimum phase. If you are using low level crossovers, please describe them. Phase is an issue with any spaced pair that is used to create image. When there is no correlation, none of this matters.

The angle between Left and Right is a huge change in apparent location. Change the phase of one of the speakers and hear what happens.

Phase has to be the same in any channel pair to make a good image. The holographic image is fragile. In a multi-channel system, that means any possible channel pair, or combinations up to and including all the speakers. This includes between your precisely matched Fronts and your minimum phase surrounds. What is the system phase of every channel pair in your layout with respect to MLP? I'm not really expecting an answer.

Making assertions like "anyway with the huge change in location, phase is not an issue." is a dog that 'don't hunt'. It's just your assertion. You are not describing a different 'zone' in another room. Perhaps you have never heard a fully integrated surround system, or noticed how some recordings make use of multiple channels to create image.

Recordings are variable. Some have highly correlated sound between all channels and need a phase match to sound their best, or to even hear some details as there are intended to be heard - from two channel to multi-channel recordings. Some recordings have simple uncorrelated ambient surround sound and don't require any special handling.

Are you using Audyssey just to set just distance and level? Works for me. Maybe I'll try it.

Your post is wrong and idiotic on many levels.

While it makes some sense to minimize phase aberrations of the front three, the benefit will only be at the MLP, and as soon as you move left or right the time path will be different. As for the other speakers, because of the varying time paths this phasing of speakers is not an issue. This is not the same thing as careful phasing of the drivers on a single speaker. However, almost all speakers are awash in phase shifts. Even if you use fourth order filters, then at crossover phase is shifted by a whole cycle, and a square wave looks like a sign wave. The only speaker that could reproduce a sound wave in mid air, is Peter Walker's Quad ESL 63.

So what you are spouting is absolute irrelevant nonsense.

Yes, I use Audyssey to set distance and levels, but it never gets the sub levels quite right. This version is closer, but a db or two off. This newer version of Audyssey does a much better job of "room Eq" and is not significantly different from my curve at the MLP. But I don't need an extra layer of frequency manipulation. Actually most of this comes down to baffle step compensation, which is in fact speaker position dependent, but my speakers have variable BSC which can be optimized to position.

 

[TLS Guy]

Most of my response is typed in Red, and embedded in your post. Here is a pic of careful phasing between drivers in a single speaker. It's one of my speakers. The crossover frequency is 600Hz at 36dB/oct - electroacoustic. The crossovers are IIR DSP. All 7 floor channels are the same. The tweeters are matched pairs - except for the Center tweeter. Careful phasing of drivers in a speaker matters. Careful phasing of correlated signals between any group of speakers matters.

View attachment 73931

I'm not disputing getting individual speakers to have a good phase response. However for analog filters only first order crossover can have linear phase, and the problem with that is that there is huge driver overlap, which creates huge problems to solve. Only active crossovers with DSP can really solve this problem.

However, it is absolutely not essential at all to have all speakers identical, that is the part that is nonsense. In any event there is a pecking order, as flat FR and an an off axis response that closely matches the axis response is higher in the pecking order than a perfect phase response.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

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.

Anyway, let’s forget about all the other stuffs. Is your AV10 still giving you all the excitement and thrill after the honeymoon period?

 

[TLS Guy]

Anyway, let’s forget about all the other stuffs. Is your AV10 still giving you all the excitement and thrill after the honeymoon period?

Absolutely. The unit is incredibly good and I have not had to do further adjustments. I have one of my brothers visiting from England. After he listened to a concert, he said, "you would not know you were listening to loudspeakers." On this speaker system it really is close, very close to the concert hall experience. I never, ever thought it would be possible to get this close to life like concert experience.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Absolutely. The unit is incredibly good and I have not had to do further adjustments. I have one of my brothers visiting from England. After he listened to a concert, he said, "you would not know you were listening to loudspeakers." On this speaker system it really is close, very close to the concert hall experience. I never, ever thought it would be possible to get this close to life like concert experience.

Very nice.

And this concert hall ambience experience is with just using Dolby ATMOS and not using any DSP like “Concert Hall” or “Stadium” DSP?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I'm not aware that any DSP features like "Concert Hall" or "Stadium" DSP are part of the AV10. The AV10 appears to be just very good at reproducing low level detail. It's better than my old Emotiva RMC-1L.

Even better.

Unlike Yamaha's million DSP modes.

 

[TLS Guy]

Here is a good video. A detailed discussion of phase matching starts at about 46:50 in the video:

Important comment at the video:
"This guy is talking about what I've been saying all along. That phase coherence and the phantom imaging that comes along with it is one of the most important elements of immersive audio. When I first set up Atmos, I accidentally achieved that. I say accidentally because at the time (2017 to 2018) I really didnt have any idea what I was doing with Atmos and Immersive Audio. Heck I was in the learning phase with basic surround sound. And when I set up my Atmos speakers (because I had just upgraded to an Atmos capable receiver, so I said what the heck, I'll just check it out) and the resulting soundfield was so effective it was mind-blowing. It took my system from sounding "pretty decent" to rivalling and in some ways, exceeding the experiences I got from the local cinema. I was frankly flabbergasted. It didnt make any sense to me why suddenly my system shot off into the stratosphere. It was years later that I figured out it had to do with the phase coherence of all the speakers in the system. I would like more experts to discuss how to achieve that coherence between all speakers, ESPECIALLY between the ear-layer and the height-layer."

Mostly bunk and nonsense.

The speakers do need to sound similar. They do need to be as phase coherent within the limitation of accurate frequency response and good match of axis and off axis FR. Phase coherence within a speaker could only be achieved with a single driver or very good coaxial. There will never be phase coherence in speakers that are in different positions. That is impossible and will be different for every listening position.

Now we get to the real lunacy, the bulk of the sound is going to come from the front three speakers, and they need to be large enough to handle the spl.

You will not put any of these speakers in the ceiling, or one of the left or right speakers in the center.

But you can put adequate speakers in the locations required.

The auto set up programs like audyssey are adequate to tell you if there are phase aberrations great enough to have an impact, and I have personally tested that.

So yes, all speakers need to be good speakers and not have significant aberrations. Some crossovers will alter phase enough to be a problem, but I am confident that Audyssey will tell you that.
And yes, I get excellent phantom imaging in the room and huge depth of sound field beyond the front speakers.

 

[everettT]

Your reply is what I expected. I posted what I did so other people who are really interested in what industry professionals know will have ready access to it, and, the stuff you just wrote for perspective.

Now be sure to tell that guy, Lon Neumann, who mixed sound for Michael Jackson, and many other world class artists, that he is full of 'mostly bunk and nonsense'. Add your comments to the YouTube video. It will be a hoot!

You have a nice looking room. I have a similar arrangement with the soffit.

Here is a front pic of my setup:
View attachment 74046

Surrounds and backs are the same - same drivers, same crossovers, tweeter pairs are matched, and yes the phase match matters. Lon Neumann and I are in agreement about phase matching. I listen to the results every day! I hope that someday you get to listen to a setup with phase matching. May it open your mind and ears.

I'd say Dr. Mark knows what he is talking about 99% of the time, some just don't like his bluntness. Hopefully this can be understood the longer you're around.

 

[TLS Guy]

I'd say Dr Mark knows some things well, and very little about other things. This phase match issue is his blind spot. He does have a couple of years on me. I have only 55 years in the hobby, and only 35 years in pro audio.

Do you have the exact spot marked on your floor and the height at which all those speakers are in phase? You would also have to clamp your head in the same spot. Sound has both direction and time which is part of the phase relationship. You are spouting absolute bunk, as well as that so called "expert" in that you tube video.
Your speakers will not have perfect phase even for one speaker. The phase relationships will change even for one speaker as the speakers are separated in space, and the time relationship and therefore phase relationship between the drivers of a single speaker will alter depending on your location in the room, and how you are seated. The issue becomes compounded the more speakers you add. The issue will still be present, though somewhat ameliorated, if you use zero phase shift digital crossovers in active speakers. You can not make a passive speaker with zero phase shift that has multiple drivers and an analog crossover. Even then it would only hold for one speaker at one solitary position from the speaker unless it had a full range driver with zero phase shift. However, even single drivers have some finite phase shift.

Now, I'm not saying you should not take steps to minimize phase shifts in speaker design However, flat frequency response takes precedence over phase shifts. There has only ever been one truly phase coherent speaker and that is the Quad ESL 63 electrostatic speaker.