Marantz AV 10 installed: - Early Review and Impressions.

[PENG]

Well, you never know until you try.

Try it first, then decide.

Dirac ART might be much better than ARC Genesis.

I edited my post for better clarity,

 

[PENG]

You are in agreement with Mathew Poes who rated ARC one of the lowest for bass management.

Not sure, I thought he and Gene like ARCG.

 

[Golfx]

Not sure, I thought he and Gene like ARCG.

He has his own “answers” youtube videos. He rated Anthem Room Correction the lowest of big 4 (trinnov, DIRAC, Audyssey & Anthem) for bass management.

 

[PENG]

Dirac ART might be much better than ARC Genesis.

I think my bad punctuations in my post confused you, as I wasn't trying to compare the two. ART is not a standalone RC, but an add on to DL/DLBC. I won't bother with ART, no not even going to try because it would be a waste of time. Two reasons:

1) My surround/height speakers are not truly full range so benefits of using ART would be very limited.
2) As it is now, I can get within +/- 1 dB 20-150 Hz, or +/- 2 to 3 dB 20-200 Hz with either Audyssey+app or DLBC, so I just can't see it can do better regardless what I am going to use, including ART, physical room treatments or both. Even with ARC Genesis, I could get within +/- 5 dB 20-160 Hz if I am willing to tweak for an hour or two.

Like anything else, there is a point of diminishing return. Now if ART is free, then yes I would try it regardless, but only if I end up going back from Anthem to Marantz.

Lastly, I quite like the results I am getting with my lowly Anthem AVM70 running ARC G, just that I am not too happy with the REW curves, again, that's roughly +/- 5 dB vs +/- 1 to 2 dB that I was getting before, when using with my AVR-X4400H running XT32 SubEQ HT and I believe a picture is worth, actually, better than a thousand words.

Edit: Before someone say anything, I should mention that for people who has multiple seats, ART should do a lot better than just DLBC, at least in theory, but I sit at the mmp 95% of the time.

 

[PENG]

He has his own “answers” youtube videos. He rated Anthem Room Correction the lowest of big 4 (trinnov, DIRAC, Audyssey & Anthem) for bass management.

Okay thanks, so that's on "bass management" only, not room correction as a whole right? The only recent video of his I found and watched is the following:

Top automated EQ for multiple subwoofers

Based on what he said in this, I would admit I could agree with him a lot more than I previously would. And it did allude to ARC G is less sophisticated, but not necessarily a bad thing, that, I can also agree to some extent.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I think my bad punctuations in my post confused you, as I wasn't trying to compare the two. ART is not a standalone RC, but an add on to DL/DLBC. I won't bother with ART, no not even going to try because it would be a waste of time. Two reasons:

1) My surround/height speakers are not truly full range so benefits of using ART would be very limited.
2) As it is now, I can get within +/- 1 dB 20-150 Hz, or +/- 2 to 3 dB 20-200 Hz with either Audyssey+app or DLBC, so I just can't see it can do better regardless what I am going to use, including ART, physical room treatments or both. Even with ARC Genesis, I could get within +/- 5 dB 20-160 Hz if I am willing to tweak for an hour or two.

Like anything else, there is a point of diminishing return. Now if ART is free, then yes I would try it regardless, but only if I end up going back from Anthem to Marantz.

Lastly, I quite like the results I am getting with my lowly Anthem AVM70 running ARC G, just that I am not too happy with the REW curves, again, that's roughly +/- 5 dB vs +/- 1 to 2 dB that I was getting before, when using with my AVR-X4400H running XT32 SubEQ HT and I believe a picture is worth, actually, better than a thousand words.

Edit: Before someone say anything, I should mention that for people who has multiple seats, ART should do a lot better than just DLBC, at least in theory, but I sit at the mmp 95% of the time.

Ouch. Anthem ARC Genesis can do its BEST frequency response 20-160Hz +/- 5.0dB after 2 hours of tweaking?

And you can get +/-1.0dB FR with both Audyssey and Dirac?

Is there really much of a point of even getting Dirac if you can already get +/-1.0dB with Audyssey? So yeah, I see no point of adding ART.

 

[PENG]

Ouch. Anthem ARC Genesis can do its BEST frequency response 20-160Hz +/- 5.0dB after 2 hours of tweaking?

And you can get +/-1.0dB FR with both Audyssey and Dirac?

Is there really much of a point of even getting Dirac if you can already get +/-1.0dB with Audyssey? So yeah, I see no point of adding ART.

For Audyssey with the app, to get to +/- 1 dB, 1/12 smoothing, it would take me many hours, or +/- 3.5 to 5 dB in an hour.

Dirac would take much less time tweaking. At some point, it becomes mostly academic, even +/- 3.5 dB can sound excellent if the dips are not too wide and the humps are in the right places. That's just my experience, ommv.

 

[TLS Guy]

I have now had time to really evaluate my AV 10 on a wide variety of input sources I have here.

I am now certain that my speaker system was not the weakest link in my system. This has come as a massive surprise to me, as you won't go far wrong blaming your speakers for anything you don't like about your sound.

However, after extensive evaluation I can now be certain that those Marantz pre/pros were the weakest link. This AV 10 has caused a highly significant increase in SQ across the board. This is especially true of Atmos and more about that later.
However with the AV10 all sources have greater definition and are tightened up. It has been transformative to the system. At first I thought it was just because it was due to the dollar signs, so I was highly skeptical of my impressions. But there is no doubt about it.

The improvement in Atmos performance is massive. With the AV7705 and AV7706 the improvement in native Atmos over upmixed sources was marginal. With the AV 10 it is night and day. This object bases system really works, with all instruments precisely localized, and hall ambience and perspective correctly captured. The room sounds much bigger than it is, with the sound field seeming to come way beyond the front of the room. Height information is correctly preserved like high off stage instruments.

My nephew Dr. John Apps visited from the UK over the weekend. He had been presenting at a medical conference in Denver last week. He has been a violinist in amateur orchestras in times past. He was astounded at the realistic perspective and location of instruments on Atmos material.

So my take home is that those last two pre/pros were wide of the mark for Atmos and somewhat sub par for everything else.
Both failed early, since I suspect many levels of incompetence in the design.

Lastly I have to say I was really annoyed at the premature failure of those units. I am now really pleased they are out of here, and had no idea they were holding this speaker system back to the degree they were.

I suspect that most if not all AV receivers are tarred with the same brush. So this now makes me rethink my advice to those who insist that two channel rigs sound better than AV systems, and switch between the two. I now have to grudgingly admit they may be right, especially if they have really good speakers.

The bad news in all of this, is that the cost of entry for really good audio from an AV system is now high.

 

[dlaloum]

The bad news in all of this, is that the cost of entry for really good audio from an AV system is now high.

Maybe - as discussed earlier, the improvement appears to be in the software - specifically the mixer.

This is software from Dolby that is installed under licence - and would also be present on more economical hardware.... potentially we may see similar improvements on more mass market hardware that deploys the same software technology.

Now the question is, whether the potential is achieved.

At least it is great to know that it can be achieved with the AV10/AV20

 

[lovinthehd]

So no actual AB comparisons let alone blind, level matched etc....just sonic memory with a new toy but glad Masimo owned Marantz came thru for you Your description of such massive changes just sounds....off.

 

[Trebdp83]

The continued improvement of Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround processing in home theater products should be of no surprise after a decade. It had better be nothing less than astonishing on units costing as much as the AV 10.

I’m sure material now played on a player using HDMI to the AV 10 rather than the 7.1 EXT. IN connection to the 7705 and 7706 also benefit greatly from the AV 10’s DSP. Now, about that old TV.

 

[dlaloum]

The continued improvement of Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround processing in home theater products should be of no surprise after a decade. It had better be nothing less than astonishing on units costing as much as the AV 10.

I’m sure material now played on a player using HDMI to the AV 10 rather than the 7.1 EXT. IN connection to the 7705 and 7706 also benefit greatly from the AV 10’s DSP. Now, about that old TV.

One of the weaknesses of the traditional AVR's is that their software is basically "fixed" at the level and capability it was at when released...

In a world that has become ever more software centric, software moves quickly.... whereas hardware moves slowly.

The previous generations are hardware centric....

A major question is whether (and to what degree) the different manufacturers have adapted to a new software centric paradigm?

With things like Dirac, we are seeing ongoing improvements happening month to month - and the benefits flow straight down to users... But this thread has highlighted improvements at the level of the DTS & Dolby decoders and mixers.... and I am not yet seeing any mechanisms out there for regular updates to that software tier of our systems!

The major advantage brands such as StormAudio and Trinnov have, is that they work continuously at that software tier level....

 

[lovinthehd]

One of the weaknesses of the traditional AVR's is that their software is basically "fixed" at the level and capability it was at when released...

In a world that has become ever more software centric, software moves quickly.... whereas hardware moves slowly.

The previous generations are hardware centric....

A major question is whether (and to what degree) the different manufacturers have adapted to a new software centric paradigm?

With things like Dirac, we are seeing ongoing improvements happening month to month - and the benefits flow straight down to users... But this thread has highlighted improvements at the level of the DTS & Dolby decoders and mixers.... and I am not yet seeing any mechanisms out there for regular updates to that software tier of our systems!

The major advantage brands such as StormAudio and Trinnov have, is that they work continuously at that software tier level....

Or is it more a willingness to use higher capacity hardware over software? Processing has been limited in avrs/pre-pros generally....

 

[Trebdp83]

Whatever improvements Dolby makes to Dolby Surround and Dolby Atmos over time will be available for license to AVP/AVR makers at a given time. I certainly wouldn’t spend big money on a new unit if Dolby had not made improvements to their products over the last decade.

 

[TLS Guy]

So no actual AB comparisons let alone blind, level matched etc....just sonic memory with a new toy but glad Masimo owned Marantz came thru for you Your description of such massive changes just sounds....off.

Doing a comparison like that with an AVP would be impossible. However the improvement is highly significant and there is no doubt about it. I think it is a combination of software and may be even more important the DAC. The other issue is the SNR. My 7705 and 7706 always had a background you could hear in a quiet room. All my 18 power amp channels and crossovers don't make an audible sound, and nor does this AV 10. The room is absolutely quiet with all the units on, AVP crossovers and power amps. You would never know there was equipment on if you did not look at it. So now this unit in that regard is comparable to the rest of the electronics. I, and others have noted that it takes only a small amount of background noise to alter SQ negatively, even if you can't hear it over the program. This is an overlooked factor and I think is contributing to the increased SQ.
I did not expect this result, and bought the unit it to not fail prematurely. Its build quality is way above my previous AVPs and comparable to my Quad units which have superb and legendary build quality. So now the whole chain from AVP to speakers is of comparable build quality.

Honestly when you look at AVRs and AVPs prior to these latest high end iterations, in my view they have the appearance of being thrown together under the hood when you look close. One of the reaons for Quad's legendary reliability from the Peter Walker years, is their superb layout, construction and design.

 

[PaulBe]

Doing a comparison like that with an AVP would be impossible. However the improvement is highly significant and there is no doubt about it. I think it is a combination of software and may be even more important the DAC. The other issue is the SNR. My 7705 and 7706 always had a background you could hear in a quiet room. All my 18 power amp channels and crossovers don't make an audible sound, and nor does this AV 10. The room is absolutely quiet with all the units on, AVP crossovers and power amps. You would never know there was equipment on if you did not look at it. So now this unit in that regard is comparable to the rest of the electronics. I, and others have noted that it takes only a small amount of background noise to alter SQ negatively, even if you can't hear it over the program. This is an overlooked factor and I think is contributing to the increased SQ.
I did not expect this result, and bought the unit it to not fail prematurely. Its build quality is way above my previous AVPs and comparable to my Quad units which have superb and legendary build quality. So now the whole chain from AVP to speakers is of comparable build quality.

Honestly when you look at AVRs and AVPs prior to these latest high end iterations, in my view they have the appearance of being thrown together under the hood when you look close. One of the reaons for Quad's legendary reliability from the Peter Walker years, is their superb layout, construction and design.

I've been using the AV10 since January 2025. My experience with it is much like yours. It is an excellent processor and much better than my old Emotiva RMC-1L.

 

[ryanosaur]

I've been using the AV10 since January 2025. My experience with it is much like yours. It is an excellent processor and much better than my old Emotiva RMC-1L.

I think Fisher Price could do a better processor than Emo!

 

[ryanosaur]

FWIW, the AV20 is working as advertised. Wonderful piece of gear.

 

[highfigh]

I am now certain that my speaker system was not the weakest link in my system. This has come as a massive surprise to me, as you won't go far wrong blaming your speakers for anything you don't like about your sound.

The improvement in Atmos performance is massive. With the AV7705 and AV7706 the improvement in native Atmos over upmixed sources was marginal. With the AV 10 it is night and day. This object bases system really works, with all instruments precisely localized, and hall ambience and perspective correctly captured. The room sounds much bigger than it is, with the sound field seeming to come way beyond the front of the room. Height information is correctly preserved like high off stage instruments.

The bad news in all of this, is that the cost of entry for really good audio from an AV system is now high.

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.