Marantz AV 10 installed: - Early Review and Impressions.

[PaulBe]

The answer to that question NO. The reason is because those measurements ignore the fourth dimension of the universe, which is TIME.

SINAD tells you nothing about time, which is another way of saying phase coherent equipment and comparing one piece of equipment to another.

I have long been concerned about the time relationships of audio equipment. The tendency is to say because this is difficult and gear, especially speakers, are awash in time misalignments, that it does not matter. Oh, but it does!

The SNR improvement of the AV 10 over the 7706 is huge and would by itself result in audible improvement.

However, I have taken a lot of trouble to minimize phase shifts/time shifts in my speaker designs. It is almost impossible to avoid in speakers and have a decent FR. My front three do have some time shift at 2,500 Hz, but the other points of crossover are time coherent.

The surrounds have a very minimal time shift at 3000 Hz, the rear speakers only have a time shift at 180 Hz, where I doubt it is significant, through the rest of the range they are time coherent. The ceiling Atmos speakers have no time shift.

So, yes this unit does sound better on two channel, but the improvement becomes more noticeable as you add channels.

So my strong hunch is that the improvement I am hearing is down to time. That will not show up in SINAD.

Again, I did not buy my AV 10 with the expectation that would be a highly noticeable improvement in SQ. I bought it because I am trouble averse, and the 7707 and 7706 had worn out their welcome for reliability. I have to say though, that the superb SNR of the AV 10 was a consideration. As you add channels a good SNR becomes of increasing importance. The fact the room is totally, and I mean totally silent with no signal, I believe is a significant contributor to the improved SQ.

Phase and time alignment is a huge missing piece of the puzzle. Moving these problems down in frequency does help. Perhaps the clock in the AV10 is very good.

SNR is a big piece.

Minimum Phase rotations in a speaker are fairly benign as long as there are no drastic kinks in the phase response, and not too many kinks. Time alignment in the crossover region is essential.

The sound of an instrument is far more than a fundamental and a collection of harmonics.

People do have different sensitivities to phase and time issues.

I did not know what to expect with the sound of the AV10. I was hoping it would sound and function better than my old processor. It sounds much better, and its function is virtually flawless. I found your thread and you were articulating everything I was hearing over the last 5 months. I became very 'trouble adverse' to my old processor and the company that makes it. My patience was exhausted.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I wish it was that simple, but it is not. The issue is that we have ignored the fourth dimension in audio for far too long. It could very well be that this speaker system can show the improvement, but a lot of others would not. In fact I suspect most would not.

1st, I believe you. It's possible. A long time ago I had a Pioneer Elite Dolby Digital Processor, which was on of the first AVPs. When I changed to a different preamp, the difference in SQ was significant. I tried to volume match. I even made the volume on the Pioneer AVP louder on purpose. But it was clear that the Pioneer sounded worse than the new preamp. It happened to me. And I'm in the "all-amps-sound-the-same" camp.

2nd, this is subjective improvement.

3rd, there has always been 2 camps: 1) those who believe amps/preamps (direct mode) wound similar and 2) those who believe everything sounds different, and that measurements don't tell the whole story.

So some people may find it more difficult to believe.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So, I was upset at having to make this cash outlay, but in the end I have decided it was actually worth every last cent, and I should have bought it, instead of the AVP 7706. But all's well that ends well as they say.

 

[TLS Guy]

Well, "many a true word spoken in jest!" This whole episode highlights a problem we have been discussing here.

Home AV is dead ending because of cost, complexity and interior design. This a massive three vehicle pile up.

We now have far less families able to afford, or have space for AV or even good audio in the home like they did forty to fifty years ago.

So the offerings are bulky AVRs with a bunch of power amps to power more speakers than people want to tolerate.

Yet good 2 channel gear has gone exotic, and worse does not have the correct facilities.

What is required is compact neat two channel receivers, with bass management, built in streamer, eARC and some extra HDMI inputs and possibly a phono stage. All at an affordable price. Add elegant speakers to go either side of the TV. Neat towers and not bookshelves which need stands, which waste space that we be much better used for better speakers. Then neat optional subs. Lastly it needs to work and stay working and be easy to set up.

I could sell that sort of rig to friends and acquaintances easily, but its not out there. The industry is stuffed with loosers with marketing degrees, that have no clue what the market really needs.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... I was at my dealers today, and heard a $45,000 a pair set of speakers. I played some lovely Elgar, that I know well, recorded in the old Kingsway Hall. Superbly recorded. On those speakers I could not tell the soprano, from the mezzo and the males, especially the baritone sounded castrated. Every time I have an experience like this, I feel so fortunate to not have to shop for loudspeakers and never have had to.

I found a set of measurements for those and it confirmed what I heard.

I just don't understand why so many speakers, including high priced ones, are so awful.

Did you tell that to the dealer?

 

[lovinthehd]

1st, I believe you. It's possible. A long time ago I had a Pioneer Elite Dolby Digital Processor, which was on of the first AVPs. When I changed to a different preamp, the difference in SQ was significant. I tried to volume match. I even made the volume on the Pioneer AVP louder on purpose. But it was clear that the Pioneer sounded worse than the new preamp. It happened to me. And I'm in the "all-amps-sound-the-same" camp.

2nd, this is subjective improvement.

3rd, there has always been 2 camps: 1) those who believe amps/preamps (direct mode) wound similar and 2) those who believe everything sounds different, and that measurements don't tell the whole story.

So some people may find it more difficult to believe.

I'm just skeptical somewhat with a subjective impression generally. It's sort of a backbone of the forum. It's possible there have been such massive changes as described but I tend to think of something described this way as more about the new gear/excitement side of things than tested fact.....but testing is hard and getting an audio oriented person not even a little excited is not the way we're built so much

I'm just somewhat doubting the change in dac/processing would produce such night and day type results....

 

[PaulBe]

I wish Marantz would add a tilt control to the AV10 and it's siblings. Peter Walker invented one of the most useful controls that is never used. It is an easy control to add in a processor's FW.

 

[lovinthehd]

I wish Marantz would add a tilt control to the AV10 and it's siblings. Peter Walker invented one of the most useful controls that is never used. It is an easy control to add in a processor's FW.

What does it "tilt"?

 

[PaulBe]

I'm just skeptical somewhat with a subjective impression generally. It's sort of a backbone of the forum. It's possible there have been such massive changes as described but I tend to think of something described this way as more about the new gear/excitement side of things than tested fact.....but testing is hard and getting an audio oriented person not even a little excited is not the way we're built so much

I'm just somewhat doubting the change in dac/processing would produce such night and day type results....

Every subjective impression should be treated with some scepticism. Every objective impression should be treated as incomplete information.

 

[lovinthehd]

Every subjective impression should be treated with some scepticism. Every objective impresion should be treated as incomplete information.

Definitely on the former....what is an objective impression, tho? That sounds like a subjective description.....

 

[PaulBe]

What does it "tilt"?

It tilts the frequency response at a pivot point. It's kind of like an adjustable Harmon curve. Peter Walker's implementation was +/- 6dB. 1950's technology that works well in the 21st century.

We need more of these simple things that actually work instead of a continuous supply of marketing BS.

 

[PaulBe]

Definitely on the former....what is an objective impression, tho? That sounds like a subjective description.....

An objective impression is measurements. Some measurement have agreement. Agreements are often collectively subjective and 'subject' to change. I don't care. It's an agreement. Everything starts somewhere.

Objective impression is science. Science is inductive reasoning. It works until new knowledge is discovered and accumulated. Restart this paragraph.

 

[TLS Guy]

Did you tell that to the dealer?

The dealer was already having second thoughts about these speakers and asked for my honest opinion, and I gave it, but a bit more diplomatically.

 

[TLS Guy]

What does it "tilt"?

This refers to the tone controls on the 34 and 44 Quad preamps. The Quad 34 (tube) and the 33 (transistor) had standard Baxandall bass and treble controls. The 34 and 44 had bass boost and cut marked in db on the control. The tilt was a treble control and it boosted and cut above the turnover frequency in db marked either side of the control.

However to my mind the turnover filter with varying slope was by far the most useful frequency control on Quad equipment in the LP era. Many LPs had an edge to them, and even distortion on bad over modulated cutting. So there was a control that selected the turnover frequency. You had a choice of 10KHz, 7KHz or 5KHz. There was an adjacent control that controlled the rate of the frequency attenuation, above the turnover frequency. This is very useful when playing LPs that have higher than normal HF distortion, which on older LPs and many mastered in the US rather than Europe were prone to have.

I certainly use these controls when using my turntables on certain discs.

Here is a picture of my Quad 44, showing the controls.

Here is a picture of the tube Quad 22, you can see the bass and treble controls plus the two controls for HF filtering.

For really severe cases an equalizer was required, but with those controls engaging an equalizer was seldom required.

If you are playing LPs, then a Quad preamp is just a wonderful item to have, in my view indispensable. I have always had one handy for almost my entire life, certainly all my adult life. Peter Walker was an absolute giant in audio, and any products he designed were right at the top not only for performance, but versatility and reliability. I treasure his memory and all my meetings and interactions with him. He has had an enormous influence on my approach to audio engineering.

If you are really into LPs, then having a Quad preamp instead of using a phono stage or phono preamp is a massive advantage, and why I have all my four turntables connected to a Quad preamp.

I don't think these type of controls would be desirable on AVRs and AV preamps. As I say the best solution is to try and obtain a Quad 33, 44 or 34, and connect it to an RCA input. The 22 is fine also, but it was powered from a Quad II power amp. So if you use it as a standalone device, then you need to power it from a custom power supply.

A couple of Quad 22s and a custom power supply. One of the 22s I bought new in 1966, and the other was an eBay acquisition as a spare.

 

[TLS Guy]

I'm just skeptical somewhat with a subjective impression generally. It's sort of a backbone of the forum. It's possible there have been such massive changes as described but I tend to think of something described this way as more about the new gear/excitement side of things than tested fact.....but testing is hard and getting an audio oriented person not even a little excited is not the way we're built so much

I'm just somewhat doubting the change in dac/processing would produce such night and day type results....

No, it is not. I have now come to the conclusion that neither the AV 7705 or 7706 could properly play Atmos, and I think I know why.

The problem is that the levels were low, playing Atmos material and there was very low output to the surround and ceiling channels.

I just this evening played a set of Atmos discs from the BPO. This was a special 15 year anniversary edition of the BPO Digital Concert Hall. I paid a high price for the set. I never played it on the 7706, but did the 7705. it sounded awful and I was very disappointed. The level was very low and the levels from the surrounds and ceiling speakers very low. I thought it a dud. Via Internet from the BPO results tended to be similar.

Well I played those anniversary discs this evening via the AV 10. It was absolutely spectacular. The volume was normal levels, and you had a fantastic sense of being in the hall. The hall ambience and applause when it came put a lot of power to all speakers. It was as close to being there as made no difference. So on the AV 7705 playback was poor and actually unacceptable, on the AV 10 it is stunning. Yes, totally stunning.

I think I have figured this out. The AV 7705 and 7706 is conceived from an AVR and I bet the front end pretty much identical.
So, because miserable AVRs have totally inadequate power supplies and can not properly supply all channels at power, I can bet they deliberately stunted the the channels other than the front three for Atmos material. This prevented the miserable AVRs from self destructing.
There is absolutely no way to power all the power amps required for Atmos from one power supply. That is a non starter of an idea. If you try then you have to hobble it to prevent self destruction. I am sure that is the reason.

So, to properly play Atmos material you absolutely need separates and amps that can power all of the amps to full power at once.

So my rig can reach full power to all channels no problem. I am certain I know why Atmos playback did not reach its potential on those other AVPs.

So to properly reproduce Atmos you need a setup that can provide full power to all channels at the same time. I don't think there is any place for puny speakers in the bed layer channels either.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

No, it is not. I have now come to the conclusion that neither the AV 7705 or 7706 could properly play Atmos, and I think I know why.

Did you compare them both in DIRECT MODE?

Or just in the standard playback modes (Atmos, TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, 2CH Stereo)?

 

[isolar8001]

Maybe the AV10 can defeat dialnorm and the AV 7705 or 7706 couldn't.
I remember this thread on AVS when I looked into why so many Atmos tracks were very low in volume.

Defeating dialnorm

Dialnorm is a type of metadata typically included in lossy/streaming Dolby Digital (DD/AC3) and Dolby Digital + (DD+/EAC3) tracks (but also though less commonly in lossless TrueHD tracks) which instructs the processor to reduce master volume by an amount equal to the difference between -31dB and...

www.avsforum.com