Marantz AV 10 installed: - Early Review and Impressions.

[TLS Guy]

You seem to always know the reason for anything concerning AVPs and AVRs without ever offering up actual evidence to back up your claims.

I believe you when you say you believe you have improved sound with the AV 10. The reasons why are many and still unknown.

You have offered up nothing more than your belief that there is a significant difference between. You wouldn’t accept as much from another making such claims without proof on paper.

I’m glad you are enjoying the system and believe you could improve on it still with some tweaks after learning more about its features and capabilities. That goes for the TV as well.

First of all my TV is fine. it is set the way I want it and gives an excellent picture. I try to use a TV as and end device like a speaker as much as I can. So I only use the on/off switch in the remote and also use it to switch between HDMI from the AVP and the BPO site to send audio to the AVP via eARC. The BPO Digital Concert Hall does not support Atmos via Windows. Basically that is all the control I need of my TV on a daily basis.

Once I set the audio up properly and it is optimized I don't meddle with it.

The Atmos though is dramatic. You can tell that just on the audience applause. On the two previous units the applause all came from the front. On this AV 10 the applause is all around you, and you literally feel right in the thick of the audience. The previous units gave no effect remotely close to that, in fact the upmixer did a better job with that. So, I am firm in my belief that those other units did not realize the potential of Atmos, not even close. I am 100% certain of that.

 

[Squishman]

I was planning to call you later. Saturday will not work, as I have to cook. We have close friends coming over. Sunday, I think will work.

Ok. We can pencil that in.

 

[TLS Guy]

Good power supplies are important. However, if the ATMOS presentation is limited by the amps power supplies, all you have to do is lower the volume and the ATMOS presentation would dramatically improve.

The last time I heard a dramatic improvement in sound by lowering the volume is when I was listening decades ago to an old Wurlitzer jukebox at a bar. Lower the volume and the crappy old power supply no longer modulated the sound with 60&120Hz linear power supply hum.

My amps actually run cooler at average sound levels than they do at idle - i.e. they are using less power at average sound levels than at idle.

That is nonsense advice. Lowering the volume could not possibly work, otherwise the Atmos effects would be dependent on moment to moment SPL. So either the implementation was incompetent or deliberate. I think it was deliberate because of giving only one or two channel driven power ratings. Any unit that can not properly power all amp units is not a serious item of equipment in my view. That would not be a unit I would aspire to own.

However changing the subject I note you are familiar with Quad equipment. What is your experience/ownership of their equipment.

My AV room is powered by 7 Quad 909s all channels used. Three Quad 909s power the front left and right speakers, the two channels of a 909 power the center. one 909 powers the side surrounds, and two Quad 909s power the rear surrounds. The four Atmos ceiling speakers are powered by two Quad 405-2s.

 

[PaulBe]

That is nonsense advice. Lowering the volume could not possibly work, otherwise the Atmos effects would be dependent on moment to moment SPL. So either the implementation was incompetent or deliberate. I think it was deliberate because of giving only one or two channel driven power ratings. Any unit that can not properly power all amp units is not a serious item of equipment in my view. That would not be a unit I would aspire to own.

However changing the subject I note you are familiar with Quad equipment. What is your experience/ownership of their equipment.

My AV room is powered by 7 Quad 909s all channels used. Three Quad 909s power the front left and right speakers, the two channels of a 909 power the center. one 909 powers the side surrounds, and two Quad 909s power the rear surrounds. The four Atmos ceiling speakers are powered by two Quad 405-2s.

It wasn't advice . It was a gentle disagreement that puny amp power supplies affect the ATMOS.

'Properly power' is an opinion. Almost all current multi-channel amps and receivers use one SMPS for power supplies. It is what it is. If you want more power supply, you have to buy separates and more amps with fewer channels each. I agree with the way you use amps for your system. Which, leads me to your change in subject.

I never owned Quad equipment but did admire Peter Walker's work. A friend did own ESL-57's and I listened to them at his home quite often. I owned Magnepans, Acoustats, and Audire full range ribbons; also a pair of Hartley 24" DIY Subs in John Cockroft style transmission lines - they were big! Another friend owned Acoustat X's, and custom Acoustat panel setups, and he installed a 24" Hartley Sub in his fireplace - vented out the flue. All were great fun and SOTA for their time. I would have bought ESL-63's but couldn't buy them at the price I was willing to pay.

I use Benchmark AHB2 2 channel amps for all channels. The 7 floor channels are bi-amped with one AHB2/channel. One of the things they have in common with Quad amps is feedforward techniques for the feedback loop. IIRC Peter Walker invented the technique.

Feedforward lessens the number of poles in the loop at high frequency, reduces a tendency for oscillation with highly capacitive loads - think QUAD and Acoustat electrostats - and increases high frequency damping factor. Nelson Pass also used feedfoward in his amps. I modified my Audire Parlando and Forte to use feedforward. With feedforward you can also remove the Zobel network at the output stage. The Zobel is needed without feedforward. It protects the amp but rolls off the high frequencies and lowers the damping at high frequencies.

 

[Trebdp83]

First of all my TV is fine. it is set the way I want it and gives an excellent picture. I try to use a TV as and end device like a speaker as much as I can. So I only use the on/off switch in the remote and also use it to switch between HDMI from the AVP and the BPO site to send audio to the AVP via eARC. The BPO Digital Concert Hall does not support Atmos via Windows. Basically that is all the control I need of my TV on a daily basis.

Once I set the audio up properly and it is optimized I don't meddle with it.

The Atmos though is dramatic. You can tell that just on the audience applause. On the two previous units the applause all came from the front. On this AV 10 the applause is all around you, and you literally feel right in the thick of the audience. The previous units gave no effect remotely close to that, in fact the upmixer did a better job with that. So, I am firm in my belief that those other units did not realize the potential of Atmos, not even close. I am 100% certain of that.

If you are happy with your unit and the way it is dialed in, good on you. But, just remember your ridiculous amount of posts prior to your 7705 and 7706 failing. It was all about your speakers and the level of perfection you had reached before your AVPs each took a s#%t.

You had no complaints until those units started making noise and had no bad things to say about the BPO Dolby Atmos presentation or the Dolby Surround up mixer. Dolby and Denon/Marantz have simply improved on their products.

Enjoy your system however you have it set up. I’m not convinced you ever had the 7705 or 7706 setup properly and no display of input signals, sound modes or speaker configuration has ever been put on display in any of your posts.

In the future, spare us the first impressions of any new TV you may purchase when your current one finally takes a s#%t. LG has improved on their product as well.

The BPO and Microsoft do need to get Dolby Atmos going on Windows for sure. After not too many years, some apps have their support discontinued on older TVs. Even if not discontinued, many apps may not receive updates.

 

[TLS Guy]

It wasn't advice . It was a gentle disagreement that puny amp power supplies affect the ATMOS.

'Properly power' is an opinion. Almost all current multi-channel amps and receivers use one SMPS for power supplies. It is what it is. If you want more power supply, you have to buy separates and more amps with fewer channels each. I agree with the way you use amps for your system. Which, leads me to your change in subject.

I never owned Quad equipment but did admire Peter Walker's work. A friend did own ESL-57's and I listened to them at his home quite often. I owned Magnepans, Acoustats, and Audire full range ribbons; also a pair of Hartley 24" DIY Subs in John Cockroft style transmission lines - they were big! Another friend owned Acoustat X's, and custom Acoustat panel setups, and he installed a 24" Hartley Sub in his fireplace - vented out the flue. All were great fun and SOTA for their time. I would have bought ESL-63's but couldn't buy them at the price I was willing to pay.

I use Benchmark AHB2 2 channel amps for all channels. The 7 floor channels are bi-amped with one AHB2/channel. One of the things they have in common with Quad amps is feedforward techniques for the feedback loop. IIRC Peter Walker invented the technique.

Feedforward lessons the number of poles in the loop at high frequency, reduces a tendency for oscillation with highly capacitive loads - think QUAD and Acoustat electrostats - and increases high frequency damping factor. Nelson Pass also used feedfoward in his amps. I modified my Audire Parlando and Forte to use feedforward. With feedforward you can also remove the Zobel network at the output stage. The Zobel is needed without feedforward. It protects the amp but rolls off the high frequencies and lowers the damping at high frequencies.

This is the problem. Take this Marantz Cinema 40 receiver. This is the two channel power spec: - Power Output (6 ohm, 1 kHz, 0.7% 2ch Drive)165 W.

This is the same unit one Channel driven: - Power Output (6 ohm, 1 kHz, 10% 1ch Drive)235 W. The miserable thing can't even supply 2 channels without the power supply using its limiting.
They don't dare quote what it will do powering all 9 channels! Probably a dribble to each, but I bet they limit the surrounds to prevent the fronts running out of gas. Who knows how that are hiding the issue? Yet this unit costs $3,800. As you move down the price scale it gets worse and worse.

This is all going to dead end badly. If people really want to use 11 or 13 channels then this approach is just not tenable.

The number of power amps supplied by one power supply should be limited to 3. So if you really want to engineer this properly and have an 11 channel Atmos system, then you need a three channel amp that can supply all three channels are full rated power, and four two channel amps.

When Peter Walker owned and directed Quad, he refused to produce any receiver. He just thought it a very bad design concept. He was really vehement about it. He certainly has, and had, an outside influence on how I consider system design.

 

[TLS Guy]

If you are happy with your unit and the way it is dialed in, good on you. But, just remember your ridiculous amount of posts prior to your 7705 and 7706 failing. It was all about your speakers and the level of perfection you had reached before your AVPs each took a s#%t.

You had no complaints until those units started making noise and had no bad things to say about the BPO Dolby Atmos presentation or the Dolby Surround up mixer. Dolby and Denon/Marantz have simply improved on their products.

Enjoy your system however you have it set up. I’m not convinced you ever had the 7705 or 7706 setup properly and no display of input signals, sound modes or speaker configuration has ever been put on display in any of your posts.

In the future, spare us the first impressions of any new TV you may purchase when your current one finally takes a s#%t. LG has improved on their product as well.

The BPO and Microsoft do need to get Dolby Atmos going on Windows for sure. After not too many years, some apps have their support discontinued on older TVs. Even if not discontinued, many apps may not receive updates.

I have to plead ignorance, as I did not know any better until I got the AV 10. The only really major differences are in Dolby Atmos reproduction and the very quiet SNR, where no noise whatsoever being audible in the room. You always knew when the 7705 and 7706 units were on, even before they malfunctioned. So, there has been a significant upgrade to the system with the installation of the AV 10. This was a pleasant surprise except the SNR which I had anticipated. The rest is a bonus. So this aswages my irritation at the 7706 failure. If it had not failed I would still be using it. So this has been one of life's learning experiences. The bad news is that the cost of SOTA has increased and that is an issue, and a big one. When I bought the 7705 that was the best option, but I should not have bought that 7706, that was a mistake and I admit it.

 

[PaulBe]

This is the problem. Take this Marantz Cinema 40 receiver. This is the two channel power spec: - Power Output (6 ohm, 1 kHz, 0.7% 2ch Drive)165 W.

This is the same unit one Channel driven: - Power Output (6 ohm, 1 kHz, 10% 1ch Drive)235 W. The miserable thing can't even supply 2 channels without the power supply using its limiting.
They don't dare quote what it will do powering all 9 channels! Probably a dribble to each, but I bet they limit the surrounds to prevent the fronts running out of gas. Who knows how that are hiding the issue? Yet this unit costs $3,800. As you move down the price scale it gets worse and worse.

This is all going to dead end badly. If people really want to use 11 or 13 channels then this approach is just not tenable.

The number of power amps supplied by one power supply should be limited to 3. So if you really want to engineer this properly and have an 11 channel Atmos system, then you need a three channel amp that can supply all three channels are full rated power, and four two channel amps.

When Peter Walker owned and directed Quad, he refused to produce any receiver. He just thought it a very bad design concept. He was really vehement about it. He certainly has, and had, an outside influence on how I consider system design.

I'm going to leave this part of discussion and let you continue without me.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

When Peter Walker owned and directed Quad, he refused to produce any receiver.

…And we’re back to all AVR suck.

Peter Walker was smart to never make any AVR. Just like how ATI mainly makes amps for the past 50+ years and never made any AVR.

Smaller companies making AVR/AVP is usually a bad idea because they just don’t have the vast resources of R&D and product support like giant companies such as Yamaha and Sound United. Thus, the small companies AVR/AVP tend to have tons of bugs.

 

[lovinthehd]

First of all my TV is fine. it is set the way I want it and gives an excellent picture. I try to use a TV as and end device like a speaker as much as I can. So I only use the on/off switch in the remote and also use it to switch between HDMI from the AVP and the BPO site to send audio to the AVP via eARC. The BPO Digital Concert Hall does not support Atmos via Windows. Basically that is all the control I need of my TV on a daily basis.

Once I set the audio up properly and it is optimized I don't meddle with it.

The Atmos though is dramatic. You can tell that just on the audience applause. On the two previous units the applause all came from the front. On this AV 10 the applause is all around you, and you literally feel right in the thick of the audience. The previous units gave no effect remotely close to that, in fact the upmixer did a better job with that. So, I am firm in my belief that those other units did not realize the potential of Atmos, not even close. I am 100% certain of that.

Just what are your sources in Atmos? Bluray primarily?

 

[lovinthehd]

Recall Marantz uses “HDAM” that @PENG warns about. It can “color” or “warm” the sound like tube amps.

So unless both units were compared in PURE DIRECT MODE 2CH, there will be Sound Processing. And the AV7706 might have worse HDAM effects than the AV10, which is a lot cleaner than the AV7706.

I think Peng more says the HDAMs don't do much. Direct vs Pure Direct is only a matter of panel lights, but does use native content so if it isn't Atmos natively it won't play in Atmos but rather whatever the codec/source actually is.

 

[Squishman]

I found some LP's that NEED to be heard on your system. At least probably a track or two from a few albums. No monos.

 

[lovinthehd]

I am pretty sure I know the reason, it is to prevent blowing up receivers with power supplies to puny to drive all the amps crammed in properly. I can bet that is the reason.

How can that be since you had pre-pros with no amps at all?

 

[TLS Guy]

How can that be since you had pre-pros with no amps at all?

It is because I suspect that those 7705 and 7706 pre/pros had a lot of commonality with the AVRs on which they were based. I can't be certain, but that is the only explanation I can come up with. My 7705 was my first introduction to Atmos, and the 7706 is similar. The AV 10 is a totally new design and has nothing in common with any AVR. It also ways 37 lb and in its rack mount about 50 lb and a real challenge to mount in a 19" rack. However, I did a safe robust installation that also is good cosmetically. The point is that if it contained any power amps it would have been so heavy you would not get it mounted. So if takes a 37 lb lump to make a decent well made Atmos pre/pro, then a receiver would be next to impossible and actually be a non starter. All I can tell you is that the Atmos performance of this unit is a total revelation and not just better by an incremental amount, but a massive revelation of what this technology can do. This came as a total surprise to me, and was immediately obvious, the improvement was colossal. The performance was what I believed Dolby labs expected and published. So as I say, this unit gives a performance with what Dolby '"say on the tin" as they say.

As time passes the more it becomes apparent to me that any type of receiver is a bad idea. It reinforces what Peter Walker always taught me that high gain preamp circuits do not belong in the same space as power amps sharing power supplies. He never wavered about that and never produced an integrated amp, let alone a receiver. He is widely recognized as one of the great giants in the history of audio.

 

[lovinthehd]

It is because I suspect that those 7705 and 7706 pre/pros had a lot of commonality with the AVRs on which they were based. I can't be certain, but that is the only explanation I can come up with. My 7705 was my first introduction to Atmos, and the 7706 is similar. The AV 10 is a totally new design and has nothing in common with any AVR. It also ways 37 lb and in its rack mount about 50 lb and a real challenge to mount in a 19" rack. However, I did a safe robust installation that also is good cosmetically. The point is that if it contained any power amps it would have been so heavy you would not get it mounted. So if takes a 37 lb lump to make a decent well made Atmos pre/pro, then a receiver would be next to impossible and actually be a non starter. All I can tell you is that the Atmos performance of this unit is a total revelation and not just better by an incremental amount, but a massive revelation of what this technology can do. This came as a total surprise to me, and was immediately obvious, the improvement was colossal. The performance was what I believed Dolby labs expected and published. So as I say, this unit gives a performance with what Dolby '"say on the tin" as they say.

As time passes the more it becomes apparent to me that any type of receiver is a bad idea. It reinforces what Peter Walker always taught me that high gain preamp circuits do not belong in the same space as power amps sharing power supplies. He never wavered about that and never produced an integrated amp, let alone a receiver. He is widely recognized as one of the great giants in the history of audio.

I think you're reaching. Like your hearing at your age....

 

[TLS Guy]

Just what are your sources in Atmos? Bluray primarily?

I have two sources, BD discs and the Atmos streams from the Berlin Philharmonic Digital Concert Hall. They have a pretty significant archive of concerts in Dolby Atmos. This later is my largest source of Atmos material. On the AV 10 those streams are stunning. I do have a number of well produced Atmos Blu Ray discs.

My nephew Dr. John Apps visited this last weekend. He is also a competent violinist and has performed in non professional orchestras. He wanted to hear the BPO stream of the Mahler Symphony No. 2, the Resurrection Symphony. He was stunned by the realism. This has a large orchestra, soloist and choir and also off stage ensembles. On this rig with the AV 10 it was incredible including the realism of the high up off stage brass ensembles. It has taken this new preamp to convince me of the effectiveness of the Dolby Atmos system. Previously I had considered the benefit marginal. I was wrong again, and this rig has now set me strate. The big problem is putting it together is a massive expense and to do it justice I suspect it does take a dedicated space like this one. So unfortunately the whole thing comes up against the buffers of practicality for widespread application. I think cinemas will have customers for years to come.

 

[TLS Guy]

I think you're reaching. Like your hearing at your age....

My hearing is still fine.

 

[lovinthehd]

My hearing is still fine.

LOL sure it is.

 

[lovinthehd]

I have two sources, BD discs and the Atmos streams from the Berlin Philharmonic Digital Concert Hall. They have a pretty significant archive of concerts in Dolby Atmos. This later is my largest source of Atmos material. On the AV 10 those streams are stunning. I do have a number of well produced Atmos Blu Ray discs.

My nephew Dr. John Apps visited this last weekend. He is also a competent violinist and has performed in non professional orchestras. He wanted to hear the BPO stream of the Mahler Symphony No. 2, the Resurrection Symphony. He was stunned by the realism. This has a large orchestra, soloist and choir and also off stage ensembles. On this rig with the AV 10 it was incredible including the realism of the high up off stage brass ensembles. It has taken this new preamp to convince me of the effectiveness of the Dolby Atmos system. Previously I had considered the benefit marginal. I was wrong again, and this rig has now set me strate. The big problem is putting it together is a massive expense and to do it justice I suspect it does take a dedicated space like this one. So unfortunately the whole thing comes up against the buffers of practicality for widespread application. I think cinemas will have customers for years to come.

So mixed in Atmos or just an algorithm applied to basic 2ch material?

 

[isolar8001]

I have two sources, BD discs and the Atmos streams from the Berlin Philharmonic Digital Concert Hall. They have a pretty significant archive of concerts in Dolby Atmos. This later is my largest source of Atmos material. On the AV 10 those streams are stunning. I do have a number of well produced Atmos Blu Ray discs.

I think that pretty well explains it...the AV10 isn't following Dolbys dianorm for your DD+ Atmos streams, which is where it's usually always enforced.
Very few discs with TrueHD/Atmos have dianorm.

I run into this all the time when I "aquire" streaming tv shows with Atmos...I've even just recoded the audio to remove Atmos more than once. I don't like having to crank the volume up 10 notches just to hear something !