Marantz AV 10 installed: - Early Review and Impressions.

[dlaloum]

A month ago, I would have been inclined to agree with you, but not now. The AV 10 is significantly improved in so many ways from what I had before.

The big issue, is that the jury is still out. This "surround" technology is now reaching maturity, I believe.

So the issue is not only if the AV 10 gives significant and noticeably increased performance over the AV 7706, which it does, but will it have a significantly longer lifespan. On the later the jury is still out.

However the 7705 lasted five years, and the 7706, three months. A dealer on here says not to expect more than a five year lifespan from these types of units.

So, if the AV 10 lasts 20 or even 10 years or more, it is the better bargain. Now the answer to that question is obviously not known. But from inspection of my unit, I strongly suspect it may last 20 years or more. So. my view is that the AV 10 may well be the more economical purchase and the better financial bargain by miles. My strong hunch at this time is that is the situation and the best way to regard the purchase. The downside, of that being the case is, that the cost of entry has been significantly increased. Since the 7705 could not be repaired, which is contrary to Federal law by the way, then I am prepared to downgrade the 7705 and by association the 7706 to junk status and very bad value for money.

I think part of the reason for this is the drive to Atmos, which has greatly increased complexity. I think the downgrade in quality is probably related to a futile attempt to keep the purchase price lower. That is never a good idea. I say this as I have a couple of 15 year old Marantz AVPs still working fine, that are 7.1 units.

Sure I was concerned about the cost of the AV 10, which was probably the major factor in purchasing the AV 7706. But that proved a bad decision technically and economically.

The other value equation to keep in mind, is that AV standards, both in streaming/delivery, as well as in formats and encoding/decoding standards, continues to be in flux...

a 15 year old AVP is unlikely to be capable of decoding todays Atmos data stream.

So there is a degree of expected obsolescence - 5 to 10 years is probably the maximum window for a current device to be relatively "up to date". (as opposed to analogue stereo, which standard has now been in place for generations!...)

Personally, my own use history, is such that if a device of this type can work with a lifetime of 15 years, I am content... and will delay updates due to technology changes for as long as possible - both of my last AVR/AVP updates were due to hardware failures... both at around 5 years of age... both connected to excess heat, and inadequate engineering for heat management. - and yeah I was disappointed!

I currently have an interrim AVR/AVP pending the release of Dirac ART... at which point I hope to purchase something to cover the next 10+ years

 

[TLS Guy]

The other value equation to keep in mind, is that AV standards, both in streaming/delivery, as well as in formats and encoding/decoding standards, continues to be in flux...

a 15 year old AVP is unlikely to be capable of decoding todays Atmos data stream.

So there is a degree of expected obsolescence - 5 to 10 years is probably the maximum window for a current device to be relatively "up to date". (as opposed to analogue stereo, which standard has now been in place for generations!...)

Personally, my own use history, is such that if a device of this type can work with a lifetime of 15 years, I am content... and will delay updates due to technology changes for as long as possible - both of my last AVR/AVP updates were due to hardware failures... both at around 5 years of age... both connected to excess heat, and inadequate engineering for heat management. - and yeah I was disappointed!

I currently have an interrim AVR/AVP pending the release of Dirac ART... at which point I hope to purchase something to cover the next 10+ years

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.

 

[Trell]

So there is a degree of expected obsolescence - 5 to 10 years is probably the maximum window for a current device to be relatively "up to date". (as opposed to analogue stereo, which standard has now been in place for generations!...)

My 2015 model Denon AVR-X4200W is still in daily use in a 5.1 setup. My usage is simple with and Apple TV 4K and Sony Blu-ray player that can decode SACD connected to the receiver, along with a LG OLED TV were I don't use the built-in apps.

This setup handles anything I need from it and I don't expect that to change for me. Do note that 2015 models was the first to get HDCP 2.2, but there is HDCP 2.3 but I don't expect to have content/devices requiring that.

Personally, my own use history, is such that if a device of this type can work with a lifetime of 15 years, I am content... and will delay updates due to technology changes for as long as possible - both of my last AVR/AVP updates were due to hardware failures... both at around 5 years of age... both connected to excess heat, and inadequate engineering for heat management. - and yeah I was disappointed!

I've fans on top of my Denon receiver for most of the time I've had it, and hoping that would prolong the life of the device.

Newer Denon receivers have a ton of amplifiers but also added chipsets like HEOS that generates quite a bit of heat just by looking at its heat sink. Not particularly good for longevity of the receiver, I guess.

 

[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.

 

[PaulBe]

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.

So, there are things that the room does to your speakers in how the two work together that completely messes it up, and there’s things that change the measured response but don’t actually change what you’re hearing of it. And this is where it gets complicated - Anthony Grimani

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'.

 

[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.