Measurements not Revealing Significant Differences Between AVRs and AVPs

[TLS Guy]

As you know my Marantz AV 10 has revealed a significant improvement in SQ over my 7705 and 7706.

A year or so ago, I bought a 2 BD Atmos disc set for the BPO, it was to highlight their prowess in Atmos production.

When I played the discs on my Marantz 7705 I was very disappointed. The sound was weak and not "immersive" at all. Now the same programs were available to stream in Atmos from the BPO. The stream was significantly better than the discs.

So I put the discs assides as duds. I don't think I ever played them on the 7706 and I only had that for 3 months.

Anyhow last week just for kicks I got out those Atmos discs. I had to think hard were I had put them, as I did not think I would play them again.

However when played back via the AV 10 the sound was absolutely spectacular, exciting and true to life.

Now I don't think there is anything in test results from these units that would give a hint of this dramatic difference in sound and presentation.

Now Dolby Atmos is streamed in Dolby Digital Plus and the discs Dolby True HD.

So, it seems that the 7705 was incapable of properly decoding Dolby True HD at the very least.

This came as a surprise to me. I note that there has been discussion about this on Audio Science Review and Amir has called the situation a total mess and I would agree.

So, I have to report that there are huge differences in SQ between devices you would not expect from specs and even reviews containing standard measurements.

 

[TLS Guy]

I can tell you Lovin, that the 7705 could not decode those discs correctly. The Atmos was way inferior to the stereo track, but the AV 10 produced glorious and ambient full bodied sound. We are talking about a massive difference here and not a minor one. On the 7705 the Atmos track was essentially unlistenable. So the processor was clearly not up to the task.

 

[lovinthehd]

Uh huh.

 

[TLS Guy]

Uh huh.

By far the biggest difference between the AV 10 and the others is playback of Atmos streams and discs. It is a huge improvement. it is clear to me that the others did not decode Atmos content optimally and was way wide of the mark. I suspect most AVRs do not, at least Marantz and Denon. This is not a splitting hairs difference but huge and unmistakable.

 

[m. zillch]

As you know my Marantz AV 10 has revealed a significant improvement in SQ over my 7705 and 7706.

Out of curiosity, at what volume level?

 

[TLS Guy]

Out of curiosity, at what volume level?

I generally play back at concert level. However, both the AV 7705 and 7706 played back Atmos streams at least 10 db. quieter so that the volume had to be significantly advanced for the Atmos streams. On the AV 10 the stereo and Atmos streams play back at the same level.

But the big issue is that the perspective of the sound stage is totally different. The AV 10 reproduces them like the concert hall with realistic positioning of the players left to right and front to back. The orchestra is set back behind the screen and sounds as if it is on stage. I am absolutely stunned at how realistic the sound stage is. The 7705 and 7706 did not come close to that. With the audience applause it surrounds you, whereas before it was all up front and it did not sound as if you were surrounded by the audience.

I have to suspect that this is all related to the increased power of the DAC in the AV 10. But before and after is not close to comparable. This is all unfortunate, as it means that at the current time, you need high end units to optimize Atmos playback. However technology has a habit of filtering down. I suspect overtime Atmos playback is likely to improve at the mid to lower end of the market.

I never thought I would have to spend as much as I did to get a decent processor. I only did as the 7705 and especially the 7706 had short lifespans and therefore were a problem and bad value for money. I like gear that has "long legs" and by most of my purchases have had, with gear over 60 years old in regular use.

I have no tolerance for gear that blows up in a few years and certainly not in a few months like the 7706.,

 

[m. zillch]

I'm of the mind the only evaluations of hi-fi gear which are valid must be done at precisely matched volume levels, for all channels, determine by instrumentation measuring calibration tones not "winging it", because otherwise small level differences (even of just a fraction of a dB) can be, and often are, misconstrued by the human brain as qualitative differences. This holds true for everyone, including myself, regardless of their background, expertise, or their description of what exactly it was they heard.

 

[PENG]

I have to suspect that this is all related to the increased power of the DAC in the AV 10.

You shocked me, like with 50 kV, for even thinking it is the DAC!!!!!!!!! Of all people, I would have though you know what DACs do right?

By the way, it is a fact that the AV10 use a reference class ESS DAC IC, but not the flagship class that is used in some other AVPs/AVRs such as the Anthem AVM90, but that's irrelevant for this discussion anyway.

The DSP is a different story, D+M upgraded the IC to one that has sufficient capabilities to do not only the increase channel counts from previously 15 to now 19, but also has to do the paid upgrade Dirac Live Bass Control plus Dirac Live ART so there is just no comparison.

With all that increased raw processing capabilities of the Griffin Lite chip, it should not be a surprise you are so much more impressed with the AV10's Atmos performance vs the AV7705'.

Just a side note: credit to D+M, they have done it again, leveraging purchasing power, by filtering down such improvements onto the lower models, even the Denon 3000 series and Marantz 50,40 use the same DSP IC, so I would say those on a tighter budget, can expect superior Atmos performance too by simply going with the X3800H or Cinema 50 AVR, yes, AVRs. Those AVRs also use the same preamp/volume control IC, and most of the opas as the AV10, but of course the AV10 has superior wiring scheme, layouts, shielding and the better HDAMs etc.

 

[TLS Guy]

You shocked me, like with 50 kV, for even thinking it is the DAC!!!!!!!!! Of all people, I would have though you know what DACs do right?

By the way, it is a fact that the AV10 use a reference class ESS DAC IC, but not the flagship class that is used in some other AVPs/AVRs such as the Anthem AVM90, but that's irrelevant for this discussion anyway.

The DSP is a different story, D+M upgraded the IC to one that has sufficient capabilities to do not only the increase channel counts from previously 15 to now 19, but also has to do the paid upgrade Dirac Live Bass Control plus Dirac Live ART so there is just no comparison.

With all that increased raw processing capabilities of the Griffin Lite chip, it should not be a surprise you are so much more impressed with the AV10's Atmos performance vs the AV7705'.

Just a side note: credit to D+M, they have done it again, leveraging purchasing power, by filtering down such improvements onto the lower models, even the Denon 3000 series and Marantz 50,40 use the same DSP IC, so I would say those on a tighter budget, can expect superior Atmos performance too by simply going with the X3800H or Cinema 50 AVR, yes, AVRs. Those AVRs also use the same preamp/volume control IC, and most of the opas as the AV10, but of course the AV10 has superior wiring scheme, layouts, shielding and the better HDAMs etc.

View attachment 76168

Well, it stands to reason that a DAC change could improve the situation. What has astounded me is how much it has improved multichannel audio. I would never have suspected that would be the case.

It makes me wonder though, if part of this is to purposely reduce power to other than the front three because of the power limitation of receivers and some multi channel power amps, when all channels are driven.

All my instincts tell me that it can't be good to build units with power supplies too small to properly power the system. That is a device I would never want to own and don't.

Anyhow the improved performance of the AV 10 over what I have owned before is a really welcome and unexpected surprise. I bought the AV 10 in the hopes it will be a unit that will not malfunction anytime soon. Improved SQ was not in my thinking, but very welcome.

Denon seem to have discontinued the 3000 series and their top end AVR is now AVR A1H at 7199.00.

So that is a significant expense. Power output is miserable though. No 4 ohm spec. No all channels driven spec. 260 watts 6 ohm only one channel driven and down to 190 watts 2 channels driven into 6 ohms. So even at that price it can't even be a decent 2 channel stereo receiver without the power supply being compromised. This is just not good enough.

I have to say I am really disturbed at the current state of play. In my view this really makes the case for putting the power amps in the speakers. This really is the only way out of this mess.

 

[TLS Guy]

Out of curiosity, at what volume level?

I listen at what I estimate to be concert levels and of course I listen to wide dynamic range material in the main, on on my db meter at the MLP range is generally 50 to 85 db.

 

[m. zillch]

at the MLP range is generally

As I suspected, (but wanted to confirm) you seem to have compared two audio devices—under sighted conditions as I understand it—without first ensuring your exposure to the two was set at exactly matched volume levels; you instead, by my read, "winged it" by ear alone. Even Stereophile magazine explains the potential folly of doing this, here:

"Sidebar 1: Level Matching

It's essential in listening comparisons to match levels to at least within 0.1dB. A component that's, say, 0.2dB louder than another won't be heard as being louder. Instead, listeners will comment on greater apparent detail or better dynamics.

Stereophile's recommended means of matching levels is to choose a volume-control setting for the comparison, then play a reference tone from a CD—I included a 1kHz tone at –20dBFS on all three Stereophile Test CDs for this purpose. An AC voltmeter is then used to measure the voltage present at the power amplifier's speaker output terminals: as long as the levels for the two upstream components are within 1%, the sound-pressure levels will be matched to within 0.1dB (footnote 1).

The difficulty lies in repeatably setting the volume control, which is where the Mark Levinson No.38 and '38S are reviewers' dreams. The ability of the '38-series volume control to be switched in accurate 0.1dB steps, coupled with the fact that each input can also have its sensitivity preset in 0.1dB steps, makes level-matching trivially easy.

For this review, for example, at my chosen listening level for the critical comparisons, the 1kHz, –20dBFS tone gave a level measured at the amplifier terminals of 2.114V RMS ('38 and '38S) and 2.119V RMS (SFL-2) for the first two sets of comparisons, and 2.142V (Threshold) and 2.137V ('38S) for the third comparison. In all cases, the levels at 1kHz were matched to within 0.025dB. I could be sure, therefore, that any differences I perceived between the preamps were not due to a level imbalance.—John Atkinson "

 

[PENG]

Well, it stands to reason that a DAC change could improve the situation. What has astounded me is how much it has improved multichannel audio. I would never have suspected that would be the case.

It makes me wonder though, if part of this is to purposely reduce power to other than the front three because of the power limitation of receivers and some multi channel power amps, when all channels are driven.

All my instincts tell me that it can't be good to build units with power supplies too small to properly power the system. That is a device I would never want to own and don't.

Anyhow the improved performance of the AV 10 over what I have owned before is a really welcome and unexpected surprise. I bought the AV 10 in the hopes it will be a unit that will not malfunction anytime soon. Improved SQ was not in my thinking, but very welcome.

Denon seem to have discontinued the 3000 series and their top end AVR is now AVR A1H at 7199.00.

So that is a significant expense. Power output is miserable though. No 4 ohm spec. No all channels driven spec. 260 watts 6 ohm only one channel driven and down to 190 watts 2 channels driven into 6 ohms. So even at that price it can't even be a decent 2 channel stereo receiver without the power supply being compromised. This is just not good enough.

I have to say I am really disturbed at the current state of play. In my view this really makes the case for putting the power amps in the speakers. This really is the only way out of this mess.

No, dac does not do processing other than doing digital to analog conversion period..

You are comparing your av7705 to the av10, both are avps so forget about amplifier power supply and amplifiers, those are irrevelevant to your original point about seemingly surprise by the significant improvements you are getting watching Atmos movies.

Again the main difference that is 100% relevant to Atmos playback performance is the fact that the av10 uses a much better DSP IC than the one used in the av7705. That’s what is making the difference for you. If you don’t believe that and insist on it is the dac that makes the difference, that makes no sense at all, but then we can just agree to disagree.

 

[PENG]

As I suspected, (but wanted to confirm) you seem to have compared two audio devices—under sighted conditions as I understand it—without first ensuring your exposure to the two was set at exactly matched volume levels; you instead, by my read, "winged it" by ear alone. Even Stereophile magazine explains the potential folly of doing this, here:

"Sidebar 1: Level Matching

It's essential in listening comparisons to match levels to at least within 0.1dB. A component that's, say, 0.2dB louder than another won't be heard as being louder. Instead, listeners will comment on greater apparent detail or better dynamics.

Stereophile's recommended means of matching levels is to choose a volume-control setting for the comparison, then play a reference tone from a CD—I included a 1kHz tone at –20dBFS on all three Stereophile Test CDs for this purpose. An AC voltmeter is then used to measure the voltage present at the power amplifier's speaker output terminals: as long as the levels for the two upstream components are within 1%, the sound-pressure levels will be matched to within 0.1dB (footnote 1).

The difficulty lies in repeatably setting the volume control, which is where the Mark Levinson No.38 and '38S are reviewers' dreams. The ability of the '38-series volume control to be switched in accurate 0.1dB steps, coupled with the fact that each input can also have its sensitivity preset in 0.1dB steps, makes level-matching trivially easy.

For this review, for example, at my chosen listening level for the critical comparisons, the 1kHz, –20dBFS tone gave a level measured at the amplifier terminals of 2.114V RMS ('38 and '38S) and 2.119V RMS (SFL-2) for the first two sets of comparisons, and 2.142V (Threshold) and 2.137V ('38S) for the third comparison. In all cases, the levels at 1kHz were matched to within 0.025dB. I could be sure, therefore, that any differences I perceived between the preamps were not due to a level imbalance.—John Atkinson "

For clarity, his comparison listening is quite specific, it is Atmos contents, not music in direct or pure direct mode. That’s why I think it is the new DSP hardware and software implementation that is making him happy.

 

[m. zillch]

Admittedly evaluating surround sound under scientifically valid conditions is a nightmare. I was selling this stuff when DTS threw their hat into the ring as the first real competitor to Dolby Digital (then often called AC3). I remember reading magazines like Stereo Review which discussed how they had gone to great lengths to figure out how to conduct a precisely level matched, per channel, blind testing setup to compare the two fairly, but before they could even get to listening sessions they determined, by measurement, that these companies cheat.

DTS liked to brag that they used less compression than Dolby but researchers (David Ranada?) explained the potential audibility of this claimed benefit was impossible to determine with any good certainty because the movies available at the time which had both Dolby 5.1 and DTS soundtracks were determined to be made from different mixes! So if a listener, for example, stated (paraphrased), "I find the DTS version much more exciting and enveloping!", their preference could easily be dismissed by the fact that the DTS version simply had its surround channels (embedded in the disc itslef) boosted by a dB or two!

 

[TLS Guy]

No, dac does not do processing other than doing digital to analog conversion period..

You are comparing your av7705 to the av10, both are avps so forget about amplifier power supply and amplifiers, those are irrevelevant to your original point about seemingly surprise by the significant improvements you are getting watching Atmos movies.

Again the main difference that is 100% relevant to Atmos playback performance is the fact that the av10 uses a much better DSP IC than the one used in the av7705. That’s what is making the difference for you. If you don’t believe that and insist on it is the dac that makes the difference, that makes no sense at all, but then we can just agree to disagree.

No I misspoke, obviously the spacial wizardry is the province of the DSP.

As I suspected, (but wanted to confirm) you seem to have compared two audio devices—under sighted conditions as I understand it—without first ensuring your exposure to the two was set at exactly matched volume levels; you instead, by my read, "winged it" by ear alone. Even Stereophile magazine explains the potential folly of doing this, here:

"Sidebar 1: Level Matching

It's essential in listening comparisons to match levels to at least within 0.1dB. A component that's, say, 0.2dB louder than another won't be heard as being louder. Instead, listeners will comment on greater apparent detail or better dynamics.

Stereophile's recommended means of matching levels is to choose a volume-control setting for the comparison, then play a reference tone from a CD—I included a 1kHz tone at –20dBFS on all three Stereophile Test CDs for this purpose. An AC voltmeter is then used to measure the voltage present at the power amplifier's speaker output terminals: as long as the levels for the two upstream components are within 1%, the sound-pressure levels will be matched to within 0.1dB (footnote 1).

The difficulty lies in repeatably setting the volume control, which is where the Mark Levinson No.38 and '38S are reviewers' dreams. The ability of the '38-series volume control to be switched in accurate 0.1dB steps, coupled with the fact that each input can also have its sensitivity preset in 0.1dB steps, makes level-matching trivially easy.

For this review, for example, at my chosen listening level for the critical comparisons, the 1kHz, –20dBFS tone gave a level measured at the amplifier terminals of 2.114V RMS ('38 and '38S) and 2.119V RMS (SFL-2) for the first two sets of comparisons, and 2.142V (Threshold) and 2.137V ('38S) for the third comparison. In all cases, the levels at 1kHz were matched to within 0.025dB. I could be sure, therefore, that any differences I perceived between the preamps were not due to a level imbalance.—John Atkinson "

It is not under sighted conditions, the AV 7706 failed at three months. Not there to AB test. In any event you can not do an A/B comparison of an AVP considering the multitude of connections.

You won't A/B switch that lot!

The other issue is that in Atmos sources both the 7705 and 7706 drops output levels by at least 10 db playing Atmos content. I have no idea why, but they both did. The AV 10 does not, and maintains output.

The fact is that the AV 10 is dramatically superior to the others, there is absolutely no doubt about it.

By the way, I seldom play movies here. Almost all my Atmos is streamed from the BPO, with some Atmos BD classical discs. But the AV 10 is an all round much better performer on digital sources. Analog of course is hard to tell, but the much improved SNR is a bonus there also. It takes very little noise to adversely affect SQ. The noise of both the 7705 and 7706 was audible at the seated position. The AV 10 is dead quiet and there is NO noise in the room when the rig is on. Before with the others you always knew, so that alone is worth the change to the AV 10.

 

[Trebdp83]

For clarity, his comparison listening is quite specific, it is Atmos contents, not music in direct or pure direct mode. That’s why I think it is the new DSP hardware and software implementation that is making him happy.

I don’t know why this is such a hard thing for him to understand. He didn’t have a signal complaint about the 7705 or 7706 until they both s#% the bed. Now, their Dolby Atmos presentations were flawed. They were not so much flawed as outdated and it does not take very long at all anymore for processes and devices to become obsolete.

I’m glad he is happy with the AV10 and it delivers for him. We’ll find out how flawed the AV10 was when it eventually s#%ts the bed and a newer model is released. But, with just his own testimony based on memory, I’d take all of the information with a grain of salt.

 

[m. zillch]

There are ways to compare multi-channel surround systems with A/B switches. Heck this one can even do A/B/C so with a little trick it could be wired up as a (manual) ABX test box:

5.1 Channel Speaker / Amplifier Selector

Torvin Speaker selector is an efficient way of expanding the audio systems at your audio demo studio or showroom. This user-friendly selector can be connected upto 3 sets of 5.1 speakers and 3 subw…

torvin.com

I had a customer doing it decades ago and what he did is he had a stack of 2 ch A/B boxes (Niles units I sold him). So for a, say, 14 channel setup you'd stack 7 boxes.