Measurements not Revealing Significant Differences Between AVRs and AVPs

[Kingnoob]

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.

Considering how expensive the Marantz 7705 cost what a Shame it wasn’t good..
I’m running 4.1 no room for Atmos .
My onkyo 818 is still going strong 12 years after purchase. But my surrounds are in bad placement so it’s basically a stereo setup. My dad who could afford way better speakers then mine prefers tv speakers

There are ways to compare 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 an 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.

Is that for switching to multiple pairs of speakers??

You should know as well as I do that there is no advantage to XLR over RCA unless the cable run is very long. The reason for XLR is interference rejection as the pins 2 an3 carry the signal and any interference cancels at the input stage assuming the in[ut stage is actually fully balanced, which on a lot of amps, if not most, that is not the case. XLR is primarily for long microphone runs. So for short runs like mine their is zero advantage to XLR over RCA.

In any event I need to use RCA and XLR on the same channels. The rear surrounds use XLR only, and the front three use RCA and XLR. The side surrounds and ceiling speakers amps use RCA only.

I’ve never even been able to afford one with XLR and since I can’t run Atmos there’s little reason to get them nor do I have a sub with XLR. And I can’t get a real job that pays a living wage here because they require hard trades or college degrees like 4 years. These retailers pay poverty wages I’ll probably end up homeless working for those.

 

[m. zillch]

Is that for switching to multiple pairs of speakers??

It is bi-directional so either one set of surround speakers can be driven by two/three alternate systems or for other people they'd use it in reverse: one set of electronics can drive two/three alternate sets of speakers. There are versions that instead of speaker level are preamp level, too.

 

[PENG]

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.

Great point, I never thought of outdated could also be the reason but it is a possibility. With every firmware updates, that did take place with D+M AVPs/AVRs, it is quite possible that they have updated the DSP software too. Thinking back, with I upgrade/or downgrade? from my AV8801 to the AVR-X4400H in 2018, I really thought I heard better sound effects when watching movies, not just Atmos as the AV8801 didn't do Atmos, but also DDTHD, DTX:Neural X etc. Yet the AV8801 and X4400H have the same DSP IC, so I think the time gap of about 5 years must have made a difference, again, probably just due to FW update of the software.

 

[highfigh]

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.

Or, near- that has been done in concert venues for 100 years and it makes sense, but a place for them needs to be found and when Interior Detonators are involved, nobody gets what they want WRT this stuff.