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.

 

[Golfx]

Well I am just glad he has something nice to say

 

[EBN]

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

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.

A1H should be as good as it gets these days for av-receiver in terms of power output. Most people are perfectly fine even with much lower tier models when they pay attention to speakers (sensitivity / impedance / phase angles), but nothing seems to be good enough for you. I would make a big bet if someone were to swap your old amps & AV10 secretly and put A1H there without you knowing you would be singing the same praise still. Your hate toward av-receivers is very silly!

From Audioholics article: The fact that the A1H has an even larger power supply than the AVR-X8500H gives us high hopes for the amount of power this behemoth can deliver. In fact, we confirmed with Denon engineering that they bench tested the A1H is able to maintain 70% power for up to 9 channels driven! That would be 105w x 9ch driven continuously into 8-ohm load. Less useful information when real world program material being films you are not taxing all channels continuously in the way it`s been done in bench test. Not anywhere close. That`s why the ACD numbers are mostly irrelevant. Most people also have powered subwoofers taking big load off.

Audio Vision measured A1H.

- 2 channels driven 4-ohm 287w
- 2 channels driven 6-ohm 222w
- 5 channels driven 4-ohm 204w
- 5 channels driven 6-ohm 171w
- 7 channels driven 6-ohm 153w

Denon AVC-A1H (Test)

audiovision.de

ASR measured A1H 2 channel driven 4-ohm, 83dB SINAD = 0,01% THD+N @ 242w. For short peaks 350w 1% THD+N 4-ohm.

I have not seen anyone complaining about top level products as much as you. Everything should be DIY for you as all companies gets the hate and mockery. How one person can be so negative all the time?! Latest mocking was toward Dirac ART while you haven`t even tested Dirac Live digital room correction yet.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

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

Denon is still selling the x3800, x4800, x6800, A10, and A1.

As for some AVR’s 2CH amp power:

Yamaha RX-Z11 387W x 2Ch 4 ohms, Denon AVR-5308 339W x 2Ch 4 ohms, Yamaha RX-A3000 series 294W x 2Ch 4 ohms, Denon X7200 266W x 2Ch 4 ohms, Yamaha RX-A2000 series 260W x 2Ch 4 ohms, Yamaha RX-A8 series 260W x 2Ch 4 ohms, Denon X8500 260W x 2Ch 4 ohms, Marantz SR8015/Cinema 30/Denon x6800 251W x 2Ch 4 ohms, Arcam AVR850 249W x 2Ch 4 ohms, Anthem MRX 1120 243W x 2Ch 4 ohms, Denon X4000 series 240W x 2Ch 4 ohms, Marantz SR7000 series 232W x 2Ch 4 ohms, Anthem MRX 710 223W x 2Ch 4 ohms, Denon X3000 Series 184W x 2Ch 4 ohms, Yamaha RX-V6 180W x 2Ch 4 ohms, Yamaha RX-A1000 series 173W x 2Ch 4 ohms

Yamaha needs to bring back the Z11 with almost 400 Watts x 2Ch 4-ohms.

 

[m. zillch]

The ACD spec is blown out of proportion. Similarly the SINAD spec is also over emphasized in some other circles. It is not that they are meaningless but people myopically focus on them as if they are all that matters.

 

[dlaloum]

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 would suggest that it is new and changed algorhythms - possibly requiring additional processing capability - but possibly not...

ie: a software change - not hardware

There was some talk about Dolby updating their SDK... and THAT might be the main difference!

 

[TLS Guy]

I would suggest that it is new and changed algorhythms - possibly requiring additional processing capability - but possibly not...

ie: a software change - not hardware

There was some talk about Dolby updating their SDK... and THAT might be the main difference!

I think that is the most likely explanation. That AV 10 is an impressive unit and beautifully made and crafted.

 

[m. zillch]

The people who make surround sound technologies are now terrified to actually test it publicly under controlled conditions. Why? Because of the fiasco they had to endure when they once invited audio journalists to come to their test labs (equipped with state of art gear and listening rooms) to take a blind listening test using hand picked demo content and to then publicly report in their magazines as to what they heard. . . . They did this once and the audio journalists were unimpressed with the supposedly "new/better" sound.

 

[TLS Guy]

The people who make surround sound technologies are now terrified to actually test it publicly under controlled conditions. Why? Because of the fiasco they had to endure when they once invited audio journalists to come to their test labs (equipped with state of art gear and listening rooms) to take a blind listening test using hand picked demo content and to then publicly report in their magazines as to what they heard. . . . They did this once and the audio journalists were unimpressed with the supposedly "new/better" sound.

I think that sums it up. A/B comparisons of a multichannel system is pretty much impossible. The switching and level matching would be next an absolute nightmare and probably inadequate.

 

[dlaloum]

I think that sums it up. A/B comparisons of a multichannel system is pretty much impossible. The switching and level matching would be next an absolute nightmare and probably inadequate.

1) It is technically possible, but very complicated, and require substantial logistical time & effort
2) Differences are likely to be completely negligible between mass market models and luxury flagship models (with both running within their designed performance envelope)

The great winemakers of France, have long since stopped sending their wines to competitions / blind tastings.... their reputation stands, success in comparative tastings doesn't enhance their sales, and failure reduces their sales - no upside, nothing but downside.

So the people who would need to be involved in such tests - those with the manpower and resources to set them up, have no motivation to do them!!!

Keep in mind that for each AVP/AVR involved, you would need circa a full day of calibration/configuration, in addition to all the input/output switching hardware etc...
And due to differing performance envelopes the testing environement / theatre would need to have relatively easy to drive speakers to ensure it can be run by some of the more basic hardware - or the test might need to be limited to the AVP functionality with all devices using external power amps, so as to remove that series of variables!

It is simply (or not so simply ) an order of magnitude (or 2!) more complex than doing such a DBT for stereo equipment.

 

[lovinthehd]

Thus why I think TLS' report is fairly inconsequential. Let alone his corporate reasoning.

 

[jinjuku]

I would suggest that it is new and changed algorhythms - possibly requiring additional processing capability - but possibly not...

ie: a software change - not hardware

There was some talk about Dolby updating their SDK... and THAT might be the main difference!

I wonder what the CPU differences are between TLS's guys processors for starts. Then there is what release of software is doing the decode.

 

[dlaloum]

I wonder what the CPU differences are between TLS's guys processors for starts. Then there is what release of software is doing the decode.

You can run Doom on very very vintage hardware.... running it on the latest top class CPU won't make it any different...

Having a faster CPU with greater bandwidth, will only help IF the software actually needs it!!

And sadly, we have no insight into that... (yeah many of us have a background in IT, coding, etc..., but that only helps in understanding the overall environment - without actual data on what is happening, we are all just guessing!)

Apparently the new Dirac ART interface does provide some feedback as to capabilities of the platform it is on, in terms of numbers of "filters" it can deploy... on D&M platforms it appears to be limited to 94, and on Storm, substantially more.... as the deployments progress I expect we will start to see more differentiation in this parameter - and that will give us some indirect feedback on the processing power of each platform.

Whether that in turn results in differentiation in audible results is a completely different and separate "ball of wax".... depending on the configuration, the number of channels, the way the speaker groups are configured and how many are allocated to support duties, etc... will define the load on the processor.
Some rooms may require less processing than others... and for those rooms, the most economical low powered processor will be able to match the most expensive high powered one!

Interesting times for our hobby...

 

[PENG]

I wonder what the CPU differences are between TLS's guys processors for starts. Then there is what release of software is doing the decode.

They both use Analog Devices DSP ICs

His AV10 uses the Griffin Lite XP ADSP-21593:
ADSP-21593 Datasheet and Product Info | Analog Devices

His AV7705 Uses the much older ADSP-21573
ADSP-21487 Datasheet and Product Info | Analog Devices

The AV7705's DSP IC is obviously much less capable even just in terms of raw processing power as D+M uses 4 such pieces, the AV8805, Denon AVR-X8500H use the more capable ADSP-21573 only needed two pieces.

The AV10 that use the ADSP-21593 appears to be using just one single IC.

On paper, I would think that there is a significant jump in terms of processing power/capability between the DSPs of his 7705/7706 and AV10. With the much better DSP hardware, it is reasonable to assume D+M was able to leverage the much better hardware to implement much better software in terms of coding/decoding etc.

Software, by itself, could obviously performance but would have been limited if the better hardware, ie the Griffin Lite XP ICs were not used. As side note, the hardware, specifically the DSP IC used in the previous D+M AVPs/AVRs had been cited (probably in one of those Masimo training video iirc..) as a main reason why there was no way D+M could offer the otherwise potentially lucrative upgrade to Dirac Live via FW.

 

[m. zillch]

"Tired of having to put up with the inferior performance of your primitive, old, digital room thermometer using 1980s technology and only .1 degree F resolution? Well now you can relax in the comfort of a room with the exact temperature you like with our highly accurate thermometer providing far better .01 degree resolution thanks to its superior computing power!"

 

[TLS Guy]

"Tired of having to put up with the inferior performance of your primitive, old, digital room thermometer using 1980s technology and only .1 degree F resolution? Well now you can relax in the comfort of a room with the exact temperature you like with our highly accurate thermometer providing far better .01 degree resolution thanks to its superior computing power!"

Translation please. That makes not a lick of sense to me.

 

[TLS Guy]

They both use Analog Devices DSP ICs

His AV10 uses the Griffin Lite XP ADSP-21593:
ADSP-21593 Datasheet and Product Info | Analog Devices

His AV7705 Uses the much older ADSP-21573
ADSP-21487 Datasheet and Product Info | Analog Devices

The AV7705's DSP IC is obviously much less capable even just in terms of raw processing power as D+M uses 4 such pieces, the AV8805, Denon AVR-X8500H use the more capable ADSP-21573 only needed two pieces.

The AV10 that use the ADSP-21593 appears to be using just one single IC.

On paper, I would think that there is a significant jump in terms of processing power/capability between the DSPs of his 7705/7706 and AV10. With the much better DSP hardware, it is reasonable to assume D+M was able to leverage the much better hardware to implement much better software in terms of coding/decoding etc.

Software, by itself, could obviously performance but would have been limited if the better hardware, ie the Griffin Lite XP ICs were not used. As side note, the hardware, specifically the DSP IC used in the previous D+M AVPs/AVRs had been cited (probably in one of those Masimo training video iirc..) as a main reason why there was no way D+M could offer the otherwise potentially lucrative upgrade to Dirac Live via FW.

I think that is a big part of it. I think the other part is the improved SNR. The SNR of my previous AVPs has not been good enough. The AV 10 is 11db. better and that is a lot.

As I listen more, I note the quiet passages are much more detailed and realistic. The problem is that with 11 channels you need a really good SNR for it not to intrude. With this new rig the background is not different whether the equipment is on or off. You can not hear any generated noise at all at the seated positions.

I have listened to quite a few Atmos streams now that I previously thought were poor and now rate excellent. The most noticeable improvement has been in the Atmos sources by far. Previously I rated Atmos as interesting but not really worth the trouble. Now I am keen on it.