Review of Marantz 7701 pre/pro. 2.1 mode not useable.

TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
I took delivery of a Marantz 7701 pre/pro for our Eagan town home about 10 days ago.


This is a 2.1 system.




Since there is no good 2.1 AV device I had to use a multichannel device.

Set up seamed easy. Audyssey recognized the two speakers and the sub, there are two one in each speaker.

A word about the speakers. The speakers have four compartments. The two bass/mids are in their own sealed compartments have an F3 of 90 Hz with second order acoustic roll off at that point.

There are two 9" morel drivers in the cabinet in isobarik configuration which you can't see. Behind the mid woofers there is a sealed chamber, at the bottom is a vented enclosure. These latter two enclosures form isobarik couple cavity subs, with F3 of 27 Hz on the low end and 90 Hz on the upper end. To get this bandwidth of 1.5 octaves required the sub system to have a Qt of 0.7.

Previously the system was driven from an electronic crossover I designed and built for the purpose. The tweeters are Scanspeak. These speakers were my last location recording monitors, which is why they are on wheels. They are very nice speakers indeed.

So Audyssey surprised me by finding the correct crossover points right away. It crossed the bass/mids at 60 Hz, to keep the second order acoustic roll off for half and octave. It set the sub crossover at 120 Hz, again to keep the second order acoustic roll off at 90 Hz for another half octave.

I really am amazed how Audyssey manages to figure out my speaker systems which are well off the well trodden path.

The sub level was set about 1.5 to 2 db too low, which is a very minor point.

Now the problems began.

The system sounded really bass light and sibilant.

Although there was sound from the subs during set up, it was clear the subs were not working on program, despite have been set to LFE + main.

So I did an manual set up and the subs did not reproduce the test tone.

My first thought was that I was stupid as usual, but after tearing my hair out looking at a 186 page pdf manual a day after my first cataract surgery. I came to the conclusion that this unit did not work right. There is no printed manual. There is a disc with a pdf manual that is identical to the online manual I had previously downloaded.

After a long Internet search I found that this is a known problem with these units in 2.1 mode that Marantz have not publicly acknowledged to the public, dealers or sales staff.

The Internet work around is to tell the unit there is a center speaker when there isn't and then there is sub output. However if you do this all peripheral units must do the mix down to 2.1

I phoned customer support and "dropped the goods" on them. As they could tell I knew my facts there admitted the problem. They could not give me a date for a firmware fix. They said there engineers were working on it, but apparently they are obsessed with trying to make this unit run Pandora, which it apparently does not now. It admits to this problem on their website

My dealer, who gave me a really nice discount, was very upset that they had not been informed, and put me in touch with the senior rep in charge of a huge area of the US. He was also very upset he know nothing of this problem and apologized profusely.

I have given them a month to fix this problem or I will return it.

The fix of tricking the unit by selecting a non existent center did not pan out well.

It was not long before my wife selected a movie on Netfix, that happened to be one that streams in Dolby 5.1. Although the Panasonic BD player was set to do the mix down, I quickly found out it only does this for discs and not streaming! So there was no dialog.

I found out that selecting surrounds instead of the center also activates the sub signal.

This is better as all you miss pretty much is flying bullets from the rear.

However I find this situation totally unsatisfactory.

As far as sound quality, Audyssey is again the issue.

The unit has Audyssey MultEQXT, DSX. The Audyssey Eq was run several times and sounds dreadful. The Audyssey flat setting is even worse. It makes a set of really nice speakers, sound forward, shouty and sibilant. All these are faults I can't abide. If you use Audyssey just use it for crossover, levels and delay. I strongly advise against using it for frequency response correction. I spoke to the owner of the dealership about this. I have known him for years. Is view is that if you want to make good speakers sound awful then use Audyssey. Whether they can improve lousy speakers, I know not, but I highly doubt it. I spoke to Billy Woodman about this when I visited ATC. His view that trying to equalize speakers the way Audyssey and other systems do, is completely flawed and doomed to failure. My experence would confirm that.

Without the Audyssey frequency response correction the unit is sonically excellent and neutral.

The unit runs very cool, much cooler than my AV 8003 which gets slightly warm. This unit produces almost imperceptible heat.

The ergonomics of set up and use are excellent.

The unit does have a phono input and generous HDMI connectivity.

The unit has a Ethernet port, but no Wi-Fi capability. This seems to me a serious error, as it means running a cable across the floor to the router to do firmware upgrades. This unit is not in a location where it is possible to hard wire it. So I can't use streaming or Internet radio, however I have other peripherals that have Wi-Fi and do.

If you are going to use this unit with more than 2 channels, I think you will be pleased with this unit. At this time this unit will not perform correctly in 2.1 format, which I regard as a serious issue. Marantz need to publicly admit and disclose this.

Denon Marantz have been owned by Bain Capital for some time. I'm not sure how well managed they are under Bain. The rep I spoke to let slip to me that the outfit is understaffed to a serious degree, especially in engineering where it really counts. So I suppose its profits, profits and profits, and blinders as to whether what they produce is any good.

They sold off McIntosh to an Italian outfit a few months ago. I suspect Bain may bail out soon, which probably can't come soon enough.

This really is a problem, as I regard Onkyo as a problem child, and now we have Denon and Marantz questionable. That leaves HK, Pioneer and Yamaha plus valiant efforts from EMO. The pickings are getting far too slim.

All this makes me pine for the "Golden Age of British Audio." Those really were the days.

Now however, producing boards for chip sets and some custom chips along the way, to say nothing of the huge expense of writing software, pretty much confines the development of these types of units to those with very deep pockets. I think that is a huge threat to those of us who love good audio and now video.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
...if you want to make good speakers sound awful then use Audyssey. Whether they can improve lousy speakers, I know not, but I highly doubt it. I spoke to Billy Woodman about this when I visited ATC. His view that trying to equalize speakers the way Audyssey and other systems do, is completely flawed and doomed to failure. My experence would confirm that. Without the Audyssey frequency response correction the unit is sonically excellent and neutral.
Over the years I have listened to speakers using RC from Audyssey, HK EzSET, Yamaha YPAO, Pioneer MCACC, and Anthem ARC, and I have always preferred to BYPASS all RC. I just tried Audyssey a few days ago as well. Really messed up the sound. Again. And again, I ended up turning Audyssey off.

It appears some of us totally agree on this subject. We apply Audyssey for things like XO, distant, Sub & speaker channel levels, and then we turn Audyssey off.

But the other 50% of the people would disagree with us. :D
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I'm not surprised by all of this. The complexity in that receiver is formidable, that there's a bug in a mode they weren't optimizing for, 2.1, surprises me even less. In my recent experience with audio equipment I've found several design flaws or, well, poor decisions I guess you'd call them, on various pieces of equipment:

1. Velodyne DD18 Plus subwoofer. Velodyne included level controls for single-ended inputs, but didn't include input level controls for balanced inputs, making the DSP stage very easy to overload. When you overload the DSP input it distorts the high-pass output at high listening levels, and requires using sub volume levels so low it is impossible to tune the sub level properly. When I reported the issue to Velodyne they just stopped communicating with me. I fixed the problem with external balanced-line attenuators, but you would think a $5K sub would be well-tested through the balanced inputs. Hmmm.

2. Outlaw 975 Pre-Pro. The line-level outputs have insufficient signal level with some inputs. In my case it was with my Sony BD player, but others have reported the same weakness with other sources too. Outlaw was able to mitigate the problem by having me to change the setting on Sony's output to PCM, since I was using the pre-pro in 2.0 mode, and it is okay for most DVDs, but it is still marginal for Blurays.

3. Outlaw 975 Pre-Pro. The remote is an ergonomic failure. First the full-size remote was two months late, and then once it shows up the source switching function buttons are in a nearly illegible gray font on a black background, which would be almost excusable, but this is a remote with lighted buttons and they chose functions other than source selection for the primary button mode! I suppose this falls into the "what were they thinking?" category more than a design flaw, but catch me when I want to switch inputs in a dark room and it sure does seem like a defect. :)

4. Sony BD player. It won't stream video consistently. Netflix on the Sony BD player drops the connection constantly, it never makes it more than ten minutes or so, and it is hard-wired to the router with a high-quality CAT-6 cable. I tried it wireless too, and it has the same problem. For a year or so it seemed like every time I turned it on the Sony had a new firmware update to download. For months I hoped each firmware update would fix the streaming problem, but they didn't. The Roku streams flawlessly.

5. Emotiva ERC-2 CD player. Emotiva used a Toshiba CD-ROM drive in a CD player, which was noisy, slow-loading, temperamental, and there were a few CDs I had that it just didn't like and wouldn't play. The Toshiba drive also failed and went back for service, after which I sold it.

All of these components have their virtues. The DD18 Plus is an awesome sub. When the output level is high enough, and I don't need to change sources in a dark room, the Outlaw 975 produces great video and audio quality. The Emotiva CD Player had remarkable build quality and parts choice for the price, outside of the CD drive. The Sony BD player is the one exception, being a cheap POS, IMO, but I'm not inclined to go for an Oppo yet, so I live with it.

My point is that modern consumer electronics have so many different modes and technologies they have to deal with that a lot of products have significant flaws or defects in them. I'd contend that one can still beat the golden days of British audio, but you have to stick to components that were similarly simple, like amps, pre-amps, and AM-FM tuners, and be willing to spend as much inflation-adjusted as those old British components cost, which was a lot. I'm not sure, TLS Guy, that Quad would have dealt with a modern AVR any better than Marantz does now.
 
Last edited:
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
I'm not sure, TLS Guy, that Quad would have dealt with a modern AVR any better than Marantz does now.
No they would not have and would not have attempted it. But really it is DRM that has put it over the top. If you didn't have HDCP codes then I think small firms likely could produce the goods.

In any event these devices have too many bells and whistles. All you need is core function. All I need in pre/pro is switching with gain, decoding of the various codecs and bass management, although truth be told I could get by without the latter. I absolutely do not need anything else and nor does anybody else with any sense.

These complexities are are causing manifold bugs you describe. So I probably will keep the unit, and if they don't fix it, I will do my own bass management, by putting back my crossover. I only got the unit because my wife found the vintage rig in an AV world unhandy. So that makes a huge box just to make a useable 2.0 system. This really is a stupid ridiculous state of affairs. What's worse you can't even use the TV speakers any more, as the TV's are wafer thin and the speakers face the wall behind a big flat screen. To make them safe you have to wall mount them. Now how daft is that. Even worse modern TV's don't have analog outs. So that makes it impossible to easily bypass the TV's amps and speakers. There really are one hell of lot of stupid people running riot.
 
Last edited:
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
You are probably right about the 50/50. There has to be some logical explanations..
There is. The people that like those Eq programs are so deep into the pop culture their acoustic reference points are way out of kilter.
 
Adam

Adam

Audioholic Jedi
There is. The people that like those Eq programs are so deep into the pop culture their acoustic reference points are way out of kilter.
Yep, because people who don't agree with you are flawed. :p

Well, I better go crank some Rihanna then, because I LOVE what MCAAC did for my system. Then again, maybe it's just better than Audyssey despite what people quoting specs think. :D
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
In any event these devices have too many bells and whistles. All you need is core function. All I need in pre/pro is switching with gain, decoding of the various codecs and bass management, although truth be told I could get by without the latter. I absolutely do not need anything else and nor does anybody else with any sense.
I am on the same page you are; I don't need or use anything beyond audio and video switching in 2.0 or 2.1 format. Frankly, I've never understood surround sound at all, though perhaps that's because I'm not really into HT.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
The Bryston SP3 & Cary Audio Cinema12 are 2 pre-pro with less EQ functions; they might not even have any kind of Room Correction. They do have a few DSP like ProLogic, DTS-Neo, etc, but just a lot less DSP/EQ than most AVR.

McIntosh and Krell pre-pros have just as many EQ-DSP as any AVR.

Mark Levinson and ATI don't even make pre-pros anymore.

But if ATI makes pre-pros again with just basic core functions like HDMI, DAC, channel levels (gain), pre-out for speakers & subs, discrete DTS-HD & TrueHD, and no Room Correction, THX, EQ, DSP, I would be so all over it. :D

Parasound Halo P7 is a 7.1 analog preamp with extreme basic core functions. Too bad it doesn't have built in HDMI, DAC, & Discrete Decoders (DTS/DD).

On second thought I also think an AVR w/ all the bells and whistles will sound as great as long as I have the ability to bypass the RC/EQ/DSP.
 
Last edited:
C

canelli

Audioholic
With normal Audyssey placing a dip at 2k and only having one target curve which if for a smaller room, it's a shame you could not a get a free pro calibration for your troubles. The pro offers adjustable curves and the ability to defeat the 2k dip.

I am curious if anyone has been able to directly compare the difference between a regular and pro calibration?
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Warlord
I'm starting to agree that Audyssey does some strange things with EQ. Level calibration, distance, and crossover seem to be spot on, but boy doesn't music sound terrible with audyssey enabled. Direct mode is 100x better IMHO, and I don't even have very high quality speakers. With my old (very old) cheap pioneers, it sounded a bit better with audyssey, but that's just because it was different, not better. I'd been using the same speakers for the last 16 years so when something changed their sound, my brain interpreted it as "better". Not anymore since I've gotten used to the Andrew jones pioneers. Terrible with audyssey, great without. Don't get me wrong, I love my 809 for the price, but I would have been very unhappy had I paid full price. Not enough customization like the other offerings at it's price point. They are small complaints, but for that price they should have been there. I think too many manufacturers are too caught up in cramming every feature possible into devices and not focusing on making a quality product that does it's job properly. Having to do a work around on a piece of equipment as expensive as the 7701 is unacceptable.
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
Yep, because people who don't agree with you are flawed. :p

Well, I better go crank some Rihanna then, because I LOVE what MCAAC did for my system. Then again, maybe it's just better than Audyssey despite what people quoting specs think. :D
I can't say I find Audyssey all that offensive, and I listened to live, non-amplified music just yesterday :D ; of course, I can't claim that it provides a huge sonic benefit with my new KEF setup whereas it was useful IMO for evening out the sound of my old Klipsch setup. It does seem reasonably effective in flattening bass response according to Omnimic, although it natively sets the sub a bit hot.

Ohh, and as far as setting XO's, I can't even get it to do that very well, at least with my center channel which it seems bound and determined to set up at 150Hz, even though I've measured it flat down to 50Hz...
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I'm starting to agree that Audyssey does some strange things with EQ. Level calibration, distance, and crossover seem to be spot on, but boy doesn't music sound terrible with audyssey enabled. Direct mode is 100x better IMHO, and I don't even have very high quality speakers.
I think it's the same with every single room correction I've heard at home, at friends' houses, or at dealers.

I wonder if it's just certain rooms or just our different brains. :D
 
cpp

cpp

Audioholic Ninja
I think it's the same with every single room correction I've heard at home, at friends' houses, or at dealers.

I wonder if it's just certain rooms or just our different brains. :D
Audyssey, I have to go with the certain rooms before I would center on the brains. I know Audyssey 'on' in my living room which is really open, well sounds better if it's 'off'. Now in the HT room Audyssey sounds better, but that room is a fully treated HT room and it's not of an open design.
 
G

Grador

Audioholic Field Marshall
I've found that YPAO has never done anything good to any speakers in any of my rooms, but I believe they were a large improvement on my father's system which is higher end than my own. He has a top end old Boston VR series setup that I always thought sounded very clear and even but exceptionally lifeless [fairly useless description, i know]. Using YPAO is a tradeoff on his system, I think it drops some clarity, but makes them less obnoxiously clinical.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I've found that YPAO has never done anything good to any speakers in any of my rooms, but I believe they were a large improvement on my father's system which is higher end than my own. He has a top end old Boston VR series setup that I always thought sounded very clear and even but exceptionally lifeless [fairly useless description, i know]. Using YPAO is a tradeoff on his system, I think it drops some clarity, but makes them less obnoxiously clinical.
Dropping clarity is never a good thing and should never be compromised IMO.

Clarity is the most important thing to me. 2nd is the bass. Soundstage & image is 3rd.
 
G

Grador

Audioholic Field Marshall
Dropping clarity is never a good thing and should never be compromised IMO.

Clarity is the most important thing to me. 2nd is the bass. Soundstage & image is 3rd.
As a general rule I agree, but there was absolutely no joy in listening to music on those speakers. It's hard to describe the effect, but I really think this was a worthwhile trade.
 
lsiberian

lsiberian

Audioholic Overlord
If you can run it in 2.0 mode full range and then you can do your own active crossovers.
 
macddmac

macddmac

Audioholic General
Would a NAD c 390dd with hdmi card work for a situation like this ?
Cheers, Mac
 
RichB

RichB

Audioholic Field Marshall
I have the AV8801, Outlaw 7500, Revel Salons, Studio, and Voice.
I like the AV8801 but after trying Audyssey many times I still prefer Pure direct using the analog inputs from the BDP-105.

Just going from Pure Direct to Direct the is a change in the sound, it is less defined and the soundstage collapses.
There are members over there with some fine equipment and yet they find no change in the sound changing these settings.
They also are huge Audyssey fans. Perhaps there is a correlation.

I have also found that turning off everything I can find also helps: Video Mode: Game, Video processing: off, HDMI pass-though:eek:ff, Lip-sync: Disabled.

On AVS, these observation go over like a turd in the punch-bowl. :)

- Rich
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top