The "Unofficial" Marantz "Cinema Series" "2022-2023" AV Pre-Launch Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Ninja
Denon and Marantz are very similar (if not identical) internally, since they are a joint manufacturer now.
Denon receivers have been reported to perform better by tests than the equivalent featured Marantz. They don't even use the dubious HDAM module which Marantz have in their products.
 
T

TheAVInsider

Junior Audioholic
Denon receivers have been reported to perform better by tests than the equivalent featured Marantz. They don't even use the dubious HDAM module which Marantz have in their products.
Why post a dubious comment here?

My own testing has proven otherwise, at least for me, when I test using the best tools I have to work with, including those tools which God gave me.
 
Last edited:
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Ninja
Why post a dubious comment here?

My own testing has proven otherwise, at least for me, when I test using the best tools I have to work with, including those tools which God gave me.
See Post#994:
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Why post a dubious comment here?

My own testing has proven otherwise, at least for me, when I test using the best tools I have to work with, including those tools which God gave me.
Please share your testing tests that proved the HDAMs actually delivered the claimed improvements in their AVPs and AVRs (not integrated amps):

On noise, they claimed on one of their website:

So when they couldn’t find a solution to the background noise emitted by traditional operational amplifiers, they took it upon themselves to create one.

Hyper-Dynamic Amplifier Modules are that solution – a combination of exquisite craftsmanship and cutting-edge circuity – and one of Marantz most ingenious inventions to date.
On "signature sound", another claim:

By redesigning the overall architecture of the amplifier circuit, Marantz engineers managed to cleverly incorporate tiny preamplifier modules between the volume control and power amplifier sections. This helps to achieve that signature sound that is at once immersive and expansive.
On overall improvements (I give them/marketing) credit to add the word "subtle":

Subtle improvements
HDAMs help to make Marantz SR-Series and AV Receivers perform with almost zero background noise, they have also drastically improved the speed at which signals coming into the module are translated into amplified sounds going out.

This means that the output of a Marantz amplifier is a far more responsive, and offers a more accurate representation of the input.

As a result the music sounds fresh and alive, more rich and dynamic, and with high frequencies you can trust. It's yet another way that Marantz helps to make your music sound like it should.
The facts (published specs, and measurements including both Amir's and Gene's) show as @Verdinut mentioned, if anything, Denon's did better.

Here are some pusblished bench test results that show Marantz (including the AV7705 and 8805) did not do better, in fact typically worse than Denon's AVRs, the only exception is the SR8015 that did measure similar good as the Denon's.

- THD+N (some hate the term SINAD, but ASR provides both for all to see and compare).
- IMD
- SNR (in some cased, the two yielded very similar results, that show Marantz's are definitely not quieter)
- Harmonic profiles (FFT graphs)
- Multitone tests (32 tones input)
- Pre out linearity
- Frequency response (analog same as expected but on digital, Marantz has a slight roll off due to their choice of a non standard dac reconstruction filter)

So we are not just comparing SINAD, but a multitude of test results.

The power amps did measured practically the same, again as expected because they share the same power amp section and have the same power supply VA ratings.

Now compare their specs, their equivalent models, such as the AVR-X4700H and AR7015 have identical published specs in the owner's manuals.

With the extra HDAM buffer module, it is theoretically possible that Marantz could output higher voltages into lower load impedance, but then again there has been no such indication in any of the measurements googleable.

On the subjective side (I have owned two Marantz AVPs and one vintage separate preamp/power amp pair) I am fine with both brand's products, nothing against Marantz for sure. They all (including several Denon AVRs) sounded the same to me for my listening habits, except the Marantz AVPs are definitely nosier than my Denon AVR-X4400H and a X3400H that I had for two weeks. That's based on ears almost touching the speaker drivers though, from 10 ft away at volume up to -10 even the Marantz were indeed quite, with the HVAC off.
 
Last edited:
Kvn_Walker

Kvn_Walker

Audioholic Field Marshall
I like your reply better than the one I had typed up last night. I realized that after being up for 20 straight hours, speaking my mind right then wouldn't have been pretty, or constructive.
 
A

Audiguy3

Audiophyte
Has anyone heard when we might be able to order these 2 items? I know they will be introduced in Dallas at the end of the month
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I have a couple of questions for @PENG

How long do you think it will be important for you to continue your narrative on this forum, or the others forums you have frequented recently?
How many people do you wish to reach by continuing to say the same repetitive sentiments over and over again?
Wow, quite an interesting post... Simple answer to your simple question is: I don't just keep repeating the same thing over and over, I only repeat what is appropriate and only when I feel there is a need to, such as when people make, or even "repeat" unsubstantiated claims based on hearsay, or misconceptions, other unreliable information etc., thereby may lead others who may end up making their purpose decision based on incorrect, or unreliable information.

I have heard what you have to say, your narrative, and I don't know how continuing to repeat this is helping anything, or anyone really. Maybe it's time for you and your "team" to reserve judgement of unreleased products for a later date.
I don't know either, but it may have helped others, if so it's worth my time. But like you, I don't really know if any of my posts has helped anyone. Regardless, I know I have tried, and that's good enough for me.

Certainly Marantz has heard your point and others already on their older products.
That would be great, but I am not so sure about that, "certainly...", really? I hope so... but you never know. Marantz is a big organization, they don't know me and I doubt they care to find out who I am or value my opinion, or posts. I would love to have a conversation with someone on the Marantz engineering/design/development team but I have no reason to believe that is going to happen.

You know nothing about the new products, in context of your past sentiments, as all of your "subjective" thoughts seem to have been derived from technical research based off of current and older gen products.
That is obviously true as the only information about those new products are what's in you link, and I have never commented about the new products. I am getting hopefully after seeing what's in that link, that I may be able to go back on the Marantz AVP instead of Anthem's that is my current target for my next purchase.

Are you actually even aware of the fact that by continuing to repeat these comments over and over again, that you are influencing the entire industry to move away from the core that even you suggest you are still a part of?
What is your real objective in continuing with the narrative at this time?
No I am not aware of any of that, never thought that I, as an ordinary hobby forum member would have such influence lol.. Now that I have answered your questions, can you answer mine, on post#24.
 
T

TheAVInsider

Junior Audioholic
Now that I have answered your questions, can you answer mine, on post#24.
Thank you for your candid answers.
To answer your previous question...
As far as proof goes, I can provide my own reputation as a reliable source for information brought forward in a way that rewards honesty, integrity, and insightfulness. You are welcome to my home, to listen to my systems, to evaluate for yourself, in the same manner I previously have. Using our own ears. Bring your ears here and you can decide for yourself what you prefer in those spaces. I have a high quality selector switch if you want to go that route. I also have a UMIK-1, a laptop, REW, and a SPL meter if you think those things might be helpful as well. I use those tools myself to make evaluations of changes I make along the way, but I always use my ears to make any final decisions. Purchasing decisions, I go to websites like Audioholics and the like prior to throwing my cash down. I use the forums for feedback, but the loudest most persistent comments often have the opposite effect, when it comes to having substantial influence on what I actually spend $ on.
 
D

da Choge

Audiophyte
Great video, Gene, thanks! Very excited about these products, especially the AV processor. Hope Marantz has redesigned their HDAM modules to contribute less distortion, but I guess that's what some fans like about Marantz. Good to hear they are going to Class D Hypex in their multichannel amps. Of course, we want to hear more. Bring it On!

PS. BTW, does anyone know if their higher-end AVRs and the AVP will still have a 7.1 multichannel audio input? I hope so; that's disappearing from so many newer products these days. All Anthem components and most Denon AVRs are zilch on this feature.
 
Last edited:
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Hope Marantz has redesigned their HDAM modules to contribute less distortion, but I guess that's what some fans like about Marantz.
Is this “distortion“ audible?

What is the difference in THD+N between HDAM (Marantz) vs non-HDAM (Denon)?
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Ninja
Great video, Gene, thanks! Very excited about these products, especially the AV processor. Hope Marantz has redesigned their HDAM modules to contribute less distortion, but I guess that's what some fans like about Marantz. Good to hear they are going to Class D Hypex in their multichannel amps. Of course, we want to hear more. Bring it On!

PS. BTW, does anyone know if their higher-end AVRs and the AVP will still have a 7.1 multichannel audio input? I hope so; that's disappearing from so many newer products these days. All Anthem components and most Denon AVRs are zilch on this feature.
Why 7.1 multichannel inputs when DACs on most AVPs and AVRs with HDMI connections can do the job with no audible difference. Also, most Blu-ray players built today don't have 7.1 multichannel audio outputs.
 
D

da Choge

Audiophyte
Why 7.1 multichannel inputs when DACs on most AVPs and AVRs with HDMI connections can do the job with no audible difference.
I am a multichannel audio (music) fan. I also use Roon. Although I have the ability to use HDMI from my Roon-based endpoint, I would much rather employ a multichannel DAC (which there are very few of) to do the digital-analog conversion and then out to a multichannel amp. There are several reasons for this, and they have very little to do with multichannel video/movie viewing. I know that multichannel music is not much of a popular format anymore, (unless Dolby Atmos/Spatial Audio takes off in music production) but I would still like to maintain this capability, with a central hub directing all my different sources and listening/viewing selections.

PS. All my Blu-ray players do have 7.1 output capabilities, but I won't use them anymore in that way for movie viewing. You're right, for that, HDMI is the way to go.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Ninja
I am a multichannel audio (music) fan. I also use Roon. Although I have the ability to use HDMI from my Roon-based endpoint, I would much rather employ a multichannel DAC (which there are very few of) to do the digital-analog conversion and then out to a multichannel amp. There are several reasons for this, and they have very little to do with multichannel video/movie viewing. I know that multichannel music is not much of a popular format anymore, (unless Dolby Atmos/Spatial Audio takes off in music production) but I would still like to maintain this capability, with a central hub directing all my different sources and listening/viewing selections.

PS. All my Blu-ray players do have 7.1 output capabilities, but I won't use them anymore in that way for movie viewing. You're right, for that, HDMI is the way to go.
The 7.1 output jacks only carry audio signals and they're only useful for playing SACDs or multichannel DVD-As. To my knowledge, all currently produced Blu-ray players don't have 7.1 analog channel outputs.
 
Last edited:
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Why should we care about your opinion of what you think you hear?
Ouch, that's hurtful.

Although we may totally DISAGREE, I thought we want to hear EVERYONE's opinion on forums as long as it is nice and friendly? :D
 
T

TheAVInsider

Junior Audioholic
Ouch, that's hurtful.

Although we may totally DISAGREE, I thought we want to hear EVERYONE's opinion on forums as long as it is nice and friendly? :D
This is just one more example of the same crap I deal with daily now.

To All Readers:

All I have been doing lately is defending the OP's (Who is not Audioholics BTW) subject matter from random abuses. Why? Because it is in the best interest of this industry, and doing so supports the AV hobby I ❤ so much. Brand shaming only weakens the entire industry, and therefore our hobby. Saving judgment for later, keeping lines of communication in order, maintaining courtesy and respect of others, is all I've requested from anyone on this matter. Take your trash onto another thread, and have your name on the OP.

News flash...It's a leak and representatives of Sound United can't respond yet. If they could, the negative comments I get daily still wouldn't hold water, as these things have yet to be publicly reviewed.

People take this stuff personal sometimes. If they can't keep it on topic, they are out of line.

I figure people just don't want to hear new and exciting information anymore. Whatever selfish reason/s they have, they will not declare it, as doing so would undermine their position/s.

If you take only one thing away from this, please understand
The OP hasn't revealed everything there is to say, including holding back on stuff people still have no clue about. Reasons why should be plainly obvious to anyone who can read through the sister threads. Doesn't matter anymore though. I'm done hosting anything thread topic related, after all what I've gone through.

Don't bite the hand that feeds, as they say.
 
Last edited:
J

jeffca

Junior Audioholic
Most AVRs and processors downs ample to 48khz either for room correction or bass management. It's a non issue.
Given that I've been doing digital audio recording for over 2 decades, down-sampling is not a non-issue.

Is it a big issue? No. It's rather benign, but not totally inaudible. Given that you have no provenance when it comes to the method used for downsampling in pre/pros, you can only hope it's done well.

When listening to a masterpiece of both music & recording like the David Gilmore Live at Pompeii Blu-ray, I ran it through Dirac with no filters which sounded really good. Running it at its native rate of 96kHz, it sounded a hair better. All of the improvement was on the upper 2 octaves.

The same was true for the BD of Prince's Sign o' the Times.

When recording, I work at 24/96. The masters are mixed to 32 bit floating point files. When doing final mastering, they get down-sampled to 44/16 for CD's or lossless streaming.

Regardless of the dithering (POWr/UV22HR, etc.), you can hear the difference from standard to hi-res. My point being that both sound good, but one sounds better.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Ninja
Given that I've been doing digital audio recording for over 2 decades, down-sampling is not a non-issue.

Is it a big issue? No. It's rather benign, but not totally inaudible. Given that you have no provenance when it comes to the method used for downsampling in pre/pros, you can only hope it's done well.

When listening to a masterpiece of both music & recording like the David Gilmore Live at Pompeii Blu-ray, I ran it through Dirac with no filters which sounded really good. Running it at its native rate of 96kHz, it sounded a hair better. All of the improvement was on the upper 2 octaves.

The same was true for the BD of Prince's Sign o' the Times.

When recording, I work at 24/96. The masters are mixed to 32 bit floating point files. When doing final mastering, they get down-sampled to 44/16 for CD's or lossless streaming.

Regardless of the dithering (POWr/UV22HR, etc.), you can hear the difference from standard to hi-res. My point being that both sound good, but one sounds better.
Here is an article that completely demolishes your assertion that you can hear an improvement in SQ with a 24 bit/96 kHz recording over a that of a CD resolution of 16 Bit/44.1 kHz:
 
Last edited:
T

TheAVInsider

Junior Audioholic
Asking to see about having this thread locked (not removed)
@gene , can you make it happen?
OP wishes to keep a good name, and no longer wishes to shoulder the burdens of defending it, or content therein, in future posts in this thread. Every sister thread created devolved into trash, so let's get ahead of this one, before history has the chance to repeat itself.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
newsletter

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