No, this is not what we are discussing. Room EQ is about getting the response flat at LP. Some do it flat, some do it with curve tilted down for 10dB over audible range. We started to disagree when you said that some non-flat curve sound better than flat. If that is really so I believe we should know the shape of that curve so we can set it as a new target when doing room EQ, but honestly, I find it hard to believe it is so.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Review and Measurements of Marantz AV8805 AV Processor
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
No, this is not what we are discussing. Room EQ is about getting the response flat at LP. Some do it flat, some do it with curve tilted down for 10dB over audible range. We started to disagree when you said that some non-flat curve sound better than flat. If that is really so I believe we should know the shape of that curve so we can set it as a new target when doing room EQ, but honestly, I find it hard to believe it is so.
In such processors signal is passing through at least 2 opamps after the DAC stage (which also have 2 opamps). That is the difference you're measuring.
Those figures are quite obtainable after the I to V conversion op amps, as the best dacs in the SINAD list demonstrate. I'm not sure of the circuit topology in that amp but even if it then converts back from single ended to differential you shouldn't lose any significant thd+n.
Ah, ok. My processor didn't have such DAC direct out avialble so I thought they were obtained from standard pre-outs.
Btw, when I mentioned 2 op-amps I didn't mean I/V conversion and buffer opamp of DAC stage but additional opamps after DAC stage.
Even after a pre section / additional op amps you should still get very close to the spec.
We have seen power amps that can beat those figures quite easily.
We have seen power amps that can beat those figures quite easily.
Yes, I agree, I was expecting better.
This is an expensive bit of kit, keeping in mind it needs a separate power amplifier too. I suspect that the vast majority of people who buy one will be very happy with it and suspect that its real world audible performance is perfectly adequate and with first class features. In that respect it will do the job it has been designed to do. However I must admit that for $4500 I would expect better measurements given that you can buy an integrated AV receiver for less than $1000 which will do its job very well and sound fine.
These big receivers and AV processors seem to be a product in decline. A few years ago it seemed that manufacturers were freezing their two channel offering to pump money into AV gear like this but now it all seems to be moving to premium soundbars.
These big receivers and AV processors seem to be a product in decline. A few years ago it seemed that manufacturers were freezing their two channel offering to pump money into AV gear like this but now it all seems to be moving to premium soundbars.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Reasonable by whose standards? Here are the specifications from AKM on the DAC chip in there:
And this is what I measured:
You want to tell me how I am supposed to be OK with a product that costs thousands of dollars but leaves 20 dB of the DAC performance on the table?
But you are testing a complete AV processor, not a D/A converter chip in isolation. You've taken the output from the line outs, with goodness knows what in between the D/A and those XLRs. You've adjusted the digital level control. You've tested it with arbitrary levels above its rated spec.
Page 330 of the manual.
The specs may be dreadful, but the unit beats (for the things you tested) those specs (mostly).
The rated output of the XLR is 2.4 volts. You tested it at 4.126V with an arbitrary winding back of the digital level control.
It's rated distortion is 0.008%. You tested 0.0027%, so it beat it spec by 296%.
The dynamic range is rated (with respect to 2V) at 100dB. Your test at 4.1V was 110dB, again better than spec.
Does it interest me? Not at all, but for videophiles it may be just the ticket.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Those two words are mutually exclusive IMO.
Dolby Atmos for residential use allows for 24.1.10:
I believe only Trinnov offers 16+ channel processing for residential use.
However, I would also like to point out that Disney’s movie releases use pre-rendered 7.1.4, which is a terrible choice (another thing poor thing they do, the other is adding dynamic compression to their soundtracks). Atmos soundtracks aren’t supposed to be pre-rendered, that’s the whole point, you have your bed channels (like the vocals coming out of the center), but everything else is created in 3D space, and so it adjusts to whatever setup you have at home.
As a TV sound enhancement device they're acceptable I guess.
But these promotion of full 7.1.4 channel sound is just ridiculous in the extreme.
As if a line of speakers in front and some fancy digital phasing could even come close to approximating a full discreet 11 channel plus sub rig.
A lie and rip off by manufacturers and media that surpasses power cable sound.
I don't have any problems with these numbers. My main point of critic is the bad reconstruction filter.
Digital audio can only work as expected if all the filtering is done according to Shannon. I've never understood why manufacturers try to use filters optimised for time domain when the same filters violate the frequency domain. Alias products bleeding into the audible range surely change the sound, but it cannot be for the better, only for worse.
For unbalanced, 2Vrms is pretty much the standard, not every power amp needs that much (many at around 1.5Vrms), but it is the standard. For balanced, it should double in theory, so 4Vrms; maybe testing at 4.126Vrms made it perform a tad worse.
Also, I did try looking for the stated input sensitivity for balanced power amps, and the highest I could find stated is 2.35Vrms (a lot of companies don’t even state, not even expensive ones like McIntosh nor Boulder), though I guess you could calculate it from the gain, the Pass Labs Xs 300 states 26dB of gain for 300W into 8ohm, and since +26dB is 400x the wattage, that means its input sensitivity should be 0.75W or 2.45Vrms, so higher than what I could find from openly stated specs from other brands, but still way below the 4Vrms “standard”.
Last edited:
And they seem to be doing it better and better. Just take a look at this measurement of my Denon HEOS soundbar with WiFi sub. I'm using it for movies but it's not bad with music at all..
I was always sceptical and considered them no more than a decent way to improve the mediocre sound of flat panel TVs but recently I've listened to some Samsung and Yamaha sound bars which were genuinely very good, with both movies and music. Are they better than more conventional speaker set ups? Not good ones no, but I do think they're evolving and improving and have reached a point where the good ones are a genuine alternative to a more traditional set up. There is clearly a lot of investment and clever engineering going into these things. I was genuinely surprised when I listened to one at a friends house a few months ago playing a variety of orchestral music and found that I properly enjoyed the experience and didn't find that my enjoyment of the music was being limited by use of a sound bar. Like I say I am not advocating that the things have caught up with regular speakers yet, but I do think they are now a contender.
I mean, but it also have a fixed width, which is nowhere wide enough to give a proper stereo image. And I would assume if you bumped up the test volume, you would get a good amount of THD. But yes, in terms of just tonality, they aren’t bad.And they seem to be doing it better and better. Just take a look at this measurement of my Denon HEOS soundbar with WiFi sub. I'm using it for movies but it's not bad with music at all..
How low does it get without the sub? I also wonder how good the time-alignment is with the wireless sub.
I would expect soon to see wireless speakers able to act as fronts (so soundbar can act as center), not only as rears.
I haven't measured THD but I never noticed distortion when I played movies with them at higher volumes.
I know Vizio does “wireless” rears, where they are wired, but into the wireless sub, so they need the sub to be near the seating area. True wireless speakers for the front would each need their own power cords, so that seems like a mess, but an RCA connection to the soundbar would work (and hopefully it has auto sensing so it can go from a 2/3 channel soundbar into a center channel on its own).
Jimster480
Major Contributor
Really poor performance once again at this price...
What is with all these "high end" units being unable to reach even CD quality performance?
Atleast this unit does reach 16b linearity.
What is with all these "high end" units being unable to reach even CD quality performance?
Atleast this unit does reach 16b linearity.
Similar threads
