Struggle replacing Old AVR - tried RZ50, 4800h, and Cinema 70 - what now?

[DonR]

So there's definitely something different there and the only thing I can think of is hearing and the dissonance that comes with bad sound.

You need to do some more thinking.

 

[techsamurai]

I hate to remind you, but feel compelled to... It has been suggested to you many times that you should compare those two, or three, in pure direct, or even direct mode first, to eliminate the differences due to DSPs, tone controls/EQs etc., and most importantly, human's part in the way they tweak things, and/or running REQ/RC. Once that's done, then the conversation can start again for the next steps.

I'll get back to it but I don't want it to ruin my holidays It's not fun at all.

It's like having to calibrate a TV because the Delta is 18 Out-of-the-box and skin tones appear like Trump's orange...

The whole point of buying expensive gear is not too have to do that and to get fantastic performance without all the hassle.

I'll probably call Denon and tear them a new one - I'll ask their audio engineers to listen to the 2 clips and ask them how to fix the sound.

 

[peng]

I'll get back to it but I don't want it to ruin my holidays It's not fun at all.

It's like having to calibrate a TV because the Delta is 18 Out-of-the-box and skin tones appear like Trump's orange...

The whole point of buying expensive gear is not too have to do that and to get fantastic performance without all the hassle.

I'll probably call Denon and tear them a new one - I'll ask their audio engineers to listen to the 2 clips and ask them how to fix the sound.

Sure, enjoying music is much more fun. Just that if you do want to pass even you own judgment on how bad the Denon, or Onkyo sound compare to the 8002, then you need to compare them on equal footing, instead of muddying the water by your own tweaking, and/or running EQ/RC. The way you have been saying about the Denon might upset, or misled (not by intention obviously) their owners unnecessarily, or unfairly. I can probably say things a little more freely as I don't have a horse in this race lol...

 

[HarmonicTHD]

I'll get back to it but I don't want it to ruin my holidays It's not fun at all.

It's like having to calibrate a TV because the Delta is 18 Out-of-the-box and skin tones appear like Trump's orange...

The whole point of buying expensive gear is not too have to do that and to get fantastic performance without all the hassle.

I'll probably call Denon and tear them a new one - I'll ask their audio engineers to listen to the 2 clips and ask them how to fix the sound.

Yeah we don’t want your holidays ruined. Yet your are happy to take up the member’s time here to repeat over and over for you:

A) Set all AVRs to neutral (should be obvious why)

B) Conduct a level matched controlled (blind) test (why: to remove chance and bias from skewing the results)

C) If you can’t accomplish B) look at the measurements (why: because they show you if there is an audible difference in the electrical signal)

D) If you can’t do A) and B) or C) no need to come back.

Thanks. Appreciate your cooperation in not further spoiling our spare time / holidays

 

[Times]

The whole point of buying expensive gear is not too have to do that and to get fantastic performance without all the hassle.

Is it, though?
My personal experience says that more often than not, it's exactly the other way round...

Most expensive and/or "high-end" technology brings a whole lot of features, which do not exist in their cheaper counterparts. And with each additional feature, the number of configuration possibilities increases not only linearly, but exponentially, because their individual settings often influence each other.

So with aquiring high-end gear you gain the possibility to get closer to a perfect result (whatever that might be), but you very likely require a good portion of expert knowledge to also get there.

In the audio sector in particular, the whole thing is many times more complicated, as the combination of room and loudspeaker creates an almost unique element in each case. Automatic correction of all the resulting inadequacies is an incredible challenge in itself, which Audyssey and Dirac - with a little manual correction here and there - achieve sensationally well already, in terms of an objectively good result, i.e. a linear frequency response.

What you want them to do, to automatically create a subjective good result, a sound signature that you like, for your kind of music, in your room, with your loudspeakers, is close to impossible. At least today. Maybe at some point with the integration of an AI which is capable of analyzing your individual taste, learning and then tweaking things that way.

 

[peng]

What you want them to do, to automatically create a subjective good result, a sound signature that you like, for your kind of music, in your room, with your loudspeakers, is close to impossible. At least today. Maybe at some point with the integration of an AI which is capable of analyzing your individual taste, learning and then tweaking things that way.

He probably thought that is might be possible, such as for all manufacturers to reverse engineer the SR8002, and all those who want the great sound signature of the SR8002 to buy AVR, or any audio devices that clone that signature. And that assumes the SR8002 has the sound signature that he perceives, and many of us wouldn't want to assume that at all.

 

[techsamurai]

Is it, though?
My personal experience says that more often than not, it's exactly the other way round...

Most expensive and/or "high-end" technology brings a whole lot of features, which do not exist in their cheaper counterparts. And with each additional feature, the number of configuration possibilities increases not only linearly, but exponentially, because their individual settings often influence each other.

So with aquiring high-end gear you gain the possibility to get closer to a perfect result (whatever that might be), but you very likely require a good portion of expert knowledge to also get there.

In the audio sector in particular, the whole thing is many times more complicated, as the combination of room and loudspeaker creates an almost unique element in each case. Automatic correction of all the resulting inadequacies is an incredible challenge in itself, which Audyssey and Dirac - with a little manual correction here and there - achieve sensationally well already, in terms of an objectively good result, i.e. a linear frequency response.

You bring up a lot of interesting points. How has sound become more advanced since the 8002 in my use case where I use 5 speakers (bi-amping Fronts) and 1 subwoofer?

Can you give me an example? Most of our discussions center on Pure Direct and as I've said here many, many times the 8002 has a very good Stereo mode as reviewers pointed out.

I did expect Atmos to be slightly better although it's really identical to the HD formats. The Denon and RZ50 made a lot of shows appear like a theater experience which the 2008 Denon also did. The SR8002 is definitely more polite and homely and that was in reviews as well and makes for a more livable AVR. It's no slouch and has the 100 watts * 7 with very high quality bass that has a lot of depth and texture at least compared to the SVS.

What you want them to do, to automatically create a subjective good result, a sound signature that you like, for your kind of music, in your room, with your loudspeakers, is close to impossible. At least today. Maybe at some point with the integration of an AI which is capable of analyzing your individual taste, learning and then tweaking things that way.

I will agree that I prefer a warmer sound - the Sansui 8080/9090 have been likened to a tube amp by many while maintaining all the benefits of an integrated amp.

After listening to the 8002 and the other 3-4 AVRs, I do prefer a sound where the speakers disappear (ironically that's a smaller soundstage not a wider one) and the sound is pulled inward with much more clarity in the small soundstage. I also prefer warmer tones that match female voices and guitars. Cold guitars and female voices are very tough to like because they sound extremely unnatural.

EQ can do a lot but when I play the 8002, I have the feeling that something else is at work there whether it be the DAC or an extra processing board. There's something about its timing and decay. I hope it's EQ because I can fix it but if it's just a soung signature imparted by something else, I don't know how I can add that to the 4800h. In essense, it feels like something is missing when I play music on the other AVRs.

 

[Times]

English isn't my mother language and thus, from time to time, I fail to understand some things properly. Unfortunately that seems to be the case with your recent post, because, even after reading it a couple of times, I don't understand what you're trying to say...

How has sound become more advanced...? Do you mean our ability to reproduce sound more realistically?

In general, a lot of things that have been new-ish and expensive back then, are now way cheaper and therefore available in entry level products and for the majority of people, instead of an elite minority. For example amplifiers and DACs with distortion and noise levels way below the audible threshold, advanced room correction, immediate and lossless streaming of almost every song you might want to hear, etc.

In regards of sound quality for example, there's absolutely no need to spend more than a couple of hundred bucks today, if you want to get the audio signal from a digital source to your loudspeaker. Sure, you get fancier equipment, better looks, more features, luxury, exclusiveness, you name it, but the signal does not get audibly better ("less worse" would actually be more accurate) if you spend more.

I have postet this in another thread before and it certainly doesn't show everything that defines sound, but it should give a hint on how much modern amplifiers differ in sound, as long as theres no sounding involved. Either intentional, through DAC filters, EQ, loudness and room correction, or unintentional, due to crappy design, age or else. I measured four different amps with REW at home, all in direct mode, with the (UMIK-1) microphone staying exactly at the same place:

And here I measured the difference between direct mode and the unmodified results of an Audyssey XT32 and a Dirac Live Full Bandwidth set up on my X4800H:

For me, that clearly shows that the major difference between all my amps is not what the hardware itself does in regards of amplification, but what the room correction software does in combination with my setup and configuration skills.

In conclusion that means, at least for me, that if you compared your AVRs, at least one of these things had to be true:

• you didn't compare them in (pure) direct mode
• one or more of the amps are broken
• confirmation (or any other form of) bias is at play
• you indeed have an extraordinary hearing ability, which is very, very unlikely.

The thing is: At this point, it must be incredibly hard to admit or even consider the idea that the supposed differences in sound are actually due to autosuggestion and/or personal mistakes. You have to be able to throw a world view overboard that has been built up over several years. I know how that feels because, not too long ago, I had to do that myself. There still are posts from my former self online in other forums, where I describe the superior sound of my new cd player in great detail, when in reality, it was just my mind telling my ears, that there must be a difference, most likely because it looked (and still looks) awesome and cost me a couple of hundret bucks - a lot of money back then.

Another fact to think about: If the dozens of people in this thread who try to tell you, that you might want to look on things from a differtent perspective, are actually right (what would their incentive be to lie to you anyway, at least on purpose?), you can start to focus on other things than "musicality" of technical devices, things that actually and objectively improve your sound.

Give it a try. Please.

 

[G-Can]

Keep them and you'll hear differences when you have multiple AVRs - the sounds in inspiration may be inaudible or less resolved on some AVRs. I suspect on super high end gear, there is even more space between the sounds than the 8002.

The twingling left to right on the 8002 is really impressive. I might have accidentally found a song that separates good receivers from bad in that frequency.

Actually Gipsy Kings are amazing at telling gear apart. They play notes so fast on the Flamenco guitars - the clips both have the ultra fast progressions - and you know those sequences are alive so AVRs either choke on them or play them like slothes which sound completely wrong.

I don't know you, but you sound like on of my "audiophile" friends.

You guys don't enjoy music anymore, you enjoy and stress about finding differences in sound.
And you are even worse, you are so used to that 8002 sound that you've been accustomed to for 15 year's, and ANYTHING you buy wont sound the same. It doesn't necessarily mean new AVR sounds good or bad, it sounds DIFFERENT then your old AVR.

Get over it. accept it. move on.

There arer 18 pages so I didnt read it all.

But what is your source? Do you play in Direct mode? New AVRR, all of them frrom your list, have inferrior DACs.
Why dont you get a chep SMSL SU-1 DAC, use that on yourr AVRR 8002, and then use on 4800H/RZ50/whatever, and compare the sound.

You have to remove other factors from equation.

Cause what I read is you arre using 8002 as an amp, and used 4800H/RZ50 only as preamps?? That explains literally all your problems.

 

[sysfc6]

Have you used any other hifi amps to compare to what you're talking about?

Yet revealing with the 8002? Unlikely.

My daughter played a song by a singer and pointed out that the 4800h sounded cloudy.

 

[peng]

Cause what I read is you arre using 8002 as an amp, and used 4800H/RZ50 only as preamps?? That explains literally all your problems.

If you have read all the pages in about two separate threads, you will see that he also had been tinkering with EQ, and RC (i.e. Audyssey), also using potentially slightly different mic positions. He thought in one case he had used a pillow while in another case something else, that sort of indicated to me mic positions also influenced his attempt to compare objectively using REW. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to have time to re-do it using direct mode, and keep the mic in the exact spot, as you mentioned, eliminate all other factors except just comparing the AVRs, for a truly apples to apples.

Again, just want to be clear, I have no issues with his claim of hearing better sound quality from the 8002 because he made it clear it is his subjective perception. Just that someone who browse through casually will get the impression that the old Marantz sounds superior, compare to the brand new latest Denon AVR because of many of his narrative, or wording.

 

[techsamurai]

English isn't my mother language and thus, from time to time, I fail to understand some things properly. Unfortunately that seems to be the case with your recent post, because, even after reading it a couple of times, I don't understand what you're trying to say...

How has sound become more advanced...? Do you mean our ability to reproduce sound more realistically?

In general, a lot of things that have been new-ish and expensive back then, are now way cheaper and therefore available in entry level products and for the majority of people, instead of an elite minority. For example amplifiers and DACs with distortion and noise levels way below the audible threshold, advanced room correction, immediate and lossless streaming of almost every song you might want to hear, etc.

In regards of sound quality for example, there's absolutely no need to spend more than a couple of hundred bucks today, if you want to get the audio signal from a digital source to your loudspeaker. Sure, you get fancier equipment, better looks, more features, luxury, exclusiveness, you name it, but the signal does not get audibly better ("less worse" would actually be more accurate) if you spend more.

I have postet this in another thread before and it certainly doesn't show everything that defines sound, but it should give a hint on how much modern amplifiers differ in sound, as long as theres no sounding involved. Either intentional, through DAC filters, EQ, loudness and room correction, or unintentional, due to crappy design, age or else. I measured four different amps with REW at home, all in direct mode, with the (UMIK-1) microphone staying exactly at the same place:

View attachment 331244
And here I measured the difference between direct mode and the unmodified results of an Audyssey XT32 and a Dirac Live Full Bandwidth set up on my X4800H:View attachment 331246
For me, that clearly shows that the major difference between all my amps is not what the hardware itself does in regards of amplification, but what the room correction software does in combination with my setup and configuration skills.

In conclusion that means, at least for me, that if you compared your AVRs, at least one of these things had to be true:

• you didn't compare them in (pure) direct mode
• one or more of the amps are broken
• confirmation (or any other form of) bias is at play
• you indeed have an extraordinary hearing ability, which is very, very unlikely.

The thing is: At this point, it must be incredibly hard to admit or even consider the idea that the supposed differences in sound are actually due to autosuggestion and/or personal mistakes. You have to be able to throw a world view overboard that has been built up over several years. I know how that feels because, not too long ago, I had to do that myself. There still are posts from my former self online in other forums, where I describe the superior sound of my new cd player in great detail, when in reality, it was just my mind telling my ears, that there must be a difference, most likely because it looked (and still looks) awesome and cost me a couple of hundret bucks - a lot of money back then.

Another fact to think about: If the dozens of people in this thread who try to tell you, that you might want to look on things from a differtent perspective, are actually right (what would their incentive be to lie to you anyway, at least on purpose?), you can start to focus on other things than "musicality" of technical devices, things that actually and objectively improve your sound.

Give it a try. Please.

Thanks for the post and the explanation - you did a phenomenal job. My AVRs were also very close/identical in Pure Direct - I didn't measure the RZ50 but I'm sure it would have been about the same. I don't use Pure Direct at all in my room but certainly if someone were to use Pure Direct, it would be more similar.

My differences are coming from Calibration because it completely alters the sound of the AVR. Also the SR8002 seems to have a Stereo mode that I'm not sure is the same as the other AVRs. Stereo in modern AVRs means 2 channel playback with no extra processing - just your settings. So if the 8002 has a Stereo mode that does something to the sound, it's going to be impossible to match the sound with the other AVRs that lack that mode. I do switch to Stereo when listening to music and it sounds completely different than Pure Direct doing a lot of the things that I love in the sound.

Calibration is yielding very funky results with the 8002 producing the best sound by a mile in my opinion. Actually all this listening and testing did make me realize that the left channel is a bit louder as the measurements showed on the 8002 and that slightly moves the center of the soundstage to the left but I would not have been able to notice it on my own.

4800h uses XT32
Cinema 70 uses Mult-Eq
8002 uses old Mult-Eq
RZ50 uses Dirac

I've posted clips of the 4800h and 8002 playing music. There's a distinct difference (especially in tonality) and that's after correcting the 4800h which was almost unlistenable based on the initial calibration. You can hear the piano sounding much warmer on the 8002.

There's also much better timing on the 8002 but that could be caused by EQ as I found out that the soundstage is controlled by EQ so why not timing or tonality?

But one thing is clear when you listen to music on all these AVRs - the 8002 ruled supreme with its calibration. It makes okay songs sound amazing while the other AVRs with their calibrations made amazing songs sound okay or bad in some cases and their sound reproduction bordered on a criminal act. Like I said, the performer came to my house for every song I played.

I do have a feeling many people are listening to amazing songs that just sound okay and they have speakers and electronics that are probably capable of greatness and calibration may to blame. The problem is first finding that greatness (it's not like you can watch a video of the Sony A95L on youtube as you can with TVs to see what a great image looks like) and then trying to replicate it.

Even my daughter thought the 4800h had trouble with women's voices because of its cool daylight (I'm using light bulbs to give a visual representation) of the sound signature.

 

[EWL5]

Calibration is yielding very funky results with the 8002 producing the best sound by a mile in my opinion. Actually all this listening and testing did make me realize that the left channel is a bit louder as the measurements showed on the 8002 and that slightly moves the center of the soundstage to the left but I would not have been able to notice it on my own.

Sounds like you don't own an SPL meter as a double check against an AVR's calibration.

I think you're already biased for higher left channel gain so just manually do the same on the Denon and call it a day.

 

[peng]

Sounds like you don't own an SPL meter as a double check against an AVR's calibration.

I think you're already biased for higher left channel gain so just manually do the same on the Denon and call it a day.

He has REW/umik-1 mic, and knows how to do use them so yes he has SPL meter in that sense.

 

[sysfc6]

Thanks for the post and the explanation - you did a phenomenal job. My AVRs were also very close/identical in Pure Direct - I didn't measure the RZ50 but I'm sure it would have been about the same. I don't use Pure Direct at all in my room but certainly if someone were to use Pure Direct, it would be more similar.

My differences are coming from Calibration because it completely alters the sound of the AVR. Also the SR8002 seems to have a Stereo mode that I'm not sure is the same as the other AVRs. Stereo in modern AVRs means 2 channel playback with no extra processing - just your settings. So if the 8002 has a Stereo mode that does something to the sound, it's going to be impossible to match the sound with the other AVRs that lack that mode. I do switch to Stereo when listening to music and it sounds completely different than Pure Direct doing a lot of the things that I love in the sound.

Calibration is yielding very funky results with the 8002 producing the best sound by a mile in my opinion. Actually all this listening and testing did make me realize that the left channel is a bit louder as the measurements showed on the 8002 and that slightly moves the center of the soundstage to the left but I would not have been able to notice it on my own.

4800h uses XT32
Cinema 70 uses Mult-Eq
8002 uses old Mult-Eq
RZ50 uses Dirac

I've posted clips of the 4800h and 8002 playing music. There's a distinct difference (especially in tonality) and that's after correcting the 4800h which was almost unlistenable based on the initial calibration. You can hear the piano sounding much warmer on the 8002.

There's also much better timing on the 8002 but that could be caused by EQ as I found out that the soundstage is controlled by EQ so why not timing or tonality?

But one thing is clear when you listen to music on all these AVRs - the 8002 ruled supreme with its calibration. It makes okay songs sound amazing while the other AVRs with their calibrations made amazing songs sound okay or bad in some cases and their sound reproduction bordered on a criminal act. Like I said, the performer came to my house for every song I played.

I do have a feeling many people are listening to amazing songs that just sound okay and they have speakers and electronics that are probably capable of greatness and calibration may to blame. The problem is first finding that greatness (it's not like you can watch a video of the Sony A95L on youtube as you can with TVs to see what a great image looks like) and then trying to replicate it.

Even my daughter thought the 4800h had trouble with women's voices because of its cool daylight (I'm using light bulbs to give a visual representation) of the sound signature.

You try the sound quality with a 4800 Dirac.

 

[truwarrior22]

Speaking of upgrade hell, I find myself in the middle of it after trying 3 new AVRs

My Marantz 8002s (3 of them) are getting old and I'd like to get HDMI 2.1 and eArc. I also thought I could go separates and use the 8002s as an external amp as they certainly have better power than almost any Denon or Marantz on the market today.

My original expectation was better sound especially in stereo with the 8002 as the amp. Now I would settle for similar or very close sound since clearly none of these are the 8002's equals.

My focus is on music because I've lived with the 8002 for 15 years and as we'll find out later, it's very musical and almost an anomaly in the AVR world. My jaw often hits the floor in movies, shows, and games when the 8002 decides to show off. There's zero fear that anyone's jaw will hit the floor with any of the 3 AVRs I've purchased. In that regard, they are quite safe choices.

I bought a RZ50 and quickly returned it - the Onkyo sounded clinical in music and Dirac Live could not save it. It was difficult to switch between the 8002 and RZ50 in music - the RZ50 has a massive soundstage but it was barren. The 8002 is a much smaller canvas but that canvas has the quality of a Monet painting or a reproduction of it.

I bought a Denon 4800h and I had high expectations as it's similar to the Cinema 40 (the current top of the line AVR in Marantz's lineup) and made in Japan. I ran Audyssey XT32 and I was hoping that would also help bridge the gap to the 8002. Also, the 8002 is used as the amp in stereo so the 4800h is just a preamp, hopefully giving a leg up in musicality.

Unfortunately, the Denon 4800h even with the 8002 as the external amp cannot reproduce the music as the 15 year old SR8002 - guitars don't sound the same, voices have no presence etc. I enjoy it as background music a lot because it completely disappears sonically but I'm not sure that's a quality that Denon would like to be known for.

In movies, it has slam and is amazing but it's almost a bit too much for a living room theater and it gets tough taming its volume so I can hear the center channel without irritating my family. But the RZ50 and Cinema 70 are also slammers and would fare better in a dedicated home theater than a living room theater.

Finally, I bought a Cinema 70 + 8002 (amp) to use in preamp mode with all channels powered by the 8002. The Cinema 70 sounds stellar in music, well, stellar, until you play the same song with the 8002 and you hear parts of the song that are important.

But part of that can be my personal preference or what the 8002 does in Stereo mode which bypasses surround processing and seems to do its own thing. It seems to find a lot of nuance and detail in voices, guitars and all instruments and I've isolated that to the 100hz to 1khz range which is the fundamentals range of sound as I'm learning. Whatever the 8002 does there, it makes it different and imho magical. I've always wondered why folks thought that AVRs can't play stereo music and I suppose if you are used to the sound of your amazing stereo receiver, you're in for a surprise when you hear these AVRs which is where I find myself, only I have an AVR that does that.

I can't fault the RZ50 because it's a cheap AVR on sale and is well made. I can't fault the Cinema 70 because it sounds great for a cheap AVR with separates and is also well made.

I can only find fault with the 4800h which has the best version of Audyssey and is the Cinema 40's cousin. At its normal price (I paid $1,400), I'd expect the 4800h to match the 8002 in stereo music given the fact that 15 years have passed by.

Here's a review that sums up the 8002 and this is echoed by anyone that's heard this puppy:



It's exactly what I would have said. It's a magical AVR and now I wonder if even the AH1 can come close in 2 channel stereo. People have even been critical of the $14,000 AV10 and AMP10 in music... My BDI cabinet cannot accommodate any of those so they are not even in consideration, nor am I inclined to pay that much.

I can keep the 8002 and use it for music but it's a massive pain changing the volume.

Also if I keep the 4800h or Cinema 70, I'll have to settle for a less refined movie theater, TV, and game experience which are 75% of my use case.

So what choice do I have? Should I call Marantz and Denon and ask them to get back to work?

I sold my SR8015 and bought an Arcam AV40 then upgraded the board to HDMI 2.1 Still building it out, but out of box with a cheap amp, it’s sound great. Rarely hear someone say a Denon sounds better than an Arcam. Usually they just say Denon has more features, measures better, and is more reliable. I’ve had bugs with my SR8015, mostly software, so I don’t think any brand is 100%. I do agree that if you want the absolute best music, usually an integrated with HT bypass maybe the best choice. Just saying it’s worth a shot if its feature set meets your needs.

 

[peng]

I sold my SR8015 and bought an Arcam AV40 then upgraded the board to HDMI 2.1 Still building it out, but out of box with a cheap amp, it’s sound great. Rarely hear someone say a Denon sounds better than an Arcam. Usually they just say Denon has more features, measures better, and is more reliable. I’ve had bugs with my SR8015, mostly software, so I don’t think any brand is 100%. I do agree that if you want the absolute best music, usually an integrated with HT bypass maybe the best choice. Just saying it’s worth a shot if its feature set meets your needs.

Arcam people paid a lot more for less features than Denon so what do you expect them, at least most of them to say haha, psycology 101..? Not a valid point imo.. Trust specs, measurements done on asr, is a far more objective, logical way.

 

[truwarrior22]

Arcam people paid a lot more for less features than Denon so what do you expect them, at least most of them to say haha, psycology 101..? Not a valid point imo.. Trust specs, measurements done on asr, is a far more objective, logical way.

I agree but just a bit disappointed. I’m not really sure how to read measurements to tell if I’ll like a processor or AVR? Was the SR8015 too dynamic? Is that why I had issues with subtle details, like ocean waves in the background or wind? Dynamic EQ helped lifting the quiet details but then cut off the louder dynamics. Maybe I’m too sensitive to dynamics. Gave up. Not saying the SR8015 is bad. It impressed me at times.

I’m all for holding manufactures accountable for good measurements, assuming they aren’t sacrificing SQ for a good measurement.

 

[peng]

I agree but just a bit disappointed. I’m not really sure how to read measurements to tell if I’ll like a processor or AVR? Was the SR8015 too dynamic? Is that why I had issues with subtle details, like ocean waves in the background or wind? Dynamic EQ helped lifting the quiet details but then cut off the louder dynamics. Maybe I’m too sensitive to dynamics. Gave up. Not saying the SR8015 is bad. It impressed me at times.

I’m all for holding manufactures accountable for good measurements, assuming they aren’t sacrificing SQ for a good measurement.

I believe in this case, it is likely just expectation biased at work, if you hear a difference in direct mode. With dsp, then they likely will sound different, and you happen to prefer the Arcam.

For 2 ch contents in direct mode they will sound the same, or if a difference is heard, it should be subtle. That's because specs and measurements tell us both should be transparent.

Some people will always argue that there are things not measured, but logic tells us if there are something that can make one sounds audibly better, reviewers such as Amir would have been measuring those things. And there is no reasons for Marantz to do things that will sacrifice sq.

 

[GXAlan]

4800h uses XT32
Cinema 70 uses Mult-Eq
8002 uses old Mult-Eq
RZ50 uses Dirac

If you like the SR8002, it means you prefer the less intrusive room EQ. I have shown with my Bose 901 that the factory EQ and Dirac EQ are generally similar. To my ears, Dirac widens the phantom center while the factory EQ keeps the center more focused.

XT32 and Dirac are superior to MultEQ but maybe you have a “lucky” room where less is more.

Having owned Marantz, Denon, Sony, Yamaha, Arcam, and Monolith… I would tell you to try using the Audyssey iOS app to limit your room correction of your X4800H to 500Hz only, or get a Yamaha RX-A8A.

Yamaha’s approach to room EQ is similar to MultEQ in that it isn’t too aggressive by default, even though it does full bandwidth correction, it is conservative with its correction about the transition frequency. The A8A has plenty of power, and as I pointed out in the Marantz AV10 review, the CX-A5100 still beats the AV10 in SINAD below 0.5V which is 25-50W of power (8 vs 4 ohm) for a standard 29 dB gain amplifier

The other thing that’s good about Yamaha is that the DSP (“SciFi”) does enough trickery to make your speakers disappear.

What speakers do you have? Maybe they don’t have the ideal directivity so over aggressive EQ from calibration worsens the sound.