Marantz AV7705 Home Theater Processor Review

[vitalii427]

The search for a modern AVR with reasonable channel count and good measurements continues....

Yamaha RX-A3080 still one of the best:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-marantz-av8805-av-processor.6926/post-155067

 

[LTig]

What is so depressing is that it would not be hard to do this pre-pro properly. Something as simple as a daughter board with a new set of DACs, all living with their own power supply, isolated from all the noise radiating from the processing chain, properly implemented, and feeding quality balanced output drivers. In the grand scheme of things it would not add a great deal to the BOM. The current offering is just insulting.

I would prefer a software solution regarding AV processing. You'd just need a PC and a multichannel DAC and be done for a long time:

• need more channels: buy more DACs
• need support of newer decoders: update the processing software
• somehow the CPU gets too slow with modern decoders: get a new motherboard

I know this will not happen in the near futute, but just let me dream a little bit, OK?

 

[maty]

My two cents.

If someone wants to listen to very good recordings (music) with high DR... better forget these gadgets, that is the true reality. In addition, they are usually the cause of the family kidnapping the expensive audio system

Only to watch films, series... and music recordings as modern commercial music, so badly produced.

 

[Biblob]

I would prefer a software solution regarding AV processing. You'd just need a PC and a multichannel DAC and be done for a long time:

• need more channels: buy more DACs
• need support of newer decoders: update the processing software
• somehow the CPU gets too slow with modern decoders: get a new motherboard

I know this will not happen in the near futute, but just let me dream a little bit, OK?

For me this is the desired usecase. Is such software already available?

 

[LTig]

For me this is the desired usecase. Is such software already available?

It exists (within Trinnov preprocessors, which use PC hardware inside AFAIK), but is not available (not that I know of).

 

[Francis Vaughan]

For me this is the desired usecase. Is such software already available?

Dolby will license an Atmos production suite for a bit over 1k USD. This includes a decoder. The DTS:X Creator Suite is about 2.5k USD. One assumes it can decode as well. In principle you could put together a software solution with these (they are plug ins, not standalone so you need either Avid or ProTools as well) and you would have a software solution.

This is part of the lock-in and vested interests. Dolby and DTS could trivially market a HTPC decoder. But they won't because it would undercut the market for AV receivers. They may perceive that it just isn't part of their core business as well, and I would respect that. Their core business is movie making technology. They are not software vendors. But the total lack of a HTPC offering in the market, from any vendor (including Microsoft and Apple, or any of the sound card vendors) would suggest that there is significant resistance to licensing the technology in this manner.

 

[Gedeon]

It seems that it would more practical and cheaper buying a mid-range AVR and adding external power amps when required.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I've got the 7703, two generations earlier. Also what I expected to see, these numbers are typical of these tightly packed designs.
I do understand where Amir is coming from, he's an engineer looking for engineering excellence. On the other hand, to get a bit closer to the real world, as he mentions a couple times after bad outcomes "fortunately not that audible". And in all but the worst possible cases the reality is not audible at all. The FR rolloff is possibly one that could be most audible, but for those of us over 50 our hearing rolls off 3x that at 20khz anyway. LOL


Come buddy, you've taken 2 shots at the number of connectors and IMO those are cheap shots. In a modern multich rig those connections are required. In my little system I use 12 of the 13 output channels provided and a good portion of the available inputs. There's not a single connection I would consider superfluous depending on a users requirements. All in all a well considered switching allotment. Many users are forced to purchase the 8805 to allow for 15.2 connections over this units 13.2, and things only go up from there.


I wonder. I sure don't claim to understand the manufacturing costs vs sales of these things but you do seem to give no quarter to the difficulties of design, market demand, etc. In a world of HiFi that offers $10,000 power cords and interconnects, AVP's like this look to be the bargain of the century. Yes some of us have to live in a world where we divide the number of needed channels into the price and get the best we can afford. All kidding aside I don't see anyone being able to do any better at these price points.
There are a number of inconsequential issues with my 7703 I'm not happy with, but SQ, functionality, and reliability over the last 3 years is not in that equation.
As an owner of the 7703 and a 7701 before it, I give them 4 of a 5 star rating.

I have a 7704 and don't use it much but it does what I need and I would say with no audible shortcomings though it is only being used for music if music with music broadcasts or blurays.
On my main system, with my volume control set at normal listening level for music I can just barely hear a -75dB tone. The idea that I may be able to detect a distortion tone at that level whilst actually listening to music is beyond amusing, it is completely ridiculous IMO.
I use the Marantz as a video switcher and surround sound processor and it is fine.
I would have a slight interest on a test of its effectiveness as a surround processor but as a SPDIF DAC not so much (and anyway none of the faults are audible)

 

[Frank Dernie]

They will see the same issue in licensing DTS and Dolby. Not just those two, but the shadowy vendors of the DSP software that implement these parts of the chain of audio processing. There are a lot of snouts in the trough, and vested interests, presenting barriers to entry. Look at all the badges on the front of the box. Every one of them is getting a cut of the purchase price, and more that don't get a badge.

What is so depressing is that it would not be hard to do this pre-pro properly. Something as simple as a daughter board with a new set of DACs, all living with their own power supply, isolated from all the noise radiating from the processing chain, properly implemented, and feeding quality balanced output drivers. In the grand scheme of things it would not add a great deal to the BOM. The current offering is just insulting.

Don't you think that 12 channels of state of the art DACs, all the video functions plus HDMI and surround sound licensing would make such a device very much more expensive than this though, even if made by Topping?

 

[Frank Dernie]

I would prefer a software solution regarding AV processing. You'd just need a PC and a multichannel DAC and be done for a long time:

• need more channels: buy more DACs
• need support of newer decoders: update the processing software
• somehow the CPU gets too slow with modern decoders: get a new motherboard

I know this will not happen in the near futute, but just let me dream a little bit, OK?

You can do this now can't you? But I hate having a computer have anything to do with my home entertainment, so not for me.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Dolby will license an Atmos production suite for a bit over 1k USD. This includes a decoder. The DTS:X Creator Suite is about 2.5k USD. One assumes it can decode as well. In principle you could put together a software solution with these (they are plug ins, not standalone so you need either Avid or ProTools as well) and you would have a software solution.

This is part of the lock-in and vested interests. Dolby and DTS could trivially market a HTPC decoder. But they won't because it would undercut the market for AV receivers. They may perceive that it just isn't part of their core business as well, and I would respect that. Their core business is movie making technology. They are not software vendors. But the total lack of a HTPC offering in the market, from any vendor (including Microsoft and Apple, or any of the sound card vendors) would suggest that there is significant resistance to licensing the technology in this manner.

Do you know how much the AVR companies are paying to these people per unit sold?
My guess is that it is a disappointingly high proportion of the price of AVRs

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I am all for the best performance available. Francis Vaughan posts in particular explains very clearly, the market forces that shape the final HT AVR products..
These Pre/Pro and AVR are marketed toward HT, not music. Watching a movie and being focused on the pictures not the sound? I believe these are good enough for switching and steering duties. Not at the elevated asking price however: >$2000, is a lot to pay IMHO, for such underwhelming performance.

 

[Gedeon]

Just to add I still miss a 1.2volt output test through rca outputs. It's the "standard" for multichannel power amps.

I fully understand amirm about 4volts balanced output testing, but not the only use case.

 

[MediumRare]

Can anyone point me to a link for a decent mutizone amp? I need to run 3 sets of speakers plus 1 sub in each room.

 

[Darkweb]

I’ve heard the argument many times over that since the AVR’s sell so many units that they must use the most proven circuit design and employ economies of scale boutique designers can’t compete with. Thanks for dispelling that notion.

 

[Grandzoltar]

Why when implementing hdmi and multiple channels do these AVR’s and Pre/Pro’s measure so poorly? Do the desktop DACs get it right because they are supplying 4v to 2 outputs? Is it because of the 13+ outputs it’s difficult to keep that many channels under a noise+thd minimum. Like Was said if they isolate sensitive parts with something as cheap and simple as teflon and used better routing and gave it a petter power supply. These pre/pros are $4000+ disappointments. But we buy them for the codecs and hdmi because this is the only game in town. I sure hope the Nad t 778 and Monoprice htp1 and Jbl synthesis and Arcams forthcoming products help raise the bar.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

Don't you think that 12 channels of state of the art DACs, all the video functions plus HDMI and surround sound licensing would make such a device very much more expensive than this though, even if made by Topping?

I'm not suggesting one should expect D90 like performance for the same money. This thing is way worse than a D10. It is basically the $3000 SR8012 with the power amps and power supplies removed. For $800 less you get otherwise the same device. Topping show how careful design can make a DAC provide exemplary performance, even with quite modest parts. Maybe Marantz should have sub-contracted the daughter board to Topping. It is clear that Marantz either don't care or don't have the technical capability in-house. Possibly both.

 

[Sal1950]

If someone wants to listen to very good recordings (music) with high DR... better forget these gadgets, that is the true reality.

Maybe you could explain why you believe that's true?

Only to watch films, series... and music recordings as modern commercial music, so badly produced.

That's a matter of your musical preferences, not a hard fact.

 

[StevenEleven]

Maybe you could explain why you believe that's true?

That's a matter of your musical preferences, not a hard fact.

Agreed, let’s not be alarmist, the flaws will likely be audibly transparent for the great majority of people for their purposes. Real world DR should not be a concern at all. Listen with confidence. But still, isn’t this just a bit beyond the pale for the asking price?

 

[Francis Vaughan]

But the total lack of a HTPC offering in the market, from any vendor (including Microsoft and Apple, or any of the sound card vendors) would suggest that there is significant resistance to licensing the technology in this manner.

Quoting myself - always a bad sign...
I should add that probably the big dog in the restriction of access to software solutions are the studios. They are still paranoid about unconstrained access to content to stop pirating. Hence HDCP. Any vendor of HT equipment must guarantee that the raw digital information is never allowed out into the wild. So a software based audio solution would somehow need to make it impossible to sniff the audio. Which is basically impossible. Same of course with the video signal. This is just plain silly, open up any AVR and there are I2S feeds going into the DACs. Any fool with a soldering iron could get the audio out of the box if they desired.
This is why you never see AV processors with digital outputs to allow the user to feed their own DACs. Something you might imagine the ultra high end enthusiasts might like. Of course the dirty secret is that it would not be at all difficult to construct an add in board that created either S/PDIF outputs, or just installed much higher quality DACs.