4K video with 5.1 audio

[Jbrunwa]

I’m in the market for a new pre-pro. I have a B&K Reference 200.5 amp and 5.1 setup with ACI speakers, Triad subwoofer amp and ACI Maestro subwoofer, Arcam FMJ DV29, and Sony UBP-X800. My previous pre-pro was a B&K Reference 50v2. Im totally satisfied with my speaker setup and have no interest in installing overhead or more speakers. I upgraded my display to a 65” 4K Samsung Q90t display. Since the B&K pre-pro doesn’t support HDMI I’m looking for a new pre-pro. In the interim Im using a Marantz SR6014 with pre outs to the B&K amp, not using any of the built in amplifier channels. I’d like to get new pre-pro with good audio quality. Looking at the market, all the manufacturers are offering 13 to 16 or more channels with so so audio quality. I will never need all those channels, and I figure the more crap they put into the hardware the more noise and distortion. Do I have any options any more other than to buy a pre-pro with a zillion channels?

 

[Helicopter]

The best option tested here has been to use pre outs on a Denon AVR. If I were shopping, I would get a Denon AVR X3700H and skip the internal amps.

 

[AdamG]

I second

Helicopter

’ suggestion and add to the to use

Buckeye Amps

Amp builds to power your 5 base channels. Perfect setup.

 

[Jbrunwa]

Thanks. I will give the Denon AVR X3700H a try, and donate to ASR, who are apparently the only ones holding manufacturers accountable for audio quality.

 

[Vasr]

In the context of what you have, you most likely won't notice any difference going from the Marantz to the Denon other than satisfy an itch to upgrade or go chasing SINAD for its own sake as this site encourages some people to do.

The B&K are nice sounding amps but with SNR in the 90s and THD reaching 0.1%. Nothing above a competent DAC that isn't broken will make a bit of difference. More important are connectivity and usability features.

The Outlaw 976 pre/pro will also satisfy that requirement if you don't want extra amps sitting around in the unit or want a lower profile. It will also give balanced XLR outs to your amp.

But the Denon will have the Audyssey room correction that might make a difference. But you already have that in the Marantz that will make more difference than which DAC. So, is there some other reason to upgrade from the Marantz other than try to get a "better sounding" pre/pro or AVR?

If you aren't happy with the Marantz sound, then you can write what you don't like and the solution may depend on that. If you are just hoping for a "better sound" than what you have, you may be just wasting money.

 

[Jbrunwa]

I’m not really set up to do an A/B test, the sound seems a little less bright or clear to my ears. I tried switching Audyssey from reference to flat curve and found that I liked that a little better. Maybe I just need to get used to the Marantz. I suppose that I should try to compare the room correction to rule that out. My room does have a couple resonant peaks that I previously reduced with the B&K prepro notch filters, and that Audessy has mostly neutralized. Maybe I need to go back the the B&K and save the response curve with a third party analyzer and then compare, although I would have to feed audio to the B&K by toslink I suppose. Oh, and I know it has nothing to do with sound quality but the Marantz front panel display is so small that I cant read it so I have to use either on screen display or their remote app to see the settings, which I didn’t realize would be such an annoyance to me.

 

[Jbrunwa]

Just curious if the answer would change if I were to upgrade the B&K 200.5 to say a Parasound A52+

 

[Helicopter]

Just curious if the answer would change if I were to upgrade the B&K 200.5 to say a Parasound A52+

I'd get a 6 channel Hypex NC502MP like Buckeye before a Parasound, even if they cost the same, but the Parasound is like 2.5 times more expensive.

 

[Jbrunwa]

Thanks, I’ll inquire Buckeye about a build.

 

[Vasr]

Just curious if the answer would change if I were to upgrade the B&K 200.5 to say a Parasound A52+

The B&K's "signature tone" is said to be warm whether it is due to harmonics profile or due to rolling off the highs. Combine that with the Marantz which is something people also perceive to be warmer for reasons that is difficult to correlate with current set of measurements. You may also have a "deadening room" acoustically. Combine that with a reference target curve that slopes down and you have a set up that tends to lean towards warm or at least attenuated highs. Not having sufficient highs (within the audible range of one's ears) can be perceived as muddy or not having sufficient detail. While some people may prefer this for music, it won't be satisfying for HT use. A better perception as you described by flattening the target curve suggests that this may be the case.

A REW/Audyssey measurement of your entire chain would show what you are actually getting out of the speakers if you are able to do that. Just the mains should be sufficient. The reason for this is to figure out if your need for "better mids and highs" is based on a deficiency in your equipment or from your auditory, room mode perception that might even require more pronounced mids and highs than flat. The solution would depend on which one is the case.

If the measurement out of the speakers is relatively flat and yet you perceive it as muted in the highs, then you really need equipment (or EQ) that is "bright". More neutral equipment is not going to help you. But getting "bright" equipment may have come with a side-effect of inducing fatigue or sounding harsh.

So, simply buying equipment, however well they may be measuring, hoping it will make you happier is not very efficient. But with the tools at our disposal, we can do the equivalent of customer tailoring than buy off the rack hoping it fits better.

What I would suggest is doing some experiments with Audyssey in the Marantz and using the full Audyssey app to change the target curve in different ways including removing any notch filter in the mids-highs it may have put in and perhaps even boosting the mid-highs above flat. Think of this as a fitting trial in tailoring. You are not trying to get it to sound perfect but an understanding of roughly what is needed to approach a sound that you prefer in your context of the whole chain and room characteristics. This is primarily about tonal balance not noise or distortion. Nothing you have or buy will be affected by the latter metrics.

Once you get an approximation of the tonal balance that "sounds right" to you, then based on that "fitting measurements", you can figure out what equipment change if any is needed and select equipment accordingly.

Just my suggestion.

 

[Jbrunwa]

Thanks for the detailed explanation and advice. I will work on doing this.

 

[Jbrunwa]

So far enabling Audessy L/R bypass has made a biggest improvement in transparency. I’m going to continue to work this. Maybe I am not skilled enough with the MultiEQ curve edit but I find it very difficult to add handles in the right places and not intuitive what happens to the curve when I move them. This may sound stupid but I think I would be way more comfortable just having a parametric equalizer + bass crossover.

 

[Jbrunwa]

After reading FAQs and trying many variations with MultiEQ, I have decided that the sound quality is much better with Audessy off, although I don’t think it equals my old prepro. So either Audessy is getting something wrong about my room acoustics, or whatever it does somehow messes with the clarity and character of my amp and speakers. I ordered a minidsp microphone so in a few days I should be able to profile the system with REW. Maybe that will provide some clues?