Marantz AV10 AV Processor Review

[welwynnick]

Right, but so far every time they published their measurements, and by the time we compared them with Amir's they were within 1 to 3 dB so I think it will be the case for the A1H, that means if Amir measures it, most things will be a couple dB worse but not more. They have the same parts and circuit design in the preamp/DAC audio path, and have the same DSP engines.

Without having performed a particularly extensive survey, it does seem to me that independent test results are generally quite close on SINAD, but they are often one or two dB short of the manufacturers measurement for DNR.

I agree you have to compare like-with-like, but in this case, it's the manufacturer that's claiming a slightly higher DNR for the A1H than the AV10. But not a deciding factor in itself.

There are still a few variables with input level, input type, and overall gain. Amir typically uses a standard test that is the same for all equipment, and doesn't usually chase the best possible results by whatever means.

 

[welwynnick]

This teardown of the A1H is fantastic. I think the transformer weighs 11.5 kg. He thinks this bests the Anthem AVM90.

It was hardly a teardown. He just took the lid off. What a waste of 15 minutes.

 

[SoundVideo]

Obviously you are using external amplification. I am always puzzled why the in-walls and ceiling cost more than the main LCR wood MDF cabinet speakers.

What I don't get is why would anyone want a AMP 10 (or the Trinnov class D multichannel) pushing all this electricity in . Why not get 2 -3 x NADs, Parasounds, Buckeyes or Emotivas or even OST Nero class H multichannel amplifiers?

As for why do the in-walls and in-ceilings cost more? They don't. Those https://us.kef.com/products/ci5160rlm are an R11 Meta. The inwalls "cabinet" are aluminum and retails for $6K a pair. The R11's retail for $6500 a pair. However, all manufacturers build in a good deal more margin on the inwalls for installers. Fishing wires in tough spots can take a massive amount of work. I hire it done too. It can take a lot of time to fish wires in tough spots. Then, the labor looks "reasonable" but the margin on that inwall or inceiling paid for the real cost of labor. If someone was putting in their own speakers, the price I charge for the inwalls/inceiling is a lot less.

People want an AMP10 because it is a single box. In my case, I have 11 channels: LCR, Sides, rears, and 4 overheads. A pair of outdoor and a pair of inceiling office speakers. That's 15 channels. I have space constraints. I put the gear in a nook.

 

[SoundVideo]

Don't know why you mention room correction here, it's purpose is to make differences in sound?
To talk about any audible differences between any two AVR's first we have to take for granted it's being listened to in it's most basic form, say a very high quality digital 2 ch source with the unit set to it's most straight thru mode (direct, pure-direct, etc).
Now you can begin to discuss if one sounds (warm, bright, hard, whatever) to you. And if you do, you should then present evidence of the test conditions under which they were compared (sighted, blind. DBT etc.) Also if you do believe they relate to
some measurement, some pointers to which properties are effecting such audible differences.
I find it highly questionable to present opinion on existing differences but then claim your room has such poor qualities as to mask the differences you still claim to exist. Maybe time for some treatments?
Evidence is king.

Yes, I was discussing audio comparisons being done without room correction. Then I added in a topic of room correction. That point was the room correction makes a much larger sonic difference than preamp sonic differences (x1000) when comparing in a lower caliber-sounding room (and room correction has little sonic difference in great-sounding rooms). Plus, I'm not limiting my discussion to my current room in AZ. I'm not going to bother testing in the blind because I know the preamp portions are going to sound "the same" in MY room. I've been doing this for 26 years and had many theaters and several homes. Plus, I've heard thousands of systems. I've been in a lot of the designers' homes, labs, etc.

I've done too many sighted, and blind tests to count. But only since 2011 using the ABX box. You quickly start to realize when there is a chance to pass in the blind and when there isn't. And that's a very long conversation for another thread. But it has to do with how you test and train. And why you need to test a certain counterintuitive way and train your ears. Plus, to pull out an ABX box and set things up every time I compare is a PITA it is not realistic. While I am babbling, Harman doesn't listen to a driver in the blind. It's sighted. If you blind test to prove every minor difference, you will be failing and missing out on the summation of those differences. Ask the Harman engineers of the director of engineering of Scanspeak. I did. Without experiencing it yourself, you don't understand the full magnitude of that statement.

In summary, I'm claiming one thing. And that is, a poor-sounding room will not show extremely small differences between preamps. Because the actual difference between nearly all preamp processors is VERY small. Now, that might not make sense to you. But that's the reality. To convince you, you are going to have to do the work yourself. Because there is no body of research on this topic. I spent a lot of time about 13 years ago trying to locate people who know a lot about this topic.

At this point, we are going to have to agree to disagree. If you are interested, I'd be happy to discuss what my thoughts are on this topic. But it's probably best to chat on the phone.

 

[Vacceo]

So is the back breaking weight of the amplifier

Not that you'll move It much once set.

 

[SoundVideo]

As I recall - the preference was around 60% or so... so statistically important, but by no means universal!!

In fact with circa 40% having alternate preference - that is a massive minority!

From memory, Harman said it was an 80+% correlation. I'll say it a little differently: Nearly all speaker brands are "voiced". Most, look like a Harman Curve (but are not). DALI, GoldenEar, etc come to mind. When a speaker has a target curve to begin with, their buyers prefer it.

Now, you run XT32 or Dirac or ARC or ________. That voicing is gone! Sure, everything images better because you now have better-matched frequency response which the room or speaker location messed up. Plus, you took care of some standing wave issues, etc. But you just removed the speaker voicing that you fell in love with when you bought them. Now, these better imaging speakers sound "thin". My point was if I compare a flat response to reinstalling the Harman curve on my KEF's, I'm going to be hard-pressed to find someone that says, "Leave that Harman Curve off." And with Dirac, I can do so with a click of a button. I cannot do that with XT32 or many other auto-room correction brands. Well, Room Perfect does it differently as it doesn't remove the target curve. But that's another topic.

 

[SoundVideo]

Joe Kiani I can assure you knows nothing about Sound United. Do you guys know the tortured history and Marantz / Denon and B&W joining the Sound United umbrella.

Joe was told to buy Sound United so he could make a case that his blood oxygen fitbit type watch was intended for mass market consumer usage. He was told HEOS and Denon could make mobile music players. He knows nothing about HDAM or Marantz audiophile gear. He will divest of Sound United once Apple settles.

We agree that Joe Kiani cares about making money. All my point was that if he cares about $ (even if your theory is spot on), he should want sales to grow so he can get more $$ for whenever he sells. And that means paying attention to the people he hired to execute more sales. I propose Sound United or D&M holdings or __________ didn't care about "HDAM or audiophile gear" either. The last owner to care was probably Saul Marantz. Yet, here we are with HDAM's and engineering instructed to pay attention to SINAD measurements.

While we are talking SINAD, do you think Lyngdorf or Monoprice or _________ cared about SINAD measurements? They don't. But they are paying attention to it now because people on this very forum care. But should people care about even better SINAD measurements? Meaning has anyone compared the blind SINAD measurement results to factual audible differences? If there is a difference in the blind, at what point is "better" inaudible?I'm asking because I don't know. I'm all in favor of pushing measurements forward. So long as our ears are being rewarded.

 

[alvigg]

any recommendations for a subwoofer to pare with a Bagend Infrasub 18 and DLBC?

 

[Vacceo]

We agree that Joe Kiani cares about making money. All my point was that if he cares about $ (even if your theory is spot on), he should want sales to grow so he can get more $$ for whenever he sells. And that means paying attention to the people he hired to execute more sales. I propose Sound United or D&M holdings or __________ didn't care about "HDAM or audiophile gear" either. The last owner to care was probably Saul Marantz. Yet, here we are with HDAM's and engineering instructed to pay attention to SINAD measurements.

While we are talking SINAD, do you think Lyngdorf or Monoprice or _________ cared about SINAD measurements? They don't. But they are paying attention to it now because people on this very forum care. But should people care about even better SINAD measurements? Meaning has anyone compared the blind SINAD measurement results to factual audible differences? If there is a difference in the blind, at what point is "better" inaudible?I'm asking because I don't know. I'm all in favor of pushing measurements forward. So long as our ears are being rewarded.

The AV10 shows that technical excellence is possible on very complex devices such as an AVR. If that technical excellence is one of the elements that allows Marantz to get an edge in sales for a really tiny market beyond manufacturers such as Arcam, McIntosh, Lyngdorf or Anthem that have very close prices (or far higher), perhaps that will drive the whole industry to adopt technical excellence.

 

[Roland]

We agree that Joe Kiani cares about making money. All my point was that if he cares about $ (even if your theory is spot on), he should want sales to grow so he can get more $$ for whenever he sells. And that means paying attention to the people he hired to execute more sales. I propose Sound United or D&M holdings or __________ didn't care about "HDAM or audiophile gear" either. The last owner to care was probably Saul Marantz. Yet, here we are with HDAM's and engineering instructed to pay attention to SINAD measurements.

While we are talking SINAD, do you think Lyngdorf or Monoprice or _________ cared about SINAD measurements? They don't. But they are paying attention to it now because people on this very forum care. But should people care about even better SINAD measurements? Meaning has anyone compared the blind SINAD measurement results to factual audible differences? If there is a difference in the blind, at what point is "better" inaudible?I'm asking because I don't know. I'm all in favor of pushing measurements forward. So long as our ears are being rewarded.

The perpetual debate about the “sound” of different amplifiers has echoes of the current Post Office scandal here in the UK. The sub-postmasters said that there were no cash shortages, only to be told that they were thieves because the computer said so. Here, thousands of people say they can hear the difference only to be told that the computer says they’re wrong, they sound the same.

 

[Sal1950]

This teardown of the A1H is fantastic.

Same cheap junk unlighted remote as my 4700H

Because the actual difference between nearly all preamp processors is VERY small. Now, that might not make sense to you. But that's the reality.

Yea, Near or completely inaudible on a large percentage of modern AV gear. But you were the guy making audible claims.

 

[peng]

Without having performed a particularly extensive survey, it does seem to me that independent test results are generally quite close on SINAD, but they are often one or two dB short of the manufacturers measurement for DNR.

I agree you have to compare like-with-like, but in this case, it's the manufacturer that's claiming a slightly higher DNR for the A1H than the AV10. But not a deciding factor in itself.

There are still a few variables with input level, input type, and overall gain. Amir typically uses a standard test that is the same for all equipment, and doesn't usually chase the best possible results by whatever means.

Agreed, Amir sometimes would mention he had something noise due to the way things were hooked up so it's possible that manufacturers might try harder in minimizing noise for whatever the causes at the time and repeat the tests until they get the best possible results, but just guessing.

 

[GXAlan]

And with Dirac, I can do so with a click of a button. I cannot do that with XT32 or many other auto-room correction brands. Well, Room Perfect does it differently as it doesn't remove the target curve.

The Audyssey smartphone/tablet app lets you easily limit your room correction to a specific frequency which really makes a big difference.

Disabling midrange compensation also helps.

Same cheap junk unlighted remote as my 4700H

Agree 1000%. It’s worse for McIntosh remotes. Even the JBL SDP-58 have lousy remotes (even though it has lighting).

What is very frustrating is how NICE the Marantz PM-10/SA-10 remote is with a nice aluminum feel. People joke about audio jewelry but for me, I really like the feel of a nice remote which is how you often interact with a product.

 

[SoundVideo]

The AV10 shows that technical excellence is possible on very complex devices such as an AVR. If that technical excellence is one of the elements that allows Marantz to get an edge in sales for a really tiny market beyond manufacturers such as Arcam, McIntosh, Lyngdorf or Anthem that have very close prices (or far higher), perhaps that will drive the whole industry to adopt technical excellence.

Yea, Near or completely inaudible on a large percentage of modern AV gear. But you were the guy making audible claims.

I claimed I had passed in the blind with my ABX, level-matched amp and preamp comparisons. I claimed that the differences has to be "large" when sighted for me to have a chance at hearing a difference in the blind. You claimed that if you can hear the difference at all, then, the room acoustics doesn't matter. We respectively disagree. I will now claim that I had to use a testing procedure counter-intuitive to what most would assume is the best way to pass in the blind (going back and forth when comparing A to B to X and I am dead in the water).

Now. I have some theories as to why that is the case. And it ties into the odd situation that in the same set-up (speakers, room, music, amps, etc), WHEN there is a large difference, sometimes I can pass and sometimes I cannot?! I know when I am guessing and going to fail.

I have some other thoughts that might be related to why the placebo effect "explodes" sighted (even when later passing the blind) and the blind differences are ALWAYS much (much) small differences. It would take plenty of effort to figure out exactly what is happening. It's above my pay grade.

People are going to assume what they will. Option 2. Give it a try yourself. My ABX box is at my MN home and I dodge the snow and cold as much as I can. You are welcome to borrow it and come up with your conclusions. I don't have all of the answers. I might have studied it a lot more than any audiophile walking the planet. Certainly a lot more than most. I don't want to steal from people. So I like to understand what I sell. But I do know that if I don't show you how to test even with a tube amp compared with a solid-state amp in a GREAT-sounding room, you are going to be a random number generator. All the while (some) others pass because they learned how to and, they were able to relax.

Right or wrong, I've concluded that differences between the blind from sighted MIGHT (or might not be) related to the placebo effect or minimized by mood (a.k.a. testing anxiety.) Or maybe both. Like many topics, the truth is probably in between the two. Based on my knowledge, conversations, experience, etc, I suspect what is going on has to do with the combo. That's all I have to offer on the topic.

 

[welwynnick]

Absolutely agree with all of that post (funny, I thought I saw it earlier?)
Distinguishing between two good amplifiers operating between noise and clipping is very much more difficult blind than sighted, but it IS POSSIBLE
Equally, sighted tests are very much less reliable than blind, but they're NOT ALWAYS wrong. Long story coming.

Nick

Edit: The long story. I used to be a very active member of AVForums, swapped gear with friends, and did lots of blind group listening tests at local dealers. On 26 Jan 2009 ( a day I remember well) I got my hands on a BDP and AVP that could both do HD codec decoding. I'd become quite obsessed with jitter at the time, and expected that processor decoding would sound better than player decoding due to the different digital audio replay architecture (how the audio clock is regenerated in the processor). Conventional wisdom was that they should sound the same because bits were bits, but I thought I knew better than everyone else, and several users had already claimed to hear a (sighted) improvement with processor decoding. I wanted to prove that I understood what made HiFi tick, and also to prove that I had golden ears. I could hardly wait to listen and confirm my convictions for myself. The anticipation had built up for some time, and I wonder if you can guess what happened next? I played a Bluray with a particularly musical HD audio soundtrack with the player configured to perform the decoding and output LPCM audio, and listened as closely as I could several times. Then I set the player to output bitstream, and listened with great expectation. Hard as I tried, I could hardly hear the slightest difference between them. I posted on AVF that "the difference was so small that I doubt I could tell the difference reliably". This was hugely disappointing and embarrassing, having firmly planted myself in the "processor decoding is better" camp. However, I owned up to the fact that I was wrong all along, or else I had cloth ears. After covering myself in shame (you can see this was a big deal to me) I went back to the lounge and looked at the Bluray case again. I hadn't realised that the BD soundtrack wasn't lossless compressed Dolby TrueHD or DTS-MA after all, but was in fact an LPCM soundtrack. Therefore the player had been outputting LPCM in both cases, so the audio replay architecture and hence the sound quality would have been the same. But I didn't figure this out until afterwards. During the comparison I thought I had been listening to two things that should have been technically and audibly different, so expectation bias was running riot. I knew what I was going to hear beforehand, but I didn't. Subsequently I played a different disc with a TrueHD soundtrack, and processor decoding sounded better after all, and I was happy again. The point is that my comparison was not compromised by being sighted or biased, and where there was in fact no difference at all, that was what I heard. I can't speak for everyone else, but I think I did prove to myself that I don't imagine what I hear. Not everyone gets this, but my hopes are up with an ASR audience.
(The player was a Denon 3800 and the processor was an Onkyo SC886, and other equipment combinations may have given a different result.)

Price list for new Onkyo PR-SC886

Right, some impressions. There's a great deal to say, and I won't be able to do it all at once. I've had the golden opportunity to answer a lot of questions, many of which relate to the Denon DVD 3800BD. For the purpose of this thread, though, I'll just consider it as a good HD MC audio...

www.avforums.com

Nick

 

[SoundVideo]

Absolutely agree with all of that post (funny, I thought I saw it earlier?)


Nick

You did see it earlier. lol But I figured out how to confuse Sal, so I clarified some details. The only clarification I'd add is you needed to put a few (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) at the end of the statement: "Equally, sighted tests are very much less reliable than blind, but they're NOT ALWAYS wrong."

The horse has been beaten. Though, still, many are going to disagree.

 

[tjcinnamon]

From memory, Harman said it was an 80+% correlation. I'll say it a little differently: Nearly all speaker brands are "voiced". Most, look like a Harman Curve (but are not). DALI, GoldenEar, etc come to mind. When a speaker has a target curve to begin with, their buyers prefer it.

Now, you run XT32 or Dirac or ARC or ________. That voicing is gone! Sure, everything images better because you now have better-matched frequency response which the room or speaker location messed up. Plus, you took care of some standing wave issues, etc. But you just removed the speaker voicing that you fell in love with when you bought them. Now, these better imaging speakers sound "thin". My point was if I compare a flat response to reinstalling the Harman curve on my KEF's, I'm going to be hard-pressed to find someone that says, "Leave that Harman Curve off." And with Dirac, I can do so with a click of a button. I cannot do that with XT32 or many other auto-room correction brands. Well, Room Perfect does it differently as it doesn't remove the target curve. But that's another topic.

With Audyssey MQX you can design your own curve OR remove the curve entirely and just adjust PEQ's which I like because it uses REW to avoid the 'wasted effort' of adjusting modes. The FIR filter that Audyssey and Dirac put in is very aggressive in terms of it's Q's and number of adjustments; When adjusting with REW, it's usually not more than 10 adjustments and typically closer to 6.

As an enthusiast such as yourself, I'd recommend kicking the tires. I got better results with that than Dirac Live. However, ART I think offers too novel of features.

 

[tjcinnamon]

I claimed I had passed in the blind with my ABX, level-matched amp and preamp comparisons. I claimed that the differences has to be "large" when sighted for me to have a chance at hearing a difference in the blind. You claimed that if you can hear the difference at all, then, the room acoustics doesn't matter. We respectively disagree. I will now claim that I had to use a testing procedure counter-intuitive to what most would assume is the best way to pass in the blind (going back and forth when comparing A to B to X and I am dead in the water).

Now. I have some theories as to why that is the case. And it ties into the odd situation that in the same set-up (speakers, room, music, amps, etc), WHEN there is a large difference, sometimes I can pass and sometimes I cannot?! I know when I am guessing and going to fail.

I have some other thoughts that might be related to why the placebo effect "explodes" sighted (even when later passing the blind) and the blind differences are ALWAYS much (much) small differences. It would take plenty of effort to figure out exactly what is happening. It's above my pay grade.

People are going to assume what they will. Option 2. Give it a try yourself. My ABX box is at my MN home and I dodge the snow and cold as much as I can. You are welcome to borrow it and come up with your conclusions. I don't have all of the answers. I might have studied it a lot more than any audiophile walking the planet. Certainly a lot more than most. I don't want to steal from people. So I like to understand what I sell. But I do know that if I don't show you how to test even with a tube amp compared with a solid-state amp in a GREAT-sounding room, you are going to be a random number generator. All the while (some) others pass because they learned how to and, they were able to relax.

Right or wrong, I've concluded that differences between the blind from sighted MIGHT (or might not be) related to the placebo effect or minimized by mood (a.k.a. testing anxiety.) Or maybe both. Like many topics, the truth is probably in between the two. Based on my knowledge, conversations, experience, etc, I suspect what is going on has to do with the combo. That's all I have to offer on the topic.

Where in MN?

 

[Sal1950]

Equally, sighted tests are very much less reliable than blind, but they're NOT ALWAYS wrong.

Not necessarily wrong, just without any value unless they can be supported by evidence provided in a scientific manner.

 

[peng]

With Audyssey MQX you can design your own curve OR remove the curve entirely and just adjust PEQ's which I like because it uses REW to avoid the 'wasted effort' of adjusting modes. The FIR filter that Audyssey and Dirac put in is very aggressive in terms of it's Q's and number of adjustments; When adjusting with REW, it's usually not more than 10 adjustments and typically closer to 6.

As an enthusiast such as yourself, I'd recommend kicking the tires. I got better results with that than Dirac Live. However, ART I think offers too novel of features.

Not really afaik, if PEQ is so good, there wouldn't be so much R&D by those who use FIR, or mixed FIR and IRR (such as DL). REW's very good, no argument there, and if you do it and then do a sweep from 20 to 120 Hz it will usually look smooth, but that's just one sweet spot at the MMP and just FR. Sound quality after RC/REQ is dependent a lot more than just the FR at the MMP. It is complicated.. I am not one of those who could just go by ear, so I too rely a lot on REW, but not just MMP sweet spot and FR, but again it is much more complicated than I can explain even if I try so I'd love to hear experts to elaborate..