Marantz AV10 AV Processor Review

[Sal1950]

I am not sure if this is what you want to see, but I went back to my graphs inventory and put those "stock baseline runs", assuming you meant the as found post calibration runs with no manual tweaks and I limit the range to 500 Hz as requested.

Excellent, yes thank you!
So the orange curve is totally uncorrected (AUDY OFF) right?
Interesting that above 150hz they are all mostly untouched?
I'd have to give the ARC a failing grade in this compare.
I see from about 35 to 150 the Audyssey is about the flattest of all ignoring the deep 50z null no one is dealing well (expected)
And the 2 Dirac's winning the below 50hz, your sub range I guess, with the DL winning until we get to below 20hz where it surprising
loses all control? and DLBC does well.
Good stuff @peng , thanks again.

 

[peng]

Excellent, yes thank you!
So the orange curve is totally uncorrected (AUDY OFF) right?
Interesting that above 150hz they are all mostly untouched?
I'd have to give the ARC a failing grade in this compare.
I see from about 35 to 150 the Audyssey is about the flattest of all ignoring the deep 50z null no one is dealing well (expected)
And the 2 Dirac's winning the below 50hz, your sub range I guess, with the DL winning until we get to below 20hz where it surprising
loses all control? and DLBC does well.
Good stuff @peng , thanks again.

All default auto results. A few things I should mention about the curves for DL and DLBC:

- I did not tweak as such, but did choose a 6 dB bass tilt so that made it not as flat as Audy's.

- I am not sure if I used the latest version at the time, DLBC seemed to have improved a little since, at leasr in picking a more optimized crossover point.

- When I checked the non mmps, DLBC did better than Audyssey, ARCG did about as good as Audyssey but naturally it is not easy to compare when using multiple seats.

- Subjectively, DL does well enough at higher frequencies, so I do use it for full range. For Audy and ARCG I prefer to limit them to under 5 to 6K Hz. Again, that part is purely subjective.

 

[Frank207be]

While Peng might have its own views, the best one click solution is DLBC. Nothing really comes close to it. But then digging deeper, it is a limited crossover based system. If you want to explore Audy, then $200 MultiEQ-X app is the answer. You will be able to perfect your curves and response within 1dB, albeit potentially with multiple REW measurement iterations.

I have both MultEQ-X and DLBC and with 4 subs DLBC indeed is the by far fastest (and my favourite) RC.

In my case I struggled with a far too low subwoofer level with 4 subs in MultEQ-X and it took close to 2 hours getting a response and extension close to that of DLBC. With MultEQ-X you measure, set all crossover frequencies and rough shelves + PEQ and upload it to the AVR. Then you measure with REW, and adjust what you don't like, upload again and measure with REW again and repeat this process until you're satisfied. The time between doing adjustments in MultEQ-X, uploading it to the AVR and measuring with REW is a real pain.

EDIT1: Why the 75dB +-3 subwoofer calibration in MultEQ-X when the other speakers are not pre-measured? I like the Dirac volume calibration step for all speakers much more.
EDIT2: Give or take: seat to seat variation with DLBC is smaller.
EDIT3: DLBC proposes a more realistic crossover frequency. MultEQ-X thinks that a speaker is full-range as soon as it's in room response reaches 40Hz. DLBC at least starts with 70Hz. I prefer 100Hz+-10Hz though depending on crossover behaviour for ultimate dynamics. I still use Hi-Fi speakers (now Audiovector QR7) so don't want to blow my speakers with sudden bursts.
EDIT4: I also have 2 listening rows in my living room so I can't spend all that precious/tedious time with every change in speaker or sub layout. I just soldered out the tweeter level control of my Q Acoustics ceiling speakers as they caused pronounced resonances during measurement sweeps so I should re-measure the whole set again. With DLBC the whole room can be completed in 2 hours so this is planned next weekend. With MultEQ-X I would postpone this forever with all the fine tuning in mind.

One day I'll try MultEQ-X again to see if it has improved with 4 subs though...

 

[Sal1950]

When I checked the non mmps, DLBC did better than Audyssey, ARCG did about as good as Audyssey but naturally it is not easy to compare when using multiple seats.

I only have one listening seat that matters (mine), so that makes it much easier to work out well.
Overall your Audyssey curve shows it doing a very respectable job with only a few small issues that might be easily addressed with Editor, and then adding the tilt that you did to Dirac would make for a very debatable subjective preference.

Subjectively, DL does well enough at higher frequencies, so I do use it for full range. For Audy and ARCG I prefer to limit them to under 5 to 6K Hz. Again, that part is purely subjective.

Very much so. The whole issue of "bass only or above" is very debatable.

 

[bigguyca]

I lost my entire laptop as my daughter was using in unwisely and it fell from a high floor. Was devastated at first but then realised that most of what was important in there is still present.

While Peng might have its own views, the best one click solution is DLBC. Nothing really comes close to it. But then digging deeper, it is a limited crossover based system. If you want to explore Audy, then $200 MultiEQ-X app is the answer. You will be able to perfect your curves and response within 1dB, albeit potentially with multiple REW measurement iterations.

ARC is not my forte but understand that it is pretty good based on Peng’s feedback.

There are other advanced systems like Trinnov or Lyngdorf to consider.

DLBC sets well designed crossovers so that phase issues don't negatively affect optimization results. This is essentially a support, but necessary, activity.

DLBC main bass room correction success with multiple subwoofers comes from MSO-like (or it appears, linear programming for that matter) optimization of response at many points in the room from the multiple subwoofers.

As with MSO, this optimization is accomplished by setting goals for response based a calculation (likely a bit of secrets sauce) at numerous points and stepping through variations in a huge number of variables to achieve an optimum response, successive approximation or brute force if you will. The power of personal computers makes this possible as millions of alternative settings are evaluated with each overall response compared to how close it comes to the desired response.

The AI part is likely implemented using gained knowledge about the results to that point and what variable changes are leading to which results, to approach an optimum outcome in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[bigguyca]

I need to remeasure my system, when I had the lightning strike here I lost all the saved data
in my Windows OS partition


NP, and only if you have saved a stock baseline run of the 3 systems results from their "one click" fully automated results, 500hz and below.
It's only a matter of curiosity as to which automated program comes out with the best results for Joe Sixpack who goes no further than that.
Not looking for anyones bragging rights here, the world of DRC is huge and only just begins with the 3 basic auto-tune programs.

After measuring with REW and then going back in and tweaking my curves with the $20 Audyssey Editor app, I got with I thought
was an excellent result from my 2 SVS SB2000 subs. The original auto-generated curve left a lot to be desired.

In thinking about all this, the automated results will soon be used by all of us. We will all be Joe Sixpacks as we are in using so much technology today. This is the inevitable march of knowledge and technology. Let's see if I can explain this thought although examples often generate more issues than insight.

In the 1950's automobiles and their systems such as transmissions and engines were easy to understand, measure and setup by those who took the time to master the technology. Fast forward today, a scan tool is required to even access the perhaps hundreds of measurements and settings in a modern car. Numerous computers in cars use a huge number of measurements to control a large number of actuators. Shade tree mechanics with timing lights need not apply.

Watching the results of SpaceX flights, especially the landing or even catching of boosters show that they efforts are truly remarkable. The efforts are also controlled by numerous computers and actuators. A person(s) doesn't just make a few measurements and settings based on their understanding. These rockets, like cars, are incredibly complex machines.

Digital room correction hasn't had the funds and brains applied to its advances that have been applied to these truly huge pieces of technology. Never-the-less progress is being made and the progress is all in one direction; more complex and advanced systems based on advanced hardware and software that provide ever better results. People are being removed from the process just as they are, and have been, in countless other areas where the application of advanced technology means improvement in results.

In the not too distant future, REW as it is used today, to make measurements and then implement "corrections" will be as valuable as a timing light to an auto mechanic. Likely most will have difficulty in even understanding the basics of the processes the DRC tools implement; we'll just enjoy the results.

 

[Sal1950]

In the not to distant future, REW as it is used today, to make measurements and then implement "corrections" will be as valuable as a timing light to an auto mechanic. Likely most will have difficulty in even understanding the basics of the processes the DRC tools implement; we'll just enjoy the results.

Maybe, but I think that will take a while.
No matter how good the automated systems get, there will always be the guy that wants something better, willing to hack into
the systems and find ways to make changes.
He may make them better, or just make a big mess of things. LOL
Today we have digital recording and playback, delivering an incredible level of accuracy that we could only have dreamed about in the 50s & 60s.
Yet many insist on messing about with vinyl, at a huge increase in cost, a big step back in fidelity, an incredible increase inconvenience and more, why?
They just got to have something to muck around with.

 

[PGAMiami]

Currently using Dirac Full Bandwidth in a 5.0.2 system. Front speakers are TAD R1s that in my midsize room easily go to 20hz, so I don’t have any subs. Is there any benefit to ungrading to Bass Control without multiple subs?

 

[ban25]

Currently using Dirac Full Bandwidth in a 5.0.2 system. Front speakers are TAD R1s that in my midsize room easily go to 20hz, so I don’t have any subs. Is there any benefit to ungrading to Bass Control without multiple subs?

DLBC requires subwoofers, so if you don't have them, no need to purchase it.

 

[PGAMiami]

Has anyone tried the AV 10 in a high end stereo system? Thoughts on how it would compare to an RME DAC. One option is to keep the RME and use the XLR input on the AV 10. I’m running a Roon convolution filter, this would be a way to keep that working is as. How good Is the AV 10 as a preamp? Amps are AHB2s

 

[bigguyca]

Has anyone tried the AV 10 in a high end stereo system? Thoughts on how it would compare to an RME DAC. One option is to keep the RME and use the XLR input on the AV 10. I’m running a Roon convolution filter, this would be a way to keep that working is as. How good Is the AV 10 as a preamp? Amps are AHB2s

The balanced (XLR) inputs to the AV 10 will convert the balanced analog output from the RME DAC to signal-ended using a differential amplifier. Since the SE volume control in the AV 10 won't handle the 4V output of the RME or other outputs at that level the gain of the input to the AV 10 will be -6dB, that is, the signal will be reduced to 2V max.

Inherently balanced inputs will add noise due to required series resistors and likely not the highest performance opamps are used in the differential amplifier circuit by Marantz. The XLR input of the AV 10 is likely a fine input and you might never notice any difference, but the signal chain will not be up to the standard of the RME DAC connected directly to an AHB2.

You will likely receive at least as good and perhaps better performance by inputting the digital signal directedly into the AV 10, since the output from the AV 10 DAC circuitry is already SE, rather than connecting the REM DAC to the AV 10.

To obtain the full performance of REM DAC then connect it directly to the AHB2.

 

[PGAMiami]

The balanced (XLR) inputs to the AV 10 will convert the balanced analog output from the RME DAC to signal-ended using a differential amplifier. Since the SE volume control in the AV 10 won't handle the 4V output of the RME or other outputs at that level the gain of the input to the AV 10 will be -6dB, that is, the signal will be reduced to 2V max.

Inherently balanced inputs will add noise due to required series resistors and likely not the highest performance opamps are used in the differential amplifier circuit by Marantz. The XLR input of the AV 10 is likely a fine input and you might never notice any difference, but the signal chain will not be up to the standard of the RME DAC connected directly to an AHB2.

You will likely receive at least as good and perhaps better performance by inputting the digital signal directedly into the AV 10, since the output from the AV 10 DAC circuitry is already SE, rather than connecting the REM DAC to the AV 10.

To obtain the full performance of REM DAC then connect it directly to the AHB2.

This is very helpful. I currently use a custom, very well made XLR a-b switch that is operated by the trigger on my Denon 4800h to switch between the RME and the Denon. Using Benchmark RCA to XLR cables to connect the Denon to the switch. Don’t see much I can do to improve the performance for 2 channel. For TV and movies the Denon is fine. For multichannel music, I just can’t listen to the Denon, for music the RME with a Roon convolution filter is much better than the Denon with Dirac.

 

[Goodfellas27]

Anyone knows when Dirac ART drops for the Marantz AV10, if it haven't already?

 

[ban25]

Anyone knows when Dirac ART drops for the Marantz AV10, if it haven't already?

It has not, and there is no news on when or if ART will make it to D+M at this point. If you can't live without it right now, buy Storm Audio.

 

[Descartes]

It has not, and there is no news on when or if ART will make it to D+M at this point. If you can't live without it right now, buy Storm Audio.

So pricey!

 

[alvigg]

Another thread has people talking about beta testing for PC's. Maybe that means not too far in the future. From what I have read, ART had been helping about half of the setups but not others so it definitely needed work.

 

[dlaloum]

It has not, and there is no news on when or if ART will make it to D+M at this point. If you can't live without it right now, buy Storm Audio.

Dirac and Denon said sometime in 2025

 

[ban25]

Dirac and Denon said sometime in 2025

Yeah, but they also strongly hinted it was arriving in April 2024, and here we are heading into 2025 with no official news. Buy a product for what it offers today, not what it may promise in the future...

 

[ban25]

Another thread has people talking about beta testing for PC's. Maybe that means not too far in the future. From what I have read, ART had been helping about half of the setups but not others so it definitely needed work.

It's been available in beta since 2023... No news is no news.

 

[blucupp]

Lost interest after 5.1. Not constantly installing speakers until end of days.