I never heard it related to in that manner until some high-enders got their dirty mitts on it. LOL
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Marantz AV10 AV Processor Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
My recent contributions to this thread regarding DSD, Roon integration and so forth focused on HDMI bit streaming of DSD multichannel with the Marantz processor. The Eversolo and latest Zidoo 8K platform is going to be the best integration for Apple Music Spatial streaming and DSD / DSF multichannel file playback bar none.
With that being said the Apple 4K TV streaming and Infuse file playback is some of the best looking HDMI video around over turnkey solutions like Zidoo, Zapittti, Dune, Kaleidescape, etc. Audio is C-.
With that being said the Apple 4K TV streaming and Infuse file playback is some of the best looking HDMI video around over turnkey solutions like Zidoo, Zapittti, Dune, Kaleidescape, etc. Audio is C-.
Not everyone owns a Marantz processor or 8K HDMI switching Onkyo yet. And HDMI eARC definitely is not 1:1 bit stream identical to the bifurcated HDMI Video and Audio comparable to the output of a BluRay Ultra HD disc player. Look at the TCL 98" QM8 2024. Great picture. but the eARC has issues. Me and Andrew Robinson experienced the same.
I will take Dual HDMI output any day over 8K processor / AVR switching.
Never encountered any eARC issues with the EU version which is 98x955 and Marantz. What exactly is your issue?
There are observable Audio Sync issues and turning off TV sounds apparently improve eARC sound.
Dedicated HDMI outputs have been the defacto output ports for Bluray Ultra HD disc players for over a decade. And the only way to output DSD and PCM multichannel with Sony and Oppo BluRay players. It only makes sense high quality streamers adopt this.
Looking forward to a Apple TV Pro or Mac Mini (once the figure out Dolby Vision on a desktop OS) to support this in the future.
Improve as in better sound quality?
The older Marantz AV's definitely had some measurable issues with their internal DACs and other design issues. Then there is the fact the both unit's offer better versions of Audyssey and Dirac is also an option. So yes, I believe the upgrade to an AV10 offers some definite path improvements to better sound quality.
You didn't mention what your current power amps are so impossible to say if there's any room for improvement there. No doubt the new Toppings and many other modern power amps offer improved measured performance. But whether they can offer any improvement in sound quality is highly debatable. What ya got now?
The AV10 will be silent, the 8802a will have higher noise that may be audible depending on your room but shouln't be audible unless you sit really close and/or have very sensisitive speakers. Otherwise, in direct mode, no. If dsp, especially if RC, such as Audy+app, or DLBC is used, then I would say yes.
I see that you have received answers already from two people. Without being contradictory, I will give you my two cents, take it for what's it's worth. After all, your ears should be your only arbiter. Like you, I have had the 8802a for years and also two other Marantz AVP before that. From the 8802a to the AV10 is not a step forward, it's a jump forward. Functionality is about the same but after that, everything is better: sound stage, imaging, noise floor, clarity, you name it. Just make sure you buy from a place that accept return withing a reasonable time in case you need to send it back.
I would recommend the upgrade, but at the same time it will cost some implementation time to get full benefit of the new features. With AV-10, it would be almost a waste not to explore Audy MultiEQ-X application that would give you so many options that it will take some time to digest. Using Dirac (at additional license cost) would also require some time to get used to it and get best results.
So it would not just be monetary cost, would need some love or professional calibrator. But pretty sure you would notice improvement. Difficult to say how much that is worth to different people as we all have different circumstances, preferences and budgets.
So it would not just be monetary cost, would need some love or professional calibrator. But pretty sure you would notice improvement. Difficult to say how much that is worth to different people as we all have different circumstances, preferences and budgets.
I completely agree but didn't mention it for fear of getting lynched by the Dirac crowd here. LOL
The MultiEQ-X app should offer 90% of what a full Dirac package should cost at a fraction of the cost..
YMMV
Lol, not afraid of the getting lynched. After you go through it couple of times becomes easier
.I honestly think Audy gives you way more options but demands much more time. But ultimately for any given specific correction issue, one of them might eventually work better.
Both would ideally need REW check up and further adjustments. How much is that good or bad each of us needs to determine ourselves.
Not so brave to give percentage assessment as it really depends on the room and the system.
Just be sure to get the $200 real app built by Audy themselves
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,327
- Likes
- 5,631
rather than....what?
Than the $20 app built by D&M that is a huge step up from the built in solutions, but well shy of the MultiEQ-X. It is easy to see from the interfaces of both apps that MultiEQ-X has so many more options and adjustments can be much more precise.
Just a speculation on my part (as neither D&M or Audy wanted to confirm other differences), but MultiEQ-X probably has significantly more taps to deploy, thus advantage of being able to track the curve more accurately. Never spend time trying to prove this, so just a gut feel based on comparing the sound - not worth much. I would not be surprised though as apparently Storm claims that their implementation of Dirac has more taps than the competition.
The amount of taps is set in hardware. Systems that can do correction at >48 kHz for example utilize more taps to make that correction. In the case of StormAudio, they use two processors but restrict the correction to 48 kHz, resulting in twice the taps available.
That said, if you think about PEQ, there are a bunch of different ways to achieve the same curve (think about REW’s auto EQ). That optimization may be better with MultEQ-X as compared to the iOS app. My understanding is that the iOS app just sends a curve to the processor to do the calculation whereas MultEQ-X actually uses your laptop/desktop CPU to generate the filters when transmitting the data.
That would give better tracking of the target curve without needing more hardware.
Absolutely - hardware will always be the ultimate limit, but I also understand that there could potentially be limitations in the firmware implementation as well.
My understanding of the Audy apps is the same. If we were to judge by Trinnov and 96khz processing, the CPU route could overall be more powerful.
Similar threads
