Marantz AV10 AV Processor Review

[IamJF]

Most serious home cinema people have a 7.x.4 setup with active subwoofers. A 12 channel amp is perfect for that.

As soon as they add digital output to those preamps I'm in on day one.

 

[Ssss]

Most serious home cinema people have a 7.x.4 setup with active subwoofers. A 12 channel amp is perfect for that.

As soon as they add digital output to those preamps I'm in on day one.

Regarding the digital outputs, would you then use power amps with digital inputs? The only power amp with digital inputs I’m aware of is the Lyngdorf SDA2400 but I’m sure there must be others, maybe with Dante?

 

[Vacceo]

Most serious home cinema people have a 7.x.4 setup with active subwoofers. A 12 channel amp is perfect for that.

As soon as they add digital output to those preamps I'm in on day one.

What connector would that use? Spdif or coaxial to the amp?

You'd get the advantages of balanced and perhaps, even lower risk of noise, right?

 

[IamJF]

@Ssss @Vacceo I use active speakers like KH120ii and in my living room some custom ones with Hypex power amp module. Also in the studio I use the Hypex active module.
Active speakers with DSP and digital input are getting more and more common. A home cinema setup with these Neumann speakers would probably have the best price/performance ratio you can have and even their measurement system MA1 is really good and on par with Dirac.

The most elegant way to integrate digital output is to switch the analog outputs to digital as it is often done in speaker controllers. You just choose digital out in your menu and e.g. your left channel output now carries digital left and right channel - XLR or/and Cinch. This can't be very expensive to do and will open a complete new, professional level for these preamps. Cause the cheapest option for digital output is now a storm audio ...

 

[peng]

My Buckeye Amps work extremely well for my AV10 7.4.6 setup.

That's the smart way to go! I still think people don't need the likes of Amp10/20 that will end up having those "power" sitting there doing nothing other than producing heat and stuff, but if money is no object and someone just must have a match (the look) set then that's good for them. Though Marantz could have do what Anthem did, that is, keep the great number of channels but use less powerful/lower cost power amp modules for the surround/height/width channels, for less potential wastage/smaller environmental foot print.

 

[alvigg]

I'm getting older and loosing 200+ pounds of amp going to the buckeyes means I can deal with if something happens much easier.

 

[Vacceo]

@Ssss @Vacceo I use active speakers like KH120ii and in my living room some custom ones with Hypex power amp module. Also in the studio I use the Hypex active module.
Active speakers with DSP and digital input are getting more and more common. A home cinema setup with these Neumann speakers would probably have the best price/performance ratio you can have and even their measurement system MA1 is really good and on par with Dirac.

The most elegant way to integrate digital output is to switch the analog outputs to digital as it is often done in speaker controllers. You just choose digital out in your menu and e.g. your left channel output now carries digital left and right channel - XLR or/and Cinch. This can't be very expensive to do and will open a complete new, professional level for these preamps. Cause the cheapest option for digital output is now a storm audio ...

I´m not arguing against your logic. In fact, a marketing-savvy manufacturer could dump the DPS (and hdam in the case of Marantz) to the amp and keep the receiver purely digital. In that sense, you also have a great excuse to sell a turntable with a digital output on the side of an amp you can market as groundbreaking. If you want to use passives, go for the amp. If you don´t, use actives. Or both.

 

[stereosean]

Yes

It's not Audyssey, it's Marantz who decided to downsample to 48 kHz, obciously for their valid reasons.

Did you do your listening tests that followed some double blind test protocol?

For this amount of money 48 kHz is poor. For movies it is ok as most content is at 48 kHz. I am really looking for something that can do music as well as non av products.

I did not do a double blind test. At least for the John Lennon's Mind Games remix the 192 kHz to my ears is far superior than the 48k.

Is DIRAC also at 48 kHz? If I use the equalizer is that also downsampled?

It does sound much better than a Denon X3600 is pre-amp mode. For stereo 48 kHz is fine for media produced at that rate. By why downsample if the original mastering was done at 192kHZ.

Thanks for all the responses.

 

[masterhw]

By why downsample if the original mastering was done at 192kHZ.

performing DSP for numerous channels and at high sample rates can become very computationally demanding. I would not consider it a good tradeoff for example if they reduced the filter resolution in order to support higher sample rates on the same hardware.

obviously you can just equip a higher end DSP chip, but this has real costs for something that shouldn’t be audible anyway. I can imagine it difficult to justify raising the bill of materials for this.

 

[stereosean]

Two channels at 192 would be acceptable. I believe Yamaha can do 96.

Now time to a/b the pre-amp of AV10 to the Technics G700m2.

 

[peng]

For this amount of money 48 kHz is poor.

"Poor", that is just your opinion and I respect that, but it is not grounded on science/facts. I prefer 96 kHz too (also just my opinion/preference), but that does not mean 48 kHz is poor.

For movies it is ok as most content is at 48 kHz. I am really looking for something that can do music as well as non av products.

I did not do a double blind test. At least for the John Lennon's Mind Games remix the 192 kHz to my ears is far superior than the 48k.

Is DIRAC also at 48 kHz? If I use the equalizer is that also downsampled?

To be clear, as I mentioned before, it is not really something imposed by Audyssey, or Dirac Live, it is the device itself, that is, the AVR, or AVP. The limiting factor is usually the DSP IC they used in the device, at least that's on the hardware side. Dirac Live, or Audyssey could do 96 kHz sampling rate if the hardware manufacturer choose to.

It does sound much better than a Denon X3600 is pre-amp mode. For stereo 48 kHz is fine for media produced at that rate. By why downsample if the original mastering was done at 192kHZ.

Just for the last time, based on the Nyguist criteria, at 48 kHz sampling, you will not lose information in the audible range of 20-20,000 Hz. 48 kHz sampling will capture up to 24,000 Hz, that's 4,000 Hz above normal human's 20,000 Hz limit. Again, we are talking about playback, for recording, 88.2 and 96 kHz or higher are of course better.

So, for playback missing audio info is not the issue, but sampling at only 48 kHz might, just might (as it depends on other factors) result in distortions that might (again just might) be audible to some people under some conditions.

48,000 Hz - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[peng]

Two channels at 192 would be acceptable. I believe Yamaha can do 96.

Agreed, and I do use Dirac Live Bass Control at 96 and 192 kHz for stereo listening occasionally. I am not sure about Yamaha, they may in fact do 96 with YPAO in use, but presumably YPAO R.S.Cs are not as demanding on the DSP ICs vs Audyssey XT32 and Dirac Live, not really sure but that might be the case.

 

[stereosean]

I think the starting point for any content should be the bit rate and frequency response it was produced in.

Does anyone know if using the Marantz EQ will down samples content?

I have 25 days left to decide if this is worth it. Would like it to work for movies as well as 2 channel.

 

[peng]

I think the starting point for any content should be the bit rate and frequency response it was produced in.

I would prefer that too, but as we both know, it is not always possible as it depends on so many things.

Does anyone know if using the Marantz EQ will down samples content?

I have 25 days left to decide if this is worth it. Would like it to work for movies as well as 2 channel.

If you mean using just the so called Graphic EQ, the use of it would disable Audyssey, so I am quite sure it won't down sample contents, assuming you are using the likes of the Cinema 50 through 30. I would suggest you read up on sampling rate on sound quality (and, obviously, the effect of bias, in sighted comparison listening vs blind) but stick to credible sources only, that might just make you feel more comfortable with the whole thing and not let down sampling (to 48 kHz) bother you as much. Have been, done that, it used to bother me but not any more.

By the way, when you did your comparison and heard the better quality from 96, 192 kHz, were you using contents recorded and mastered at those sampling rate, so that down sampling to 48 was the only "different". This is important, as I, and other might have mentioned before too, higher sample rate could, and to me they tend to "sound better", but only because there seem, or tend to be more contents that are made from mastering that have excellent recording quality in the digital files (such as HDtracks), or CD, BR, SACD formats, or even screaming services such as Amazon, Qobuz. So in my experience, those sound better not because of the 96 or 192 sampling rate, but because of the recording quality of the media contents. I have a digital files purchase from various places, including some up to DXD 352.8 kHz, and DSD 256, DSD 512, not all of them sound better than some of my 16/44.1 kHz CDs, again, in many cased, its more about the recording/mastering quality.

 

[stereosean]

I would prefer that too, but as we both know, it is not always possible as it depends on so many things.

If you mean using just the so called Graphic EQ, the use of it would disable Audyssey, so I am quite sure it won't down sample contents, assuming you are using the likes of the Cinema 50 through 30. I would suggest you read up on sampling rate on sound quality (and, obviously, the effect of bias, in sighted comparison listening vs blind) but stick to credible sources only, that might just make you feel more comfortable with the whole thing and not let down sampling (to 48 kHz) bother you as much. Have been, done that, it used to bother me but not any more.

By the way, when you did your comparison and heard the better quality from 96, 192 kHz, were you using contents recorded and mastered at those sampling rate, so that down sampling to 48 was the only "different". This is important, as I, and other might have mentioned before too, higher sample rate could, and to me they tend to "sound better", but only because there seem, or tend to be more contents that are made from mastering that have excellent recording quality in the digital files (such as HDtracks), or CD, BR, SACD formats, or even screaming services such as Amazon, Qobuz. So in my experience, those sound better not because of the 96 or 192 sampling rate, but because of the recording quality of the media contents. I have a digital files purchase from various places, including some up to DXD 352.8 kHz, and DSD 256, DSD 512, not all of them sound better than some of my 16/44.1 kHz CDs, again, in many cased, its more about the recording/mastering quality.

Yes using the graphic eq. At least on the Denon X3600 using the graphic eq sounded better to me. Audyssey seemed to shrink the soundstage and took away the air. The observation were made with 48kHz content.

The main recording that I noticed a difference was the remix of John Lennon mind games on Apple Music. It is presented at 192khz. Comparing it to the downsampled version by switching the sampling rate from 44, 48, 96 to192 I notice a significant difference. As it is presented on Apple Music at a 192 sampling rate I am guessing but do not know as a fact that it was remixed at that rate.

I can not say or claim that all or most material will sound better at a higher sampling rate. However in my experience a small minority do.

 

[stereosean]

I would prefer that too, but as we both know, it is not always possible as it depends on so many things.

If you mean using just the so called Graphic EQ, the use of it would disable Audyssey, so I am quite sure it won't down sample contents, assuming you are using the likes of the Cinema 50 through 30. I would suggest you read up on sampling rate on sound quality (and, obviously, the effect of bias, in sighted comparison listening vs blind) but stick to credible sources only, that might just make you feel more comfortable with the whole thing and not let down sampling (to 48 kHz) bother you as much. Have been, done that, it used to bother me but not any more.

By the way, when you did your comparison and heard the better quality from 96, 192 kHz, were you using contents recorded and mastered at those sampling rate, so that down sampling to 48 was the only "different". This is important, as I, and other might have mentioned before too, higher sample rate could, and to me they tend to "sound better", but only because there seem, or tend to be more contents that are made from mastering that have excellent recording quality in the digital files (such as HDtracks), or CD, BR, SACD formats, or even screaming services such as Amazon, Qobuz. So in my experience, those sound better not because of the 96 or 192 sampling rate, but because of the recording quality of the media contents. I have a digital files purchase from various places, including some up to DXD 352.8 kHz, and DSD 256, DSD 512, not all of them sound better than some of my 16/44.1 kHz CDs, again, in many cased, its more about the recording/mastering quality.

Yes using the graphic eq. At least on the Denon X3600 using the graphic eq sounded better to me. Audyssey seemed to shrink the soundstage and took away the air. The observation were made with 48kHz content.

The main recording that I noticed a difference was the remix of John Lennon mind games on Apple Music. It is presented at 192khz. Comparing it to the downsampled version by switching the sampling rate from 44, 48, to192 I notice a significant difference. As it is presented on Apple Music at a 192 sampling rate I am guessing but do not know as a fact that it was remixed at that rate.

I can not say or claim that all or most material will sound better at a higher sampling rate. However in my experience a small minority do.

As per the the AV10 it is expensive though is Audyssey sampling rate processing is at a level no different than the Denon X3600 X3800 or the other units in the Marantz cinema series.

Thank god the AV10sound much better than the Denon X3600 I was using in pre-pro with the amps manually disabled. The SINADS of the X3600 is comparable to the AV10 but not the sound.

 

[Oddball]

So why would then AV-10 sound better?

 

[stereosean]

So why would then AV-10 sound better?

Good question I do not know. Look at the graphs on audio science review for both AV10 and X3600. They are not that different. Audibly the AV10 is much clearer than the Denon X3600 with more dynamic bass and pin point localization.

I would guess parts such as cheaper OPAmps and power supplies are holding the x3600 back audibley. The x3600 DAC is very good.

 

[Oddball]

Good question I do not know. Look at the graphs on audio science review for both AV10 and X3600. They are not that different. Audibly the AV10 is much clearer than the Denon X3600 with more dynamic bass and pin point localization.

I would guess parts such as cheaper OPAmps and power supplies are holding the x3600 back audibley. The x3600 DAC is very good.

Not really sure if that really counts. OP amps are pretty irrelevant as noted in recent threads and power supply for the pre-amp has really low requirements. There is a bit more of dynamic range for AV-10, but then that is a blessing and a curse.

My best guess is that Audy calibration went terribly wrong with 3800H and really well with AV-10. Most of my calibration files with AV-10 are marked as "toxic" and 1 in 10 is what I like to hear. This includes points like bass dynamics and so called pin-point localisation.

 

[Goodfellas27]

SIANDs demonstrate that the engineering team showed care in designing the unit. It doesn't tell you the whole story on sound tonal characteristics. Also, that part is really subjective. It comes down to taste.