Marantz AV10 AV Processor Review

[kawauso]

OMG, that is so true. When you've been as deeply involved in this hobby for as long as I have you have you've seen this happen over and over. MQA been one of the most recent and glaring examples. I won't say that it had no redeeming value but I think it was the overly promoted market as a world shaker that eventually killed with most audiophiles.


Please Oddball, complicated subjects deserve more than single sentence posts and it's only fair to read the response.
That wasn't bad, I know a guy here that finds in necessary to write full pages on just about everything.


OK, that's your opinion, on your system. But if I come to a different conclusion here ???
When we speak of marketing in this day, at least in Hi-Fi, it goes way beyond manufacturer ads to behind the scene deals with publications, websites, it's writers, even shills, and much more; to "get the word out" without showing any direct involvement.
Then there is/was the whole "vinyl revival" deal. LOL
I'm not cheap and invest a lot (for me) on my system but a near $1k pricetag for a DRC app is a bit stiff and put-off for me.
I do remember here, feel free to search, when Audy MultiEQ-X was introduced at $200, and many folks went nuts over the high cost.


Sorry, folks get lazy and tire of typing the same product name over and over.


I'm not angry but dig yourself and the constant promotion of D-A as Gods gift to audiophiles.
I'm sure it's good, maybe great, but still maybe not everyone's cup of tea?
I've done a bit of room treatment here and in the big picture isn't that a better option?


I didn't know she was a she but I don't see where anything I've said here was harsh?
Sorry @kawauso if anything I said offended?

I agree that Dirac’s marketing sometimes exaggerates its impact.
However, unlike MQA — where blind tests often showed no audible difference — ART does create measurable and audible changes.
What I’m personally curious about is whether those changes are widely preferred.
If most listeners find them favorable, ART’s value is significant; if only a small group does, then its practical worth is limited.

While ART costs around $1,000, it integrates multiple subwoofers exceptionally well, and even a single sub can perform impressively with it.
In some cases, that efficiency can actually save more than the software’s cost — fewer subs, less clutter, and more living space.

And to be clear, I wasn’t offended by Sal’s post at all — no worries there.
That said, Newman’s response was quite hard to read and came across as unnecessarily discourteous.

 

[Newman]

Your post is so long that i did not, nor will ever read it.

You aren't kidding, are you. It is literally a 4 minute read. I checked.

Have a little think about how deeply personally attached to a product or object one needs to be, that the mere sight of a post that might not be in praise of the product, causes such strong feelings and aversion to arise that one cannot bear to tolerate a 4 minute read. Furthermore, one cannot restrain oneself from posting in the forum about the sheer corpulence of the 4 minute post, and to inform the poster that you are personally committing yourself to never ever read it.

What am I to assume, from that, about the depth of your emotional attachment to DA?

Sounds also like is smeared with the tone that I don't appreciate.

If by that you mean 'smeared' with accurate descriptions of the new product hype cycle, how it seems to be taking hold with DA just like so much in audio, and my statements about what a science-based confirmation of the merits of DA would look like, then perhaps what you don't appreciate is actually the ASR tone: scepticism about new product claims, scepticism about excited early adopter reports, and requests for validation with valid science-based listening tests. 'Smeared'.

I do advise you to do your own research and don't draw conclusions from otherwise well intended posts in this thread.

I already have done my own research. If you had 4 minutes of patience you would have noticed that in my post.

I am not sure how "well-intended" it is on a science-based forum to run around encouraging people to "try it and hear for yourself". What, with sighted listening? The "try it and hear for yourself" pitch is an extremely effective sales pitch used by cable salesmen. It works. Did you know that? If you did, then it is not so well intended to encourage it here. If you didn't, then I am helping you to understand the gaps.

cheers

 

[Newman]

If we want to keep the discussion at a higher level, I’d appreciate it if we could avoid blanket assumptions such as “people are being misled by marketing” or “this is overhyped.” Those statements come across as dismissive and discourteous.

Well then you misunderstood. It is standard practice for people, me included, to be misled by marketing and excited about new products and different technologies. I am not being dismissive and discourteous to you or others any more than I am to myself. I am simply stating the facts and suggesting caution, with reasons given.

I’ll share several sets of measurements and observations that I’ve personally conducted. Please evaluate whether the results could realistically be achieved with conventional multi-subwoofer and EQ setups.

You’ve acknowledged that ART shortens low-frequency decay times, correct? The change is objectively measurable. My question is simply: Can the same results be achieved through conventional multi-sub and EQ methods — yes or no?
If yes, please also indicate how difficult it would be to achieve the same results in practice, on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 = very easy and 5 = extremely difficult).

Whether that outcome is subjectively preferred or not is a completely different question. I also agree that conducting ABX blind tests would be valuable to explore how many listeners actually prefer the ART result compared to traditional EQ approaches.

KEF Room – Dirac BC vs ART
https://ameblo.jp/kawauso9991/entry-12943041526.html
mdat
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vsJfFTi2eHLE4mlAcyGhY6LPSiLvPpGJ/view?usp=drive_link
JBL Room (2.0) – Dirac RC vs ART & Multi-SW Integration
https://ameblo.jp/kawauso9991/entry-12941004017.html
mdat
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WjE0xYjzWfa7u9TLtpTkEcOrpaPDqIlu/view?usp=drive_link
a position far off from the main listening spot
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-runs-subs-of-any-kind-why.61714/post-2438069

OK I have looked through all that and I need you to help show me where and how it addresses the points raised in my post:-

• frequency-matched, level-matched listening tests,
• that are controlled for non-sonic variables,
• and demonstrates preference, not just differentiation,
• compared to well-implemented multi-subwoofer EQ-optimised setups.

Because all I am seeing is more of the same unsatisfactory data: measurements to show that it did something measurable, no controls, no optimised non-DA for comparison, and sighted listening reports masquerading as confirmation.

cheers

 

[Newman]

You’ve acknowledged that ART shortens low-frequency decay times, correct? The change is objectively measurable. My question is simply: Can the same results be achieved through conventional multi-sub and EQ methods — yes or no?

I have already answered that in my post to which you were replying.

If yes, please also indicate how difficult it would be to achieve the same results in practice, on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 = very easy and 5 = extremely difficult).

2. Toole and Welti have separately and together addressed it. Like I said, DA has merit as a time-saver. I continue to seek, but have not yet found, evidence that it has unique merit in terms of sonic preference.

cheers

 

[KenMasters]

If I recall, there was only one member that opted out of ART as it was to dry aka bass power was gone. That is a fair point, but one can actually control the amount of decay, so this is a useful tool that provides additional options not available before. You can go wet and dry based on your own scale.

I didn’t opt out because the bass was too dry, I opted out because it didn’t work well with my system.

If I were to guess, based on the increased distortion, ART was unfavorably mixing and matching the bass produced by my LS50s with that of my far more capable subs (which ordinarily have a XO of 150Hz).

This addressed a null, making for a prettier FR, but degraded bass quality. No amount of adjustment to weightings or ranges could address this issue.

 

[kawauso]

I have already answered that in my post to which you were replying.

2. Toole and Welti have separately and together addressed it. Like I said, DA has merit as a time-saver. I continue to seek, but have not yet found, evidence that it has unique merit in terms of sonic preference.

cheers

Thanks for addressing all five points — much appreciated.
Your answers clarified that:

• The result can be achieved with multi-subs + EQ
• The difficulty is “2” on your scale
• Toole/Welti provide the theoretical basis you referenced
• ART’s main merit lies in time-saving
• You’ve reviewed the linked materials

I’ll wrap it up here and let readers interpret the data and perspectives as they see fit.

 

[kawauso]

I didn’t opt out because the bass was too dry, I opted out because it didn’t work well with my system.

If I were to guess, based on the increased distortion, ART was unfavorably mixing and matching the bass produced by my LS50s with that of my far more capable subs (which ordinarily have a XO of 150Hz).

This addressed a null, making for a prettier FR, but degraded bass quality. No amount of adjustment to weightings or ranges could address this issue.

Thanks for sharing your honest impressions.
Regardless of personal preference, it’s quite clear that ART and non-ART have distinctly different sonic characters.
From my perspective, it seems that Ken didn’t simply react to the increased distortion on the LS50 Meta, but rather didn’t enjoy the overall tonal character that ART produced.
Even at lower listening levels where distortion shouldn’t be a factor, I suspect his impression would likely remain the same.

My intuition — just a general sense, not a firm conclusion — is that roughly 70% of listeners tend to prefer ART, while about 30% lean toward BC.
Of course, the effect of ART can vary a lot depending on the room and system configuration, so it’s entirely possible that the same person might prefer BC in one setup and ART in another.

 

[dlaloum]

Thanks for addressing all five points — much appreciated.
Your answers clarified that:

• The result can be achieved with multi-subs + EQ
• The difficulty is “2” on your scale
• Toole/Welti provide the theoretical basis you referenced
• ART’s main merit lies in time-saving
• You’ve reviewed the linked materials

I’ll wrap it up here and let readers interpret the data and perspectives as they see fit.

A "dry" response to a "wet" posting...

 

[dlaloum]

Thanks for sharing your honest impressions.
Regardless of personal preference, it’s quite clear that ART and non-ART have distinctly different sonic characters.
From my perspective, it seems that Ken didn’t simply react to the increased distortion on the LS50 Meta, but rather didn’t enjoy the overall tonal character that ART produced.
Even at lower listening levels where distortion shouldn’t be a factor, I suspect his impression would likely remain the same.

My intuition — just a general sense, not a firm conclusion — is that roughly 70% of listeners tend to prefer ART, while about 30% lean toward BC.
Of course, the effect of ART can vary a lot depending on the room and system configuration, so it’s entirely possible that the same person might prefer BC in one setup and ART in another.

I expect we will start to see some recommended (suggested) settings for "wet" configurations as well as "dry" ones...

 

[KenMasters]

Thanks for sharing your honest impressions.
Regardless of personal preference, it’s quite clear that ART and non-ART have distinctly different sonic characters.
From my perspective, it seems that Ken didn’t simply react to the increased distortion on the LS50 Meta, but rather didn’t enjoy the overall tonal character that ART produced.
Even at lower listening levels where distortion shouldn’t be a factor, I suspect his impression would likely remain the same.

I agree, I don't think the distortion is an issue per se, but I think the added distortion points to the contribution of lesser drivers at frequencies and proportions they wouldn't operate at with a conventional crossover.

For those that missed my original posting, this is a comparative recording of the two in my room. Listen for the bass drop and subsequent beat with headphones or IEMs:

BC.wav

drive.google.com

ART.wav

drive.google.com

 

[TimoJ]

I agree, I don't think the distortion is an issue per se, but I think the added distortion points to the contribution of lesser drivers at frequencies and proportions they wouldn't operate at with a conventional crossover.

For those that missed my original posting, this is a comparative recording of the two in my room. Listen for the bass drop and subsequent beat with headphones or IEMs:

BC.wav

drive.google.com

ART.wav

drive.google.com

It still think something is incorrectly detected or adjusted. It sounds like small speakers are playing way too much 50-60Hz bass vs. subwoofers. Or channel levels are overloading somewhere. But we have gone thru this already.

 

[KenMasters]

It still think something is incorrectly detected or adjusted. It sounds like small speakers are playing way too much 50-60Hz bass vs. subwoofers. Or channel levels are overloading somewhere. But we have gone thru this already.

Quite possibly, given the trouble I had to start. I might pick it up again if there’s a Black Friday special and give it another go (and hopefully an update to go along with it).

 

[Oddball]

I expect we will start to see some recommended (suggested) settings for "wet" configurations as well as "dry" ones...

I think I did post in this or other ART threads that if you adjust your sub gain higher, you will get into the swamp territory. How much higher is a personal preference. At +10dB it does not sound like ART at least in my system. But it could be useful for some use.

One of my favourite scenes is Wonder Women 1984 opening scene (unfortunately not the whole movie) up to some 7 min. I don't use BEQ but have always beefed up the bass for that scene with Audy as I really loved it, but the low end was neutered in the recording (or at least my Apple TV digital copy) so to bring up the amazing low level effects quite a bit of boost was required. Perhaps the director did not meant to have it that way, but then I own my copy so I guess can do with it as I please.

 

[Oddball]

Well then you misunderstood. It is standard practice for people, me included, to be misled by marketing and excited about new products and different technologies. I am not being dismissive and discourteous to you or others any more than I am to myself. I am simply stating the facts and suggesting caution, with reasons given.


OK I have looked through all that and I need you to help show me where and how it addresses the points raised in my post:-

• frequency-matched, level-matched listening tests,
• that are controlled for non-sonic variables,
• and demonstrates preference, not just differentiation,
• compared to well-implemented multi-subwoofer EQ-optimised setups.

Because all I am seeing is more of the same unsatisfactory data: measurements to show that it did something measurable, no controls, no optimised non-DA for comparison, and sighted listening reports masquerading as confirmation.

cheers

I think I have responded in this tread with analogy to Trinnov. If you want to do your own garage experiment, we will be listening with interest, but taking your work with scepticism as it would represent a tiny little sample in the world of different rooms and systems. And the competence of the proprietor will always be in question.

We do run apparently run a masquerade here, so you are more then welcome to plug out, in fact that would be really swell. All your points have been taken and not sure if there is a point to make points over and over again. I am not audio scientists but a busy professional already spending way too much time on this hoby. I don't cater to requests, in fact don't like when someone tells me what should I do.

Don't fall for ART masquerade, do your thing and I wish you all the best in your audio and other endeavours.

 

[Sal1950]

I wonder if we could continue all this ART discussion at least on the Dirac ART on Marantz AV10 thread.
It's not STD AV10 software, Audyssey is, and having this thread completely loaded with what sounds like one huge ad campaigner
for ART is distracting from the discussion of anything else here.

 

[Newman]

A "dry" response to a "wet" posting...

Now that's a disrespectful and discourteous comment. And yet, the people evidently most sensitive to potential disrespect or discourtesy, gave it a like. ...

If you want to see a seriously 'wet' posting, try this one. After all, you gave it a like.

I would like to be able to have a sensible conversation without this continuous shoot-the-messenger niggling.

 

[Newman]

I think I have responded in this tread with analogy to Trinnov. If you want to do your own garage experiment, we will be listening with interest, but taking your work with scepticism as it would represent a tiny little sample in the world of different rooms and systems. And the competence of the proprietor will always be in question.

I agree. It takes a degree of competence to conduct a controlled trial listening test, and I lack experience. Am I to assume that such competence has been on display in the DA conversation so far? You know, the DA reports that you find persuasive?

Because you seem to be saying, even if I did conduct a trial and it was better controlled than all the sighted listening reports that you freely make reference to, you will immediately dismiss it because I did it. I mean, you are accepting all these sighted listening reports on DA as valid. You are citing them constantly. Do you accept, or deny, the issue with sighted listening reports? I am curious.

We do run apparently run a masquerade here, so you are more then welcome to plug out, in fact that would be really swell. All your points have been taken and not sure if there is a point to make points over and over again. I am not audio scientists but a busy professional already spending way too much time on this hoby. I don't cater to requests, in fact don't like when someone tells me what should I do.

Don't fall for ART masquerade, do your thing and I wish you all the best in your audio and other endeavours.

You are twisting my words, no doubt deliberately.

Sighted listening reports always masquerade as evidence. They never are evidence of anything in the sound waves themselves.

I just cannot endorse their being tabled as evidence on ASR, where we are trying to be science-based.

 

[Newman]

Thanks for addressing all five points — much appreciated.
Your answers clarified that:

• The result can be achieved with multi-subs + EQ
• The difficulty is “2” on your scale
• Toole/Welti provide the theoretical basis you referenced
• ART’s main merit lies in time-saving
• You’ve reviewed the linked materials

I’ll wrap it up here and let readers interpret the data and perspectives as they see fit.

Yes but before wrapping up, I have asked for some assistance in post #1523 in understanding the data that you put to me. If your data doesn't address any of my points, then please confirm as much.

[to KenMasters] Thanks for sharing your honest impressions.
Regardless of personal preference, it’s quite clear that ART and non-ART have distinctly different sonic characters.

Is the frequency response and level the same, or different? Because if it is different (and would pass a blind test), that will almost certainly dominate the perception of change. In which case it is not a DA effect, it is an EQ effect and does not require DA.

From my perspective, it seems that Ken didn’t simply react to the increased distortion on the LS50 Meta, but rather didn’t enjoy the overall tonal character that ART produced.

Which could be EQ, or concerningly, distortion if it reaches audibility.

Even at lower listening levels where distortion shouldn’t be a factor, I suspect his impression would likely remain the same.

My intuition — just a general sense, not a firm conclusion — is that roughly 70% of listeners tend to prefer ART, while about 30% lean toward BC.
Of course, the effect of ART can vary a lot depending on the room and system configuration, so it’s entirely possible that the same person might prefer BC in one setup and ART in another.

The placebo effect is often 30%-40%, so one could sensibly deduct that from the pro-DA percentage.

cheers

 

[Hayabusa]

Sighted listening reports always masquerade as evidence. They never are evidence of anything in the sound waves themselves.

Not always..

 

[Newman]

When have people posted sighted listening reports on a product and not implied that it was evidence?