Marantz AV10 AV Processor Review

[Oddball]

I think there were quite a few comparisons of the Trinnov and Storm albeit probably none that would meet scientific standards... I never really read any extensively though since frankly, what's the point? I can't afford either product anyways... still, I agree it could be very interesting.

There are also a few videos around, this one is mostly just a German product placement video... but could still an entertaining watch

Of course it would be even more interesting - and more relevant to this thread - if we had a comparison between the AV10 and the Trinnov/Storm.

Oh well, AV10 is a great piece of gear, but then there are the bigger animals in the jungle. Probably most relevant if you ran out of channels on AV10. Otherwise, it is almost a fair fight for the most part. Storm and Trinnov will be more flexible, but then if you don't need that then AV10/20/30 are the cheaper answers. AV series is more reliable and easier to use than the more expensive ones, so something to consider as well.

 

[Dj7675]

Oh well, AV10 is a great piece of gear, but then there are the bigger animals in the jungle. Probably most relevant if you ran out of channels on AV10. Otherwise, it is almost a fair fight for the most part. Storm and Trinnov will be more flexible, but then if you don't need that then AV10/20/30 are the cheaper answers. AV series is more reliable and easier to use than the more expensive ones, so something to consider as well.

And many often overlook how quickly and reliably Denon/Marant lock into audio without delay or issues. That is not the case with Trinnov and to a lesser extent Storm. Seems to take 3-5 seconds to lock into audio with Trinnov. When I had the storm, it was around 2 seconds. Doesn’t seem like a big deal but if there is audio format changes etc it can be bit bothersome.

 

[ban25]

Oh well, AV10 is a great piece of gear, but then there are the bigger animals in the jungle. Probably most relevant if you ran out of channels on AV10. Otherwise, it is almost a fair fight for the most part. Storm and Trinnov will be more flexible, but then if you don't need that then AV10/20/20 are the cheaper answers. AV series is more reliable and easier to use than the more expensive ones, so something to consider as well.

Given that the Trinnov is an older x86 PC, one of the considerations is boot up time, reported to be around 50-60 seconds by most users. Not a dealbreaker in a dedicated home theater, but definitely not ideal in a mixed use space where people are coming and going, you just want to turn the news on, etc.

 

[fzst]

Given that the Trinnov is an older x86 PC, one of the considerations is boot up time, reported to be around 50-60 seconds by most users. Not a dealbreaker in a dedicated home theater, but definitely not ideal in a mixed use space where people are coming and going, you just want to turn the news on, etc.

Indeed, D&M products are just the most reliable and convenient in day day operation by far. That's why even if cost were no object for me, I'd probably still prefer an AV10 over a Trinnov or a Storm - at least for a room that sees mixed usage.

 

[kawauso]

I only own Denon gear, but if I had known how good ART truly was, I probably would have bought a Storm two years ago and enjoyed it since then. The A1H originally launched with only Room Collection available, so I’m glad to see how much it has evolved.

 

[Oddball]

Right - I don't want to bash Sorm and Trinnov as they are objectively better that AV10, but objectively is a broad term. As noted, AV 10 will be rock stable for everyday use and will lock to pretty much anything in 1-2 secs. Will do anything else you ask of it within its specs without any issues.

There are more channels on Storm and Trinnov rigs and they will be more adjustable. Trinnov will be a bit disadvantaged without ART, but then it is for custom install where one can implement their wave forming.

 

[Sal1950]

Right - I don't want to bash Sorm and Trinnov as they are objectively better that AV10,

Objectively in what manner? Ya they have more channels and can be somewhat more configurable for large or esoteric installs.
OTOH as already mentioned the Trinnov has some negative aspects like bootup time and also I've read many complaints on it's cooling fan noise.
Then the AV10 beats both the Trinnov or Storm by 7db Sinad. Audible, debateable, but they are supposed to be absolute TOTL products and cost as much.

 

[Oddball]

Objectively in what manner? Ya they have more channels and can be somewhat more configurable for large or esoteric installs.
OTOH as already mentioned the Trinnov has some negative aspects like bootup time and also I've read many complaints on it's cooling fan noise.
Then the AV10 beats both the Trinnov or Storm by 7db Sinad. Audible, debateable, but they are supposed to be absolute TOTL products and cost as much.

Trinnov has the mighty mic and Storm has more channels and PEQ and tone control ability. Not advocating for either or them though.

 

[kawauso]

To use Trinnov WaveForming, at least four subwoofers are required.
If the subwoofers are not properly installed, the effectiveness will be reduced.
Also, the subwoofers need to have similar performance characteristics; otherwise, the results will be inconsistent.

Without WaveForming, Trinnov’s low-frequency performance is not as strong as Dirac ART.
Compared to D&M’s implementation in StormAudio, the main advantage is in the number of output channels — you can assign a subwoofer channel to every available output.

Since the AV10 already supports 9.4.6, having even more channels becomes somewhat niche.
However, StormAudio offers more flexible speaker routing.
For example, in Auro-3D upmixing, you can still use Front Wide speakers, which are normally exclusive to Dolby layouts.

 

[dlaloum]

For example, in Auro-3D upmixing, you can still use Front Wide speakers, which are normally exclusive to Dolby layouts.

From vague memory, I thought DTS were the first to include front wide processing / mixing?
I think my Integra DTR70.4 had front wide but only with DTS... (DTS Neo:X ? - upmixed for stereo... I think...) not that I ever used it!

I've long considered front wides a better option for the base layer than rear surround... (but my room never lent itself to either option!) - however the availability of upmixers that do front wides has long been a feature gap!

 

[kawauso]

From vague memory, I thought DTS were the first to include front wide processing / mixing?
I think my Integra DTR70.4 had front wide but only with DTS... (DTS Neo:X ? - upmixed for stereo... I think...) not that I ever used it!

I've long considered front wides a better option for the base layer than rear surround... (but my room never lent itself to either option!) - however the availability of upmixers that do front wides has long been a feature gap!

You might be right — I had forgotten about the DTS upmixers since I don’t use them anymore.
I used to run DTS Neo:X with the center channel disabled and front wides enabled back in the day.

With Dolby Surround, I found that using the top speakers made me satisfied even without front wides.
In my KEF room, I’m running a 5.4.6 layout, which perfectly fits the room size, so I don’t plan to expand it further.

For my JBL setup, however, I’d like to upgrade from 7.4.6 (with surround backs) to 9.4.6 in the future.
I can’t physically fit it in my current rental house, but I’m planning to build a dedicated room at my family home eventually.

Also, if the front wides have very different directivity or tonal characteristics compared to the mains,
it’s honestly better not to use them at all.
The same applies to surround and surround back channels — they’re even more sensitive to matching.

For example, Surround 4425 + Surround Back HDI-1600 sounded poor,
and even Surround 4338 + Surround Back 4425 wasn’t great.
But using 4425 for both surround and surround back gave me perfect coherence.

 

[dlaloum]

You might be right — I had forgotten about the DTS upmixers since I don’t use them anymore.
I used to run DTS Neo:X with the center channel disabled and front wides enabled back in the day.

With Dolby Surround, I found that using the top speakers made me satisfied even without front wides.
In my KEF room, I’m running a 5.4.6 layout, which perfectly fits the room size, so I don’t plan to expand it further.

For my JBL setup, however, I’d like to upgrade from 7.4.6 (with surround backs) to 9.4.6 in the future.
I can’t physically fit it in my current rental house, but I’m planning to build a dedicated room at my family home eventually.

Also, if the front wides have very different directivity or tonal characteristics compared to the mains,
it’s honestly better not to use them at all.
The same applies to surround and surround back channels — they’re even more sensitive to matching.

For example, Surround 4425 + Surround Back HDI-1600 sounded poor,
and even Surround 4338 + Surround Back 4425 wasn’t great.
But using 4425 for both surround and surround back gave me perfect coherence.

I was suprised at how close the F/R (tonal spectrum / timbre) of my B&O Penta's - surround, were compared to my Gallo Ref3.2 fronts... (perhaps merely a sign of decent "neutrality"?)

My Gallo Nucleus Micro height speakers are timbrally further from my Gallo Ref 3.2 fronts.... which was unexpected (especially as Gallo claim them as a "timbre match")

But yes I agree... if I end up with a space where I can deploy FW's I would need to be careful about matching with the mains.

 

[Sal1950]

But using 4425 for both surround and surround back gave me perfect coherence.

We all have to make compromises depending on room, budget, family and other restrictive demands.
That said I've always maintained that keeping identical speakers for all floorlevel playback is the optimum way.

 

[dlaloum]

We all have to make compromises depending on room, budget, family and other restrictive demands.
That said I've always maintained that keeping identical speakers for all floorlevel

Valiant efforts to find more examples of my somewhat uncommon (in Australia) Gallo Ref3.2 speakers failed over a 4yr+ period...
I resorted to non matching surrounds... however, both the surrounds and mains are inherently neutral, and their in-room frequency response shows marked similarities... (which is interesting... albeit not surprising) - and combined with a matched "target curve" timbral matching has not been an issue... a pretty decent compromise.

Gallo Nucleus Ref 3.2 Main L & R
Gallo Nucleus Ref AV Center
B&O BeoVox Penta Surround L & R

Very happy with the end result.

If I was US or UK based, I would have set up a complete matched set of Gallo's.... but such is life in the antipodes.

 

[Sal1950]

If I was US or UK based, I would have set up a complete matched set of Gallo's.... but such is life in the antipodes.

We all do what we have to do, life's a bitoch and then we die. LOL
Can't you trade boomerang for a Gallo ?

 

[dlaloum]

We all do what we have to do, life's a bitoch and then we die. LOL
Can't you trade boomerang for a Gallo ?

I know someone who moved to France to study there, and survived by making boomerangs, flying them in Paris parks and selling them to kids...

 

[kawauso]

The boomerang joke was a bit cold, but we all understand that having identical speakers is the ideal scenario.
In my KEF system, I unified five channels with Reference 1 Meta and used twelve LS50 Meta units for the height layer, and that setup is excellent.

In my JBL system, on the other hand, I intentionally enjoy a “mixed JBL pot”:
Front L/R are K2 S9900, the center is 4367, surrounds and surround backs are 4425, and ten height channels are HDI-1600.
I’m also planning to add M2 as my future Front Wides.

And interestingly, I’m enjoying the sound far more than when I had everything unified with HDI-1600.

 

[Everett T]

The boomerang joke was a bit cold, but we all understand that having identical speakers is the ideal scenario.
In my KEF system, I unified five channels with Reference 1 Meta and used twelve LS50 Meta units for the height layer, and that setup is excellent.

In my JBL system, on the other hand, I intentionally enjoy a “mixed JBL pot”:
Front L/R are K2 S9900, the center is 4367, surrounds and surround backs are 4425, and ten height channels are HDI-1600.
I’m also planning to add M2 as my future Front Wides.

And interestingly, I’m enjoying the sound far more than when I had everything unified with HDI-1600.

That's some serious height channels you have.!

 

[kawauso]

That's some serious height channels you have.!

I sometimes listen at fairly high volumes, so I was a bit worried whether the height channels could keep up.
However, even at a total level of around 115 dB, I didn’t hear any noise or signs of distress from the height speakers.
It seems there’s no need to upgrade them for now.

 

[Everett T]

I sometimes listen at fairly high volumes, so I was a bit worried whether the height channels could keep up.
However, even at a total level of around 115 dB, I didn’t hear any noise or signs of distress from the height speakers.
It seems there’s no need to upgrade them for now.
View attachment 491772
View attachment 491773

With that many speakers I would think your spl needs would be covered, enjoy!