Marantz AV10 AV Processor Review

[seashell]

Excellent electrical design does not automatically extend to excellent mechanical design. Different disciplines no doubt done by different individuals / teams. It's quite possible to have one be good and the other poor.

I really hope it's not poor mechanical design, but I'm not convinced. Fortunately it at least has a five year warranty, although warranty repairs are a hassle given shipping and wait times.

 

[Oddball]

This AVP is designed perfectly in every aspect. I have recently put it to test that would really challenge its mechanical construction. 130dB bass peaks, repeated for various reasons over and over again. Nothing to report on that front.

Again, you got the bad unit - otherwise when you get a good AV10 unit, is virtually flawless.

 

[seashell]

Hopefully the second one is a good one then. So far it's fine and I look forward to actually getting to really use it. Curious to see what I think of Dirac Art for example, and I gather from skimming the threads there's some setup convenience tricks for switching modes or configurations.

 

[Everett T]

It might be quality control, and I really hope that's the case, but I think it's more likely poor design. It shouldn't be prone to squeaking or ringing even if not perfectly assembled or handled. Given RobMedina didn't notice his squeaking during unboxing and installation it's quite possible it has broken due to vibration in use as he stated, and my first one broke during transit somewhere between Japan and me.

These should be built like tanks like AVRs have been for years, but it's probably some penny saving part creating a failure point. Disappointing, but not surprising. Quality is hard to find these days even at premium prices.

It's definitely QC, nothing should leave the line like this. Unfortunately with all the changes, stuff like this gets missed.

 

[Sal1950]

These should be built like tanks like AVRs have been for years,

They are, the AV10's weigh 37 lbs, my AV20 is only just under 4 lbs less at 34.1 lbs ???
A very strange occurrence that one should squeak? The first place I would investigate a squeak is in the rubber feet that are a part of the noise suspension package. OTOH a real head scratcher why this should be so. ???

 

[RenPa]

Av30 hasn't been tested by ASR If I am righht. But one can think it will perform as well as the AV10 tested?

 

[masterhw]

Av30 hasn't been tested by ASR If I am righht. But one can think it will perform as well as the AV10 tested?

I haven’t seen any lab measurements of the AV 30, nor the Cinema 30 or X6800H which use the same DAC chip. I would expect 100-105 SINAD range. Maybe closer to 105. I don’t think you’d ever tell the difference between it and the AV 10, get the one with the features and channel count that fits your setup best.

 

[peng]

Av30 hasn't been tested by ASR If I am righht. But one can think it will perform as well as the AV10 tested?

I would say close enough, like the 6800, C30, the AV30 can be expected to do 103 to 106, likely 104-105.

 

[bigguyca]

Av30 hasn't been tested by ASR If I am righht. But one can think it will perform as well as the AV10 tested?

Estimated AV30 Performance

The HDAM design used is the differencing factor between the AV10, AV8805 and AV770X. The AV8805 and AV770X both use the significantly inferior of the two types of SA2's with resistor based current sources in the HDAM's. See the mediocre results on ASR for those two units. The AV8805 and AV770X also use thick film surface mount resistors which have worse noise and distortion compared to the thin film resistors used in the AV20 and thin film and MELF resistors used in the AV10. The 12V DC power supply is also inferior in the AV8805.

The AV10 and AV20 both use the SA3 HDAM with active current sources and cascodes. The AV10 uses four-layer circuit boards, the AV20 two-layer boards for the HDAM's. See ASR for measurements of the AV10.

A quick search found that the AV30 uses the better SA2 HDAM's with active current sources, but not SA3's. The SR8015, which was measured in ASR, uses SA2's similar to those in the AV30. The SR8015 had much better performance than the AV8805. An estimate is that the measured performance of the AV30 using the XLR outputs will be roughly centered between the AV10 and AV8805 with a slight ias towards the AV10, and similar to the SR8015 from the RCA outputs.

The above is merely an estimate. It isn't clear, at least to me, if Marantz made other changes to the AV10 design that aren't obvious. I've little direct knowledge of the AV30.

If excellent measured performance is import to you then wait to see how the AV30 actually measures. If you HAVE to buy now, then either buy a unit that has been measured or take a leap of faith and get the AV30.

 

[peng]

In one of those UT videos, Marantz alluded to the C30’s performance (SINAD) comparable to the AV10 (iirc, will double check later). Marantz AV10 has SA3 HDAM, but the C30 has the what they called "optimized" SA2. The AV20 has the SA3 HDAMs as well, but we are not sure if the AV30 also has the SA3 or the optimized SA2 used in the Cinema 30, I would say more likely the SA2. In the Masimo's videos, they had mentioned that SA3 was not better than SA2, whatever they meant wasn't clear as Phil Jones only said something like it depends on the application.

Here's an UT video by Gene, Audioholics.com and Masimo's Phil Jones:

Gene commented in the video that the Cinema 30's pre out SINAD was in par with the AV10 (at about the 32 min mark)

That does not mean the AV30 will do as well as the C30, but it does have the same DAC, presumably the same implementation. If it also has the same optimized SA2 HDAMs, then the AV30 might just do as well, and that would mean it could be as high as 105 dB SINAD, or a little lower. As bigguyca said, one would have to wait for it to get measured to know for sure.

 

[Sal1950]

Av30 hasn't been tested by ASR If I am righht. But one can think it will perform as well as the AV10 tested?

This was all the spec details I known for sure. Until the exact product your interested in gets measured you never can tell.
Implementations of so many factors can effect the S/N and SINAD from product to product.

Marantz AV20 13.4 Channel AVP Discussion

Audioholics overview, seems that they were able to independently test and corroborate Marantz’s performance figures. for the AMP 20 anyway. also confirmed the ICEPOWER based module. https://www.audioholics.com/av-preamp-processor-reviews/marantz-av-20-amp-20

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[bigguyca]

In one of those UT videos, Marantz alluded to the C30’s performance (SINAD) comparable to the AV10 (iirc, will double check later). Marantz AV10 has SA3 HDAM, but the C30 has the what they called "optimized" SA2. The AV20 has the SA3 HDAMs as well, but we are not sure if the AV30 also has the SA3 or the optimized SA2 used in the Cinema 30, I would say more likely the SA2. In the Masimo's videos, they had mentioned that SA3 was not better than SA2, whatever they meant wasn't clear as Phil Jones only said something like it depends on the application.

Here's an UT video by Gene, Audioholics.com and Masimo's Phil Jones:

Gene commented in the video that the Cinema 30's pre out SINAD was in par with the AV10 (at about the 32 min mark)

That does not mean the AV30 will do as well as the C30, but it does have the same DAC, presumably the same implementation. If it also has the same optimized SA2 HDAMs, then the AV30 might just do as well, and that would mean it could be as high as 105 dB SINAD, or a little lower. As bigguyca said, one would have to wait for it to get measured to know for sure.

View attachment 511788

The mediocre SA2 HDAM's as used in the AV8805 have resistor-based currents sources. "Optimized" SA2's have active current sources. Active current sources would be used in any products that pretend to be even middle of the road. Among Marantz AVR's and AVP's, the SR8015 was the first to have active current sources. Instead of "optimized" use the words "minimum acceptable."

I've not seen actual measurements of the Cinema 30. It appears that Phil Jones, a sales and marketing person, not in anyway a technical expert or engineer, without any measurements for backup, claimed that the Cinema 30 would have the same performance as the AV10. It appears that Gene was just repeating this claim. Now you are repeating it. Where is the actual data? Clearly the Cinema 30 lacks XLR outputs so balanced performance measurements are no shows.

Also note that Marantz AVP's have separate linear power supplies with separate transformers for the HDAM's that normally run at +/-12V DC. Marantz AVR's typically power the HDAMs from about 7V DC from separate windings from the same transformer that power the power amplifier channels. Higher voltage from a separate transformer, rectifier, filter capacitors, etc., is better, but costs more to implement.

First the AV10 and now likely the AV20 and AV30 represent large, step function increases in design and performance over the AV8805 and AV770X series. It is unknown why Marantz (or its owners at the time) decided to implement such massive improvements, or depending how one looks at it, why Marantz waited so long to make these rather obvious improvements. That is the past. We now have some excellent products made in an excellent factory. Let's hope this continues.

 

[Sal1950]

It is unknown why Marantz (or its owners at the time) decided to implement such massive improvements, or depending how one looks at it, why Marantz waited so long to make these rather obvious improvements.

I believe @amirm and ASR can take some small credit for that. Going back to those early Marantz AVPs and the Denon AVRs that Amir measured and shone a bright light on, he complained then that even the quite expensive multich gear of the time were pretty sad overall both in DAC and Amplifier performance. It stirred a hub-bub even at the more objective slanted sights like Audioholics, no one else was really doing what ASR was doing. Check out a bit of this thread,

Marantz 8805 review - very poor measurements

Please see the following review at Audiosciencereview. Do a search for Marantz 8805 to find the review. Sorry I can't post links yet. Perhaps someone else can link to the review. In the review they state the 8805 has worse performance "than a stand alone $100 DAC" and is "far from state of...

forums.audioholics.com

I do remember D&M contacting Amir to help understand the reason for some of the embarassing results and to their credit they didn't whine that ASR didn't know what they were doing or was just "out to get them". Over the next few years they rolled up their sleeves on the multichannel gear and came back with some staggering improvements in real, measureable, performance.
Thanks ASR and D&M

 

[peng]

I've not seen actual measurements of the Cinema 30. It appears that Phil Jones, a sales and marketing person, not in anyway a technical expert or engineer, without any measurements for backup, claimed that the Cinema 30 would have the same performance as the AV10. It appears that Gene was just repeating this claim. Now you are repeating it. Where is the actual data? Clearly the Cinema 30 lacks XLR outputs so balanced performance measurements are no shows.

I was just quoting, with source linked so one (such as you, can do their own interpretation) but in the video Gene (no I wouldn't take PJ's comments as seriously neither, but Gene, I do trust..) did say he had the results but he could not say, though I think the "results" are likely Marantz's own, that I also happened to trust (I don't trust their marketing, but measurements I do).

As to balanced vs unbalanced, the AV10, and incidentally also Anthem's AWM90 had a touch better SINAD results from the unbalanced outputs, practically the same in terms of RCA vs XLR, so your point on that is moot in this case if one is concerned that the C30's pre out SINAD would be lower because it does not have balanced outputs.

I already said I agreed one has to wait for the AV30 to get measured in order to be sure, never implied that what Gene/PJ said/claimed were facts, but your sharing of your insight, based on your knowledge, is appreciated.

 

[RenPa]

If you HAVE to buy now, then either buy a unit that has been measured or take a leap of faith and get the AV30.

Hi, thank you for your detailed response. Faith is my problem since my 2 horror stories with Arcam Avr-21. See elsewhere about it. I will replace this faulty unit in a near future. For the moment I can't afford a Storm Audio product which is the only brand I now have faith in it. So maybe, I'll have to fall back on Marantz. But my experience of checking the results promised by Dirac in Arcam has convinced me that I can't really trust the manufacturers of these devices. I'm just an old curmudgeon who knew nothing about home theater acoustics in 2015 and who has learned how to use REW. Arcam clearly doesn't know that REW exists and doesn't verify its products. Why would Marantz do so? That said, it's more than likely that I'll end up with a Marantz product. Your comments are at least somewhat reassuring.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

 

[Oddball]

Arcam current series was not measuring well and from my recollection was even worse with reliability. Not sure what that has with Marantz with all of their upper tier current models measuring reasonably well or great (for AVRs/AVPs) and have been known for their reliability over the years.

I have no idea what Dirac results are you getting from Arcam, but I can assure you that with AV10 I am getting pretty much anything out of Dirac (including ART) that I want, subject to limitations of my room and system.

I have Marantz AV10 for more than 2 years and bought it as 6 mos old demo unit. Not a one glitch - I mean it literally, not a single one over that period. Just purrs like a cool kitten.

IMO there is no reason to go with Storm over Marantz if Marantz channel count is sufficient - and from my experience with forums can't say that Storm would be more reliable. If you absolutely need additional features that Storm has (PEQ before Dirac and tone controls after, more ART filters) and happy with 16 channels, then HTP-1 would be your way for $4K. HTP-1 was a reliability mess for a while, but apparently and based on input from the owners on this and other forums, this has been resolved now. As a bonus you would get BEQ compatibility and ability to map channels more flexibly for REW measurements.

 

[RenPa]

Arcam current series was not measuring well and from my recollection was even worse with reliability. Not sure what that has with Marantz with all of their upper tier current models measuring reasonably well or great (for AVRs/AVPs) and have been known for their reliability over the years.

I have no idea what Dirac results are you getting from Arcam, but I can assure you that with AV10 I am getting pretty much anything out of Dirac (including ART) that I want, subject to limitations of my room and system.

I have Marantz AV10 for more than 2 years and bought it as 6 mos old demo unit. Not a one glitch - I mean it literally, not a single one over that period. Just purrs like a cool kitten.

IMO there is no reason to go with Storm over Marantz if Marantz channel count is sufficient - and from my experience with forums can't say that Storm would be more reliable. If you absolutely need additional features that Storm has (PEQ before Dirac and tone controls after, more ART filters) and happy with 16 channels, then HTP-1 would be your way for $4K. HTP-1 was a reliability mess for a while, but apparently and based on input from the owners on this and other forums, this has been resolved now. As a bonus you would get BEQ compatibility and ability to map channels more flexibly for REW measurements.

Appreciated. I am starring in 2 horror films one beginning page 1000 and the second page1600 in Dirac AVSForum. For real I don't need to PEQ before Dirac. 16 channels will be more than enough. So we'll see.

 

[Oddball]

Appreciated. I am starring in 2 horror films one beginning page 1000 and the second page1600 in Dirac AVSForum. For real I don't need to PEQ before Dirac. 16 channels will be more than enough. So we'll see.

Well, not following AVS any more, but we have a dedicated ART thread on this forum.

Active Room Treatment (ART) by Dirac

If someone had a Neumann KH multi-channel system calibrated with Neumann's MA-1, in a decently treated room, would Dirac ART still have worthwhile benefits?

www.audiosciencereview.com

Go back to posts starting around mid October last year and you will get first hand experience from the members as far as D&M implementation of ART - which includes comments and graphs for Dirac overall. The input is overwhelmingly positive and includes various AVRs and AVPs. There are no Storm people in this thread - they have a separate thread, I guess not to mix with the poor D&M crowd .

 

[dlaloum]

I was just quoting, with source linked so one (such as you, can do their own interpretation) but in the video Gene (no I wouldn't take PJ's comments as seriously neither, but Gene, I do trust..) did say he had the results but he could not say, though I think the "results" are likely Marantz's own, that I also happened to trust (I don't trust their marketing, but measurements I do).

As to balanced vs unbalanced, the AV10, and incidentally also Anthem's AWM90 had a touch better SINAD results from the unbalanced outputs, practically the same in terms of RCA vs XLR, so your point on that is moot in this case if one is concerned that the C30's pre out SINAD would be lower because it does not have balanced outputs.

I already said I agreed one has to wait for the AV30 to get measured in order to be sure, never implied that what Gene/PJ said/claimed were facts, but your sharing of your insight, based on your knowledge, is appreciated.

Just wondering whether the better results on the XLR outputs are due to those outputs being driven at typical pro levels (1.4V to 2V) whereas the RCA/Cinch outputs are driven at typical line levels (1V) .... just the V output (and associated gain / circuit noise) could be the reason behind SINAD differences? - Often the output circuits provide optimum SINAD at the higher V levels...

 

[peng]

Just wondering whether the better results on the XLR outputs are due to those outputs being driven at typical pro levels (1.4V to 2V) whereas the RCA/Cinch outputs are driven at typical line levels (1V) .... just the V output (and associated gain / circuit noise) could be the reason behind SINAD differences? - Often the output circuits provide optimum SINAD at the higher V levels...

No, in Amir's tests, he typically would measure rca at 2 V and xlr at 4 V so in theory it is the same conditions as you obvious know, when the rca outputs are at 2 V, if you measure the xlr outputs they would be at 4 V, gain does not change switching from one output to the other. That's the preamp we are talking about, on the power amp side, it depends, in some cased, the gain would be reduced when you use the xlr inputs (again, now we are talking about power amp side) to half, and that ensures whichever inputs the users connect, they would get the same output level (power amp side) to their speakers.

To me, the difference in SINAD as measured by Amir, and/or Gene, were typically minor, less than 1 to 2 dB at the most, so I would say that's within the margin of error,