Maybe, I've read many folks using actives for desktop/nearfield listening that were disturbed by the noise, it's all a matter of level.
Fore warned is fore armed.
-
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
Fore warned is fore armed.
Newman
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,932
- Likes
- 6,884
Except that is not what is happening here. People are making broad and sweeping generalisations. A broad and sweeping generalisation about amplifier class. A broad and sweeping generalisation about monitor price.
I assume that I don't have to explain to you how that is unhelpful?
How does it drive you nuts when the monitor is too far away to hear any hiss? See, you forgot to mention circumstances.
I don't make purchase decisions, nor do I suggest others to make their purchase decisions, on the basis of how much the purchase will contribute to helping industry to realise that they need to do better.
I make my decisions, and I commend others to do similarly, that optimise one's needs for one's application.
Here's the thing: this is the thread for discussing a home cinema processor, the Marantz AV 10. It is off-topic to raise here a speaker selection issue that only manifests itself in applications that are irrelevant to home cinema applications. And that's what is happening here. In fact, I think it's worse than the usual off-topic banter that is often a bit of fun or whatever, because in this case it is trying to steer people away from products based on an issue that simply doesn't relate to this thread. And that, I think, is unhelpful.
Let's take a concrete example that draws on real experience. I have an AV 10 so I started looking around for an affordable active monitor that performs well and that I can enjoy in my home cinema. Amir very much liked the Adam Audio T5V budget monitor, and mentioned the hiss was only audible within a few inches of the tweeter, however, in the review thread, self noise did get raised a number of times, apparently being a non-issue for about ⅔ and a detectable concern for about ⅓ of commenters. (And that is fair enough: a lot of people might buy this speaker to use up close on the desktop, a foot or two from the ear.) And sure enough, on the so-called hiss list it was not a top performer. So, just to be sure, I went to the local retailer and had an audition, including checking out the self noise by ear. OMG. What a storm in a teacup, as far as home cinema application is concerned. At worst, the hiss is gone by the time one has moved about 20% of the distance from the speaker to a home cinema listener's ear.
Not only that, but I noticed that the hiss level falls when you move the volume control on the back of the speaker down from maximum. And, when used in conjunction with a powerful preamp like the AV 10, there is no need to have the volume control at the maximum.
In conclusion, I think that it is rather unhelpful to try and steer people away from that speaker (for example) in a thread about the AV 10 processor and suitable choices of speaker to use with that processor. In fact, given its Spinorama attributes, its clean SPL output capability, and its bass extension and bass SPL capability, there might not be a better choice or even an equal choice at the price point, for use in a home cinema with a processor. If so, then the speaker deserves a firm recommendation for use with the AV 10 at its price point, and not a "steer clear " based on a non-issue.
Cheers
Last edited:
Blame me for one. I should have had mine first drop shipped to Amir but was in too be a hurry to get it.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2021
- Messages
- 229
- Likes
- 136
I'm sure it's around the same performance if not the same as the AV10.
Per Marantz it is apparently slightly better in SINAD - 2 dB if remember correctly. Marantz was right on the money for AV10.
Which ones better ?
Oh yeah sorry not clear post. You (AV20) win by 2 points Sal. Newer design I guess. They might have squeezed also some other enhancements. I endorse progress and for sure would not hear 2dB SINAD difference even if my life depended on it.
Thanks, I think I read the AV20 had updated HDAM boards?
In any case it sounds fine here.
Did not follow closely as that was splitting hairs but think more to do with overall design and implementation. HDAMs are not a problem nowadays but as I understand from the guys who actually understand the design, not a benefit either at this point. Not sure if we want that discussion repeated but perhaps worth it to call the technical guys aka the elders?Thanks, I think I read the AV20 had updated HDAM boards?
In any case it sounds fine here.
Much of what I've read outside Marantz is they may be just a good marketing idea?
Bottom line is that the new products as a whole measure excellently, far beyond the 7701 and 7703 I've owned in the past. I'm happy.
I am an AV20 owner of about 4 months. Bottom line is that I had no issues setting it up (aside from a minor HDMI handshake issue with Nvidia Shield that I resolved in 2 days) and I love the performance, overall. My only "gripe" is its Dirac ART performance. All D/M models that support ART share a significant limitation of cross-terms (just 96). The impact of this depends on how many speakers you have. The more speakers, the more compromises. I went from 7.2.4 to 7.4.4, and the corrected spread deterioriated significantly with the addition of 2 subs (SVS SB5000s). I am still tweaking ART support settings and may be able to resolve, but as of now I attribute the erosion in performance to the cross-term limitation.
Surprisingly, the Monoprice HTP-1 provides ~250 cross-terms, despite its age and price.
Surprisingly, the Monoprice HTP-1 provides ~250 cross-terms, despite its age and price.
Interesting, so in reality we are getting a lesser version of Dirac with the D/M products? does this only apply to its ART implementation? I was considering an AV20 moving from an Anthem avm70.
I have the AVM70 and if I would ever consider moving on to the AV20 or Tide 16, the only reason would be the more effective DLBC even without ART. Other than that the AVM is good enough.
I do enjoy the Anthem I must say, just getting upgradeitus! or sidestepitus...
Yes this limitation is only related to ART. In my view, and I'm far from an expert, the 96 cross terms of D/M products is a significant limitation. But -- is it audible vs other processors without that limitation? No idea. I suspect greater processing power will result in tighter corrected spreads for larger systems (> 13 speakers).
Despite the limited cross-terms, I am thrilled with the performance of ART and my AV20 and wholeheartedly recommend it. The AV30 has the same processing power, so that's a good option as well.
My setup is 5.2.4 - and initially used all 96 cross-terms (and possibly needed more... but once it hits the ceiling, the software doesn't tell you how many more it requires...)
Once I removed my height speakers from support duties (why did it default to including them!?! they are not capable!) - the cross terms dropped to around 54 from memory... seperating the subs into 2 groups increased it to the low 60's with no performance improvement - so I put the subs back into a single group.
When you actually look at what cross-terms provide measurable impact/improvement to the setup, the 96 cross-terms limit, no longer seems so limiting!!
The setup only hit the limit when by default it was set to everything supporting everything else - once I went to a much better thought out scheme - the number of cross terms used dropped and the performance increased (measurably...!)
So would I like more cross-terms.... yes, one always wants more! - would I use more cross-terms... not with my current setup. and even if I went to a 7.4.4 setup (from my currrent 5.2.4) I doubt I would max out the 96 (on configurations that make actual sense!)
The 96 cross-terms "limitation" is only "significant" if it has an impact on performance.
Only the default setup which used all speakers supporting all speakers, reached (exceeded?) the 96 limit.... and that configuration was trying to use my height speakers, with an F3 of 120Hz... (meaning they cannot contribute meaningfully to ART!) - removing those from support, saved me more than 40 cross terms !!
Of possibly greater interest, removing the height speakers from support duties, led to a substantial improvement in performance (measured with REW).
I would suggest that for any close to optimal ART configuration of a 7.4.4 system, (with tweaks such as front speakers not supporting rear speakers.... etc.. to optimise localisation) - the 96 cross-terms "limitation" just isn't a limitation.
Yesterday I concluded my ART support tweaking after going from 7.2.4 to 7.4.4, and I definitely hit the 96 cross-term wall. When optimizing for corrected spreads, my overall responses deteriorated compared to the 7.2.4. I spent all day tinkering by adding/removing support speakers to find the optimal support for each speaker, and I confirmed that the corrected spread would benefit with additional cross-terms.
But again, I still don't know if if the visual improvement reflected in the corrected spread would be audible. I tend to think it may be evident only at reference levels and momentarily when certain unoptimized frequencies are played, which depends on content.
