Marantz AV20 13.4 Channel AVP Discussion

[peng]

I tired to search for AV-20 DSP but did not get much or conclusive answer. Do we know what is AV-20 using vs AV-10. I could see a case where AV-20 got someting newer and potentially with more processing capability.

The AV20, 10, as well as the Cinema 50, 40, 30, and the AVR-X3800H through X6800H, A1H, A10H all use the same DSP IC. The info are based on seemingly reliable sources. Will post links if I can find the source info quickly.

The AV20 may have newer sofware, Firmware, obviously.

With no DSP in use, I am not sure how/why the AV20 managed 2-3 dB higher SINAD than thevAV10, but imo that's pure academic despite what those Marantz marketing or dealers might claim otherwise.

 

[Oddball]

Well, they designed the board and placement differently and potentially used some different components in AV-20 to squeeze in some higher bench results. As AV-10 owner I commend to the advancement in the newer AV-20 design if it really leads to improved bench results.

I would also hope that they incorporated newer DSP solution, but apparently not. What we have is probably more than needed, but then people are always worry of the specs. Probably no need to go with a different DSP solution as there is nothing beyond ART at this point and current DSP is able to support it. Once we get the ART implementation, we will see if the more capable DSP would have been in order.

Storm offers 500 filters for ART and makes a note that on high channel count one might run out of filters.

 

[peng]

Well, they designed the board and placement differently and potentially used some different components in AV-20 to squeeze in some higher bench results. As AV-10 owner I commend to the advancement in the newer AV-20 design if it really leads to improved bench results.

I would also hope that they incorporated newer DSP solution, but apparently not. What we have is probably more than needed, but then people are always worry of the specs. Probably no need to go with a different DSP solution as there is nothing beyond ART at this point and current DSP is able to support it. Once we get the ART implementation, we will see if the more capable DSP would have been in order.

Storm offers 500 filters for ART and makes a note that on high channel count one might run out of filters.

I did do a search on the topic in order to link you to the reliable source I mentioned earlier, about the difference between AV10 and AV20, specifically on the DSP.
Caution: Tons of BS in this highly informative video, that is obviously sponsored or at least endorsed by Masimo/Marantz/Denon

There are more than the following, that would likely satisfy your curiosity of the claimed differences. but I think many on ASR are more familiar with Phil Jones, the D+M marketing guy who, while no too technical, is an excellent speaker who always explained well (though as cautioned, tons of BS, not his fault or intention, as he got the info from D+M, in this case, M, obviously).

:

If you go straight to 23:24, you will see that the DSP IC is exactly the same one used not only on the AV10, 20, but also the midrange Marantz and Denon AVRs (starts from the 3800).

Again, this video is highly informative, it tells us a lot about the differences between the two highly similar units that many of us may want to know about.
I hate to call out the BS parts as they are expected anyway, manufacturers seem to all do that, probably dictated by their marketing teams, just a couple of highlights of the obvious BS, as the explanation offered for the difference in sound quality are so easily debunkable, to the point I won't bother elaborating, people can just make their conclusions.

- HDAMs are what give the Marantz sound.
- Marantz Soundmaster fine tuned the discrete parts on circuit boards, (HDAM cards used as example) for the Marantz sound.
- Marantz Soundmaster tried different feet, copper plated screws, including the washers used, and picked the ones that sounded best, alert: to him, the master lol..
- Measurements may not show differences, but just because you can't measure..., does not mean they don't sound difference, and they do.
- Between the 30 and 45 min. point they show the HDAM boards are the same for the AV10 and the AV20, but the narrative is that they are not the same, because given the price point and how many units they expect to sell, the "Soundmaster" would tune the cards for the sound quality he aimed, that's not word for word, but is just my interpretation so again, for those interested on this topic, please watch that part for yourself. To me, it's hard not to laugh at such BS.

Anyway there are too many to list, just watch those parts for fun, or to the believers, fans, for happiness, that they found the reasons for the better and/or M sound they thought they heard.

To me, the take away after watching the whole thing on the AV10, 20 side (not interested in the amp10/20 at all, will never buy one myself), I have seen on reason whatsoever that the AV20 would measure of sound better if DSP is not involved in the application. Based on the info provided, I would say the AV10 is better build, and used certain better, slightly more expensive parts, one example mentioned in the video was the better quality resistors, that again along with the feet, screw, washers, would make the sound different/better.

For the purist, for $1,000 in list price, if one could negotiate the difference down a little, the AV10 would be my choice, but being a little more on the practical side, and the fact that my room is not suitable for the more channel count, I would prefer the AV20.

The fact that Marantz own measurements show the AV20 measured a few dB better in SINAD is probably just a matter of margin of error.

 

[Oddball]

Thanks Peng. Will try to take a look at the video, but given the warning that it includes tuning and the golden ear Soundmaster not sure how long I can last .

 

[peng]

I’m usually about -15 at the lowest and that’s loud for my enough for my arendals. I’m just wondering what does a preamp got to offer more for the price it charged compared to those AVR when solely used as preamp.

In that case, I see only one thing that a preamp might offer, that is, lower noise. Depending on the AVR you choose, you might be able to hear noise if your room is very quiet. For example, the value king AVR-X3800H's and the preamp/processor AV10 measurements show something like the following:

and the AVM90 preamp/processor:

Whether you can tell the difference between the two in terms of noise to the point you would be willing to pay much more for the AV10 or the AVM90 is hard to say, only you can find out as it depends on multiple factors.

 

[peng]

Thanks Peng. Will try to take a look at the video, but given the warning that it includes tuning and the golden ear Soundmaster not sure how long I can last .

You don't have to believe in those talks, but it doesn't take away for fact the you will see Marantz really did a great job on those two units, especially the AV10, imo based on all info available on the internet, it is far superior to competitors such as the Anthem AVM90. Whether it would sound audibly better than those competitors is of course an unknown as there are too much factor, let alone the subjective side of the equation. The AM90 does have a clear +, that is, they use a ESS flagship DAC chip, though I guess Marantz counterpoint would be their claimed advantage of using the less (based on SINAD specs) expensive chip that is also one of those in the ESS reference class, but is a 2 channel type vs the 8 channel ones in the AVM90, all basically academic point though, imo anyway.

 

[Oddball]

You don't have to believe in those talks, but it doesn't take away for fact the you will see Marantz really did a great job on those two units, especially the AV10, imo based on all info available on the internet, it is far superior to competitors such as the Anthem AVM90. Whether it would sound audibly better than those competitors is of course an unknown as there are too much factor, let alone the subjective side of the equation. The AM90 does have a clear +, that is, they use a ESS flagship DAC chip, though I guess Marantz counterpoint would be their claimed advantage of using the less (based on SINAD specs) expensive chip that is also one of those in the ESS reference class, but is a 2 channel type vs the 8 channel ones in the AVM90, all basically academic point though, imo anyway.

Marantz marketing has no shame, but as you say, that does not take away the great job Marantz engineering did with AV-10 (based on my own experience), and likely AV-20.

I think that factor distinguishing AV-10 from competition is the fact that you can calibrate with Audy, including full manual/REW calibration if needed via MultiEQ-X, or use full Dirac suite (with ART to come soon). There are also a number of Audy custom solutions from OCA that has significant following group so I would assume that he is doing it right.

 

[peng]

Talking about processing power, Trinnov has the following technicle article:

Trinnov | Processing Power in AV Processors

Processing Power in AV Processors - Trinnov Altitude, Room Correction Software

www.trinnov.com

Based on one metric (I am sure there are others), the GLOPS:

In the examples they used for comparison, Masimo D+M's currently used ADSP-21593, has the second best in terms of GLOPS, but of course still much lower than Trinnov's in order of magnitude, but then Trinnov's waveforming probably would need much more, in order of magnitude than what Dirac ART/DLBC needs.

Anyone (such as @Dj7675 ) know what Storm Audio uses for DSP? Their website says "ADEC" decoder but I couldn't find any processing spec for that thing.

 

[peng]

Marantz marketing has no shame, but as you say, that does not take away the great job Marantz engineering did with AV-10 (based on my own experience), and likely AV-20.

I think that factor distinguishing AV-10 from competition is the fact that you can calibrate with Audy, including full manual/REW calibration if needed via MultiEQ-X, or use full Dirac suite (with ART to come soon). There are also a number of Audy custom solutions from OCA that has significant following group so I would assume that he is doing it right.

One thing I fully agreed with Phil Jones, that is, if I had the budget for it, I would go for those things such as better build/looking feet, copper plated, or even solid brass screws/washers, and the best possible HDAMs, though in that case I would want them used from end to the other not like just the last stage in their AV lines and a couple more stages in that integrated amps. I would be willing to pay for those things, knowing full well (that is, not buying the marketing bs) there wouldn't be audible benefits. Using it in just one stage negate almost all claimed advantages, and 100% negate the better slew rate claim, based not on circuit theory, but on simple logic, bottleneck consideration. Why so many people got fooled is beyond me. On those I would consider extravagant things like special feet, copper/brass hardware, copper plates, tightest tolerance resistors, capacitors, Marantz can at least afford to do it because they knew they could count of large volume of sales for many years, ie. say there 3-6 years cycle, I can't imagine others like NAD, Anthem, even Arcam to count on volume like Marantz, Denon, Onkyo, Sony, Yamaha can but of course I may be completely wrong as I am not an insider in this business.

 

[Oddball]

Storm uses bigger DSPs and I think dual in some models. They do run out of processing capacity with ART as they have 500 filters available and they note that this might not be enough for large channel count and cross-support systems.

Trinnov obviously does not run out of processing capacity and they have plenty. But they also have many more options for customisation compared to Storm. Their wave-forming is interesting, and sounds great (heard 2 big HTs using it), but then it is questionable how much more it brings than the 4x4 DBA which is the "minimum" requirement for the wave-forming hardware together with some really cumbersome placement requirements. In that respect, ART seems more efficient and less placement sensitive with the same hardware.

I have been questioning ART features and adjustments in many threads and really surprised how little people know/understand about ART. But it remains the fact that some of the best decay and frequency response graphs are due to ART.

I do love my AV-10, and one of the reasons I bought it is the craftsmanship that is exquisite and reliability that really spoiled me to death.

 

[EWL5]

I did do a search on the topic in order to link you to the reliable source I mentioned earlier, about the difference between AV10 and AV20, specifically on the DSP.
Caution: Tons of BS in this highly informative video, that is obviously sponsored or at least endorsed by Masimo/Marantz/Denon

There are more than the following, that would likely satisfy your curiosity of the claimed differences. but I think many on ASR are more familiar with Phil Jones, the D+M marketing guy who, while no too technical, is an excellent speaker who always explained well (though as cautioned, tons of BS, not his fault or intention, as he got the info from D+M, in this case, M, obviously).

:

If you go straight to 23:24, you will see that the DSP IC is exactly the same one used not only on the AV10, 20, but also the midrange Marantz and Denon AVRs (starts from the 3800).

View attachment 461497

Again, this video is highly informative, it tells us a lot about the differences between the two highly similar units that many of us may want to know about.
I hate to call out the BS parts as they are expected anyway, manufacturers seem to all do that, probably dictated by their marketing teams, just a couple of highlights of the obvious BS, as the explanation offered for the difference in sound quality are so easily debunkable, to the point I won't bother elaborating, people can just make their conclusions.

- HDAMs are what give the Marantz sound.
- Marantz Soundmaster fine tuned the discrete parts on circuit boards, (HDAM cards used as example) for the Marantz sound.
- Marantz Soundmaster tried different feet, copper plated screws, including the washers used, and picked the ones that sounded best, alert: to him, the master lol..
- Measurements may not show differences, but just because you can't measure..., does not mean they don't sound difference, and they do.
- Between the 30 and 45 min. point they show the HDAM boards are the same for the AV10 and the AV20, but the narrative is that they are not the same, because given the price point and how many units they expect to sell, the "Soundmaster" would tune the cards for the sound quality he aimed, that's not word for word, but is just my interpretation so again, for those interested on this topic, please watch that part for yourself. To me, it's hard not to laugh at such BS.

Anyway there are too many to list, just watch those parts for fun, or to the believers, fans, for happiness, that they found the reasons for the better and/or M sound they thought they heard.

To me, the take away after watching the whole thing on the AV10, 20 side (not interested in the amp10/20 at all, will never buy one myself), I have seen on reason whatsoever that the AV20 would measure of sound better if DSP is not involved in the application. Based on the info provided, I would say the AV10 is better build, and used certain better, slightly more expensive parts, one example mentioned in the video was the better quality resistors, that again along with the feet, screw, washers, would make the sound different/better.

For the purist, for $1,000 in list price, if one could negotiate the difference down a little, the AV10 would be my choice, but being a little more on the practical side, and the fact that my room is not suitable for the more channel count, I would prefer the AV20.

The fact that Marantz own measurements show the AV20 measured a few dB better in SINAD is probably just a matter of margin of error.

If there is an actual difference in sound, it could also just be the Marantz games we're already aware of: namely using a DAC filter w/a HF roll-off whereas other units may be reference flat!

 

[peng]

If there is an actual difference in sound, it could also just be the Marantz games we're already aware of: namely using a DAC filter w/a HF roll-off whereas other units may be reference flat!

Agreed, what they said in that video contradicted what they said elsewhere in other videos and in their owner's manual.

 

[Frank207be]

If there is an actual difference in sound, it could also just be the Marantz games we're already aware of: namely using a DAC filter w/a HF roll-off whereas other units may be reference flat!

I have a Denon A1H (AV10 cousin) and a Marantz Cinema 40 in another room and the A1H sounds more resolving. That's evident with various stereo music that I got familiar to through the years.

Then why still listen music through the Cinema 40? Because it's in a room that allows for a closer contact with music through better speaker placement and seating position and privacy.

Enjoy what you have

 

[dlaloum]

Talking about processing power, Trinnov has the following technicle article:

Trinnov | Processing Power in AV Processors

Processing Power in AV Processors - Trinnov Altitude, Room Correction Software

www.trinnov.com

Based on one metric (I am sure there are others), the GLOPS:

In the examples they used for comparison, Masimo D+M's currently used ADSP-21593, has the second best in terms of GLOPS, but of course still much lower than Trinnov's in order of magnitude, but then Trinnov's waveforming probably would need much more, in order of magnitude than what Dirac ART/DLBC needs.

View attachment 461506
Anyone (such as @Dj7675 ) know what Storm Audio uses for DSP? Their website says "ADEC" decoder but I couldn't find any processing spec for that thing.

I believe that they too are using a "PC" motherboard, and that the ADEC is just the final DAC output stage - the processing is handled by the PC processor. (so pretty much the same as Trinnov)

 

[scotchrocks]

I set up Dirac this weekend and have been testing things out, mostly with 2-channel music. Right now, I'm running 5.3.0 with no Atmos channels (waiting on another amp for those as my previous SR7012 powered some of the Atmos channels). Please note that the below are just my subjective(!) observations, so take everything with a healthy grain of salt.

Dirac setup: It was actually much simpler than I was expecting; measurements using a MacBook and a UMIK-2 were very straightforward. Just install the software, select the AV20 for measurement, adjust levels/gain to a high enough level, and place your mic in a few locations for automated frequency sweeps. After 15 minutes of fiddling, I was able to get the initial filters loaded into the AV20. I only used 5 measurement positions all in a straight line on the sofa parallel to the LCR/screen.

Listening impressions: I first started testing with the default Dirac curve (also using the DAC filter setting 2 for flat response), and immediately the stereo balance felt right in the MLP. With 2 channel playback, the phantom center was strong, and I think the timing adjustments are probably more accurate than Audyssey was on the SR7012. The biggest improvement was in the bass reproduction for the three subwoofers. I used to run Audyssey + Multi-Sub Optimizer on a Minidsp 2x4HD, and while the bass was powerful, I had trouble addressing some of the room nulls and would often feel the bass was not quite right (dips in response at certain frequencies). I also felt that I could localize the subwoofers, especially the one behind the MLP. This could be a result of how I adjusted MSO parameters, the limitations of the SR7012, the Audyssey measurement mic, and many other factors like MSO measurement positions, etc.

With Dirac, I can't localize subs at all; everything sounds like it's coming from the LR in 2 channel playback, and I feel like the lower frequency capabilities of the LCR are used more with Dirac than Audyssey. Dirac sets the default crossover to 70 Hz instead of 80 Hz that I used before with Audyssey, so that may make a difference, but I recall when testing Audyssey at 60 Hz and 40 Hz crossover settings, I would lose bass response. That probably indicates that Audyssey's crossover with MSO had limitations, maybe due to the SR7012 configuration or the measurement mic. In any case, Dirac produced in less than 30 minutes a hugely improved result over what took me hours of Audyssey MultEQ-X/MSO experimentation. The ease of getting a great result can't be understated here.

Dirac curves: With the default curve, the bass response is significantly lighter versus Audyssey, especially if you compare to Audyssey Dynamic EQ. I think Dirac curves open up a whole other can of worms, but so far, I've been adjusting bass/treble to taste, landing at about a +5 dB bass boost and -2 dB treble reduction. Even with the bass boost, the crossover from subs to LCR is transparent to me. I've started testing some of the other available curves (Harman, Storm Audio, etc.) and haven't really come to a conclusion yet on which I prefer. I think this will be something that will take a lot of time and listening with different media (music, movies, TV, etc.) to land on a preferred set of curves. The AV20 has 3 slots for Dirac, so it's nice to be able to swap between them quickly. Some users have been using this for loudness compensation, and I've started testing some of the curves in this thread: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/targets-for-dirac-live.53435/

Overall, I couldn't be happier with my AV20 Dirac results over what I could finagle with Audyssey/MSO on my SR7012. This is probably something that could've been achieved with any of the newer Denon/Marantz AVR/AVPs, so if you have multiple subs that you're having trouble integrating, I would highly recommend Dirac with bass control paired with any of those units. It's hard to say how much improvement is from the AV20 upgrade over SR7012 and how much is from Dirac over Audyssey/MSO, but I'm blown away by how my system sounds after Dirac calibration. I can't imagine ART improving much beyond this with the same speaker/room setup, but I'm looking forward to trying it.

Anyways, those are my glowing, highly-subjective Dirac impressions, so unfortunately, not a lot of science in this post. However, I do plan to run some REW measurements to see whether the measured room response matches the target curve. I'm also going to finally run Dirac on my Bluesound 2.1 system to see what improvements that will bring there with a much simpler setup.

 

[peng]

I set up Dirac this weekend and have been testing things out, mostly with 2-channel music. Right now, I'm running 5.3.0 with no Atmos channels (waiting on another amp for those as my previous SR7012 powered some of the Atmos channels). Please note that the below are just my subjective(!) observations, so take everything with a healthy grain of salt.

Dirac setup: It was actually much simpler than I was expecting; measurements using a MacBook and a UMIK-2 were very straightforward. Just install the software, select the AV20 for measurement, adjust levels/gain to a high enough level, and place your mic in a few locations for automated frequency sweeps. After 15 minutes of fiddling, I was able to get the initial filters loaded into the AV20. I only used 5 measurement positions all in a straight line on the sofa parallel to the LCR/screen.

Listening impressions: I first started testing with the default Dirac curve (also using the DAC filter setting 2 for flat response), and immediately the stereo balance felt right in the MLP. With 2 channel playback, the phantom center was strong, and I think the timing adjustments are probably more accurate than Audyssey was on the SR7012. The biggest improvement was in the bass reproduction for the three subwoofers. I used to run Audyssey + Multi-Sub Optimizer on a Minidsp 2x4HD, and while the bass was powerful, I had trouble addressing some of the room nulls and would often feel the bass was not quite right (dips in response at certain frequencies). I also felt that I could localize the subwoofers, especially the one behind the MLP. This could be a result of how I adjusted MSO parameters, the limitations of the SR7012, the Audyssey measurement mic, and many other factors like MSO measurement positions, etc.

With Dirac, I can't localize subs at all; everything sounds like it's coming from the LR in 2 channel playback, and I feel like the lower frequency capabilities of the LCR are used more with Dirac than Audyssey. Dirac sets the default crossover to 70 Hz instead of 80 Hz that I used before with Audyssey, so that may make a difference, but I recall when testing Audyssey at 60 Hz and 40 Hz crossover settings, I would lose bass response. That probably indicates that Audyssey's crossover with MSO had limitations, maybe due to the SR7012 configuration or the measurement mic. In any case, Dirac produced in less than 30 minutes a hugely improved result over what took me hours of Audyssey MultEQ-X/MSO experimentation. The ease of getting a great result can't be understated here.

Dirac curves: With the default curve, the bass response is significantly lighter versus Audyssey, especially if you compare to Audyssey Dynamic EQ. I think Dirac curves open up a whole other can of worms, but so far, I've been adjusting bass/treble to taste, landing at about a +5 dB bass boost and -2 dB treble reduction. Even with the bass boost, the crossover from subs to LCR is transparent to me. I've started testing some of the other available curves (Harman, Storm Audio, etc.) and haven't really come to a conclusion yet on which I prefer. I think this will be something that will take a lot of time and listening with different media (music, movies, TV, etc.) to land on a preferred set of curves. The AV20 has 3 slots for Dirac, so it's nice to be able to swap between them quickly. Some users have been using this for loudness compensation, and I've started testing some of the curves in this thread: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/targets-for-dirac-live.53435/

Overall, I couldn't be happier with my AV20 Dirac results over what I could finagle with Audyssey/MSO on my SR7012. This is probably something that could've been achieved with any of the newer Denon/Marantz AVR/AVPs, so if you have multiple subs that you're having trouble integrating, I would highly recommend Dirac with bass control paired with any of those units. It's hard to say how much improvement is from the AV20 upgrade over SR7012 and how much is from Dirac over Audyssey/MSO, but I'm blown away by how my system sounds after Dirac calibration. I can't imagine ART improving much beyond this with the same speaker/room setup, but I'm looking forward to trying it.

Anyways, those are my glowing, highly-subjective Dirac impressions, so unfortunately, not a lot of science in this post. However, I do plan to run some REW measurements to see whether the measured room response matches the target curve. I'm also going to finally run Dirac on my Bluesound 2.1 system to see what improvements that will bring there with a much simpler setup.

Is is nice to see someone posting subjective impressions and makes it clear in the beginning that it is subjective, it saves us having to see yet another multiple posts arguing if someone is just hearing things, thank you.

Audyssey can perform well, probably as good as Dirac, but in my experience, it would take a lot of time (hours and hours) to tweak with the $20 app, much quicker if the $200 app is used (I used the $20 one but have seen how the $200 was done by others on reviews etc). Not only that, one has to really know what they are doing, I like to think that I did, as I could get results as good as, or even slightly better than I could get with Dirac, on paper that is...

With Dirac, I do think most people who are willing to follow instructions to the letter, could get very good results (again, on paper, i.e. objectively speaking) within an hour or two, depending on the channel counts.

The main advantage of using Audyssey is that one can enable DEQ. With Dirac, one would have to customize a few target curves, such as 3, and then take advantage of the presets so one can switch to different target curve for different listening level. That is not as convenient as Audyssey's DEQ and obviously DEQ has the advantage that it changes the compensation dynamically. DEQ's drawback is that it over boost some surround channels, but that can be mitigated by adjusting the trim levels, there may be other ways to.

I don't know if you are using DLBC, if not, I would suggest you go for it, but if you like the way it is performing now then you can just just wait and buy the BC license when it goes on sale.

 

[EWL5]

Dirac curves: With the default curve, the bass response is significantly lighter versus Audyssey, especially if you compare to Audyssey Dynamic EQ.

Comparing DynamicEQ to any Dirac curve is never apples to apples as Dirac doesn't have a comparable feature in its toolset!

If you want that mid-bass back, then use a Harman target curve that boosts the LF and typically also slopes the HF steadily downward as well!

 

[scotchrocks]

I don't know if you are using DLBC, if not, I would suggest you go for it, but if you like the way it is performing now then you can just just wait and buy the BC license when it goes on sale.

Yes, I did also purchase the DLBC add on, which is probably why the multiple subs are well integrated.

The main advantage of using Audyssey is that one can enable DEQ. With Dirac, one would have to customize a few target curves, such as 3, and then take advantage of the presets so one can switch to different target curve for different listening level. That is not as convenient as Audyssey's DEQ and obviously DEQ has the advantage that it changes the compensation dynamically. DEQ's drawback is that it over boost some surround channels, but that can be mitigated by adjusting the trim levels, there may be other ways to.

Comparing DynamicEQ to any Dirac curve is never apples to apples as Dirac doesn't have a comparable feature in its toolset!

If you want that mid-bass back, then use a Harman target curve that boosts the LF and typically also slopes the HF steadily downward as well!

Good suggestions, and I've started testing those Harman curves with the varying offsets in the Dirac target curves thread. I've found that I generally prefer less aggressive slopes but with some (-10) dynamic compensation built in. Credit to @popej for his work on those curves: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/targets-for-dirac-live.53435/post-1968109

 

[supersonic67]

Looking for advice...
I'm currently using a Marantz Av7706 with an active 5.1 speaker set for home cinema. For stereo listening, I connected my front speakers to a NAD C658 preamp with Dirac Live and streaming from a Roon Server. For Home Cinema the NAD provides a passthrough mode for the front speakers.
The Marantz AV20 would be very interesting for me, since (in theory) it could replace the NAD in the chain, since it supports Roon streaming as well as Dirac Live. What makes me hesitate are the DAC Chips used in the AV20. The ESS 90182KM are supposed to be inferior to the 9028Pro used in the NAD, so I'm afraid I might loose sound quality when listening to music in stereo.
Any thoughts form the experts here? Thanks!

 

[masterhw]

Looking for advice...
I'm currently using a Marantz Av7706 with an active 5.1 speaker set for home cinema. For stereo listening, I connected my front speakers to a NAD C658 preamp with Dirac Live and streaming from a Roon Server. For Home Cinema the NAD provides a passthrough mode for the front speakers.
The Marantz AV20 would be very interesting for me, since (in theory) it could replace the NAD in the chain, since it supports Roon streaming as well as Dirac Live. What makes me hesitate are the DAC Chips used in the AV20. The ESS 90182KM are supposed to be inferior to the 9028Pro used in the NAD, so I'm afraid I might loose sound quality when listening to music in stereo.
Any thoughts form the experts here? Thanks!

I understand the concern, as one never wants to downgrade something on the spec sheet when upgrading. In this case, as is typically the case with DACs, the implementation matters far more and the implementation on the AV20 is superb (claimed 110dB SINAD at 4V). So I would not worry. It is good enough that if you are hearing a flaw, it is almost certainly elsewhere.