Marantz AV8805A Review (AV Processor)

[robpbg]

Hmmmm, I am fairly confused with all these AVR reviews. I own the 7013, and I got it for a price so low it's not even funny. And it was basically new, just open box/customer return. The unit has no issues that are audible to me when I watch movies. I cant quite understand what I am missing based on poor measurements when it's not audio that I am listening to. Yes we realize movies do have music, but honestly it sounds really good to me. Would love to understand what I am losing.. Not to even upgrade, just to get a better grip on all of this.

Then again, this is my first AVR ever and that is probably the reason why.

I'm indirectly in the same camp. I have a 7012 that I got for like $1k when it was still new. Not sure how bad it measures, but suspect my revel f32s are the weak link. amp is bryston b4 thx. sub is monolith 12. manual audyssey eq to Harman target curve is pretty good fit according to REW.

I would personally like to see some tests that compare sonic improvement of electronics going from .01 to .001 vs speaker at 96db 1 meter (not that loud at 3 or 4 meter listening position for peaks) with say 1khz THD going from 0.5 to 0.1%. My hunch is speaker improvement vastly more important. What about testing at higher spl like 2 sec burst at 105 spl?

Are we falling into the trap of focusing on what's easily measurable rather than what matters?

I wonder if the perlisten towers measure up to the hype?

 

[Koeitje]

Is the "Slow" filter the detault for this chip? Or maybe I should ask, are they using the incorrect filter because they didn't know there were different filters or are they using the wrong one on purpose?

 

[sarumbear]

DSP software libraries. Hardware maker picks a platform (dedicated DSP, ARM processor, etc.) and then goes and licenses the code developed for that platform. Room EQ, various codecs, surround simulation, effects, bass management, etc. It is all one giant "pipeline" where compressed bits go in, and final ready to go PCM samples come out to go to the DAC.

So basically what you are saying is that software writers couldn’t write proper software and unable integrate 3rd party libraries into their final code.

However, I don’t understand what you meant by compressed? Other than the very old Dolby Digital format every modern source is uncompressed and discreet. Or do you mean compiled libraries where the coder can’t see the code?

 

[robpbg]

I do not have the competency to give an educated answer to that question. I can jut see that an AVR/AVP is way more complex than a 2-channel dongle DAC.

From my personal point of view, a product like the 8500(A) is perfectly fine for both music and cinema (not taking into account the price tag). In a pragmatic way, I do not make any difference between 93 or 100 db THD+N.



I share that with you.

I strongly prefer Aura 2D to stereo or other surround modes in my system. Suspect I would like true atmos even more if I could get it to work with Apple music :-(

 

[peng]

Is the "Slow" filter the detault for this chip? Or maybe I should ask, are they using the incorrect filter because they didn't know there were different filters or are they using the wrong one on purpose?

As posted many time before, Marantz picked that filter because of what they believe is better. It is not only this chip, there are other chips including ESS's that have selectable filters too. The funny thing is, they must have just started this new philosophy since the AV8802 and the same year AVR models. My AV8801 does not suffer from that at all. Everyone picked one for their own reasons. That really only affect the FR when using digital inputs, especially when sampling frequency is at 44.1 or 48 kHz.

 

[peng]

I'm indirectly in the same camp. I have a 7012 that I got for like $1k when it was still new. Not sure how bad it measures, but suspect my revel f32s are the weak link. amp is bryston b4 thx. sub is monolith 12. manual audyssey eq to Harman target curve is pretty good fit according to REW.

I would personally like to see some tests that compare sonic improvement of electronics going from .01 to .001 vs speaker at 96db 1 meter (not that loud at 3 or 4 meter listening position for peaks) with say 1khz THD going from 0.5 to 0.1%. My hunch is speaker improvement vastly more important. What about testing at higher spl like 2 sec burst at 105 spl?

Are we falling into the trap of focusing on what's easily measurable rather than what matters?

I wonder if the perlisten towers measure up to the hype?

In my opinion, unless you have the so called golden ears, none of the D or M Amir measured so far would have audible distortions to most people for real world HT/music listening. 75 dB SINAD sure looks bad compared to 96 dB, but how many of us can tell the difference for regular HT or music listening? So if someone likes the look/style and/or need the multi-channel analog inputs that Marantz offers, then they should have no fear, as long as they realize that Marantz jammed those extra parts (legacy connections and HDAMs) into a box that is just a touch larger than Denon's, and would likely run a little warmer (HDAMs). Ideally, it would be great if Marantz would just skip the HDAMs and cut the premium to half so people only have to pay $100 or so for the legacy connections and the better look (to their fans), but we all know that will never happen as long as their marketing continue to rule the day.

You also have to pay more most of the time and get less performance on paper. Other than that there is no problem whatsoever. I almost bought a SR7013 for spare when it was on sales, price dropped to the point it was C$100 to C$200 and it happened at least twice in between 2018/2019.

 

[sam_adams]

This is extremely disturbing that a $5000 USD device from a company that is well-regarded produces measurements like this:

Almost every harmonic of 60 Hz is present in both of these measurements—at levels above the fundamental. While the noise is probably below the threshold of most people's hearing, this just speaks to either a lack of engineering skill or a lack of caring about quality. Sure, sure, it could be said that it's good enough—but come on—devices that sell for one tenth of what this one does measure better. Performance like this deserves only this in response.

 

[Sprint]

s just nothing in this pric

Really nothing to write home about: Home cinema is almost a "too big" term, a "cinema for one" in a living room, approx 2m stereo triangle, 5.1.2 with "ancient" B&W CDM7 as main, and the rest (sub, surrounds and center) from Nubert. All built around a 55" Panasonic LCD TV, and driven by a Marantz AVR (NR1608), which is luckily a Denon inside, without the "dreaded" HDAMs. Additional room correction (for the sub only) is provided by the Anti-Mode 8033 s-II.
The idea to build a living room "cinema" occured to me, after my good old Myryad Mi120 stereo amp broke down. After a few years with this, I am relatively satisfied cinema-wise, but for stereo I wanted some "real Hi-Fi"... so I built a second system with studio monitors (Neumann KH 310A), the RME ADI-2 DAC, with my fanless HTPC as the main signal source. Maybe a strange solution, but it works.

Wunderbar !

 

[amirm]

However, I don’t understand what you meant by compressed? Other than the very old Dolby Digital format every modern source is uncompressed and discreet.

No, they are lossless but compressed. Dolby TrueHD uses MLP lossless compression from Meridian that was used in DVD Audio. DTS HD MA uses a lossy core plus a lossless layered coding. Both need to be first decoded to get PCM audio. And of course, none of the streaming movie sources use lossless audio. Dolby Digital+ is used there which requires decoding. Object based coding adds yet another layer to these formats which needs to be processed.

Blu-ray format does allow uncompressed PCM but that just wastes space so it is not used for movies.

 

[sarumbear]

No, they are lossless but compressed.

Understood. Thank you for the explanation.

 

[truwarrior22]

Conversely, may be you just have to use the DBT protocol for the comparison listening sessions.

To borrow Dr. Toole's saying, if you know which one you are listening to, I don't care what you think.... Again, that's not me saying anything like that..

Imo, subjective measurements are naturally subjective, I just read a post on Audioholics.com the other day, in which someone who just hook up his MRX-1140 and it sounded so different that he thought it was like listening with his old RX-A2080 but "as if gauze were removed...", he actually said more than that...and when questioned, he confirmed that he did use bypass, straight through modes as well. I thought I mention Yamaha because you just mentioned it too.

That’s the problem with the Marantz. A lot think it sounds a little muffled. I believe this is due to the “warm” signature. Denon sound “clearer” because it’s a little more “lean”. I just bought the Marantz because it’s the best I could too with HDMI 2.1 and wanted the fuller midrange. To be fair, Deon and Marantz sound more a like then different. Yamaha is a much bigger difference when compared to DM. I would have loved to try a Acram or Anthem, but both likely out of my range and no HDMI 2.1

 

[restorer-john]

As posted many time before, Marantz picked that filter because of what they believe is better.

It's another one of those frustrating decisions made by "golden eared voicing experts" in Japan. It's a faulty design as it stands as there is nothing better about 1% THD above 10kHz is there?

They had the legendary Ken Ishiwata for decades, who waved his magic wand over all sorts of dubious tweaks, many of which did absolutely nothing. Plenty of the "KI specials" were just a cap here, a cap there, a piece of thick metal, a copper shield or two, some OFC cable and a gold badge.

Honestly, in my opinion, Marantz lost the plot when they implemented the first HDAMs back in the CD days. The additional 'discrete' opamp supposedly "sounded" better. They've stuck to those wretched HDAMs as a point of difference, not because they test better (they don't). When Philips owned Marantz, there was little to none of this BS and they produced some great product.

Now we have a stripped out AVR with a row of unnecessary aditional HDAMs filling the empty space in a vain attempt to justify US$5k to gullible audio/videophiles.

Disappointing, but not unexpected.

 

[sarumbear]

Honestly, in my opinion, Marantz lost the plot when they implemented the first HDAMs back in the CD days. The additional 'discrete' opamp supposedly "sounded" better. They've stuck to those wretched HDAMs as a point of difference, not because they test better (they don't).

At least they haven’t lost the plot as much as Audio Research and put valve output stages to a CD player.

 

[Koeitje]

As posted many time before, Marantz picked that filter because of what they believe is better. It is not only this chip, there are other chips including ESS's that have selectable filters too. The funny thing is, they must have just started this new philosophy since the AV8802 and the same year AVR models. My AV8801 does not suffer from that at all. Everyone picked one for their own reasons. That really only affect the FR when using digital inputs, especially when sampling frequency is at 44.1 or 48 kHz.

What design philosophy favors rising distortion at higher frequencies?

In my opinion, unless you have the so called golden ears, none of the D or M Amir measured so far would have audible distortions to most people for real world HT/music listening. 75 dB SINAD sure looks bad compared to 96 dB, but how many of us can tell the difference for regular HT or music listening? So if someone likes the look/style and/or need the multi-channel analog inputs that Marantz offers, then they should have no fear, as long as they realize that Marantz jammed those extra parts (legacy connections and HDAMs) into a box that is just a touch larger than Denon's, and would likely run a little warmer (HDAMs). Ideally, it would be great if Marantz would just skip the HDAMs and cut the premium to half so people only have to pay $100 or so for the legacy connections and the better look (to their fans), but we all know that will never happen as long as their marketing continue to rule the day.

You also have to pay more most of the time and get less performance on paper. Other than that there is no problem whatsoever. I almost bought a SR7013 for spare when it was on sales, price dropped to the point it was C$100 to C$200 and it happened at least twice in between 2018/2019.

Its a matter of principle. For €5000 you should expect a product that can at least hit 16 bit dynamic range. We had stand alone dacs that did that 20 years ago, but somehow they can't hit that in a multichannel solution with state of the art chips that can do 20bit dynamic range without issue in a good design.

 

[Deleted member 30699]

I somehow don't seem to get it.
Whould would you buy something like this over a basic computer (or even raspberry PI) and a decent audio-interface, say a MOTU 8A (or 16A)?

Win/Linux would decode the audiostreams for you and the system is not ready for retirement the day a new HDMI protocol launches

 

[Sancus]

Win/Linux would decode the audiostreams for you

It's not possible to decode Atmos in software on a PC, no.

 

[GXAlan]

Almost every harmonic of 60 Hz is present in both of these measurements—at levels above the fundamental.

makes you wonder what it would look like plugged into the B&K noisy AC generator

 

[sarumbear]

I somehow don't seem to get it.
Whould would you buy something like this over a basic computer (or even raspberry PI) and a decent audio-interface, say a MOTU 8A (or 16A)?

Win/Linux would decode the audiostreams for you and the system is not ready for retirement the day a new HDMI protocol launches

How are you going to switch HDMI inputs on a Windows computer, let alone on Raspberry PI, and what software will you use to decode the current surround formats?

 

[LTig]

[..] The bottleneck would appear to be the HDAM.

That HDAM related (just a suspect..) seems to have been finally fixed by the higher version of HDAM used in the SR8015, to the point its SINAD is as good as the Denon's, in fact a little better than Denon's, if preamp mode is not used.

This HDAM is still worse than the one in the older 7701. SIMAD of the 8805A drops above 4V output while on the 7701 it increases up to the maximum of 12 V (!). So at least regarding output voltage the 7701 beats all newer Marantz AVPs.

 

[LTig]

Now we have a stripped out AVR with a row of unnecessary aditional HDAMs filling the empty space in a vain attempt to justify US$5k to gullible audio/videophiles.

I'm not sure the modules are unnecessary - I think they are required to feed the balanced outputs. They just need to use opamp based circuits instead of discretes. Might cost the same as the HDAM modules but surely will be better in terms of performance.