Correct. You can buy the cheaper Denon and manually do the high frequency roll-off (~15kHz?) and, voila, you get the famous "Marantz" sound!
I can do the same on my 3800 and make it a Cinema 50! LOL!
I agree that can be done, not necessarily 100%, but should get people there better than 50% for sure if they know how to do it, and are willing to spend time on it. The AV10 actually sort of give their users the option to choose the non-Marantz standard DAC filter that will kill the 10-20 kHz roll off.
I have been hearing a lot from different forums including this, like equing them to sound similar. I tried atleast 4 different speakers , 4 different receiver brands and some separates in my last 10 years journey.
My listening experience(subjective) is that equing helps room modes , but not the sound signature of the respective devices(Speakers & Receivers/Amps).
Probably not, but keep in mind, distortions and frequency response characteristics are really the main causes for different "sound signatures", all else being equal (e.g. spl, cross talk, dsp functions etc.). In that sense, with the help of the powerful Audyssey MultEQ X, or Diract Live's highly customizable target curve, you should be able to shape the overall sound signature to your liking, if you are willing to spend time on it and use something like REW to guide you. I have done it, and have multiple filters created so I can slowly but eventually find the one I like best. What else you do think are the causes for the two near identical (audio circuitry wise) C40 and AVR-X4800H could sound so audibly different to some people, and not to others, say in pure direct mode? I ask only as a mater of curiosity.
For example Marantz sound signature(may be bit coloured,especially in music) i'm not able to get in denon and Yamaha sound signature(sound neutral) is different compared to both. All have equalisation options and i have checked them in same room and with basic sound absorption/reflection kit (first reflection protection).
My Kef LS50 , ELAC , Yamaha and now KEF R3 meta speakers, they all have some differences in sound signature(different vocals, different soundstage, different phantom center) , even i have equied for room modes. For example LS50 holographic presentation is present in all cases weather you equ or not.
In my perspective , if we can equ and get the same response /sonic character , then why to buy high priced gears of same configurations ? I'm not saying day and night differences here, but in some magnitude.
I have used DIRAC, Audessy, YAPO and each has its strength and no all in one solution in my case. I found audessy best for movies compared to DIRAC, DIRAC best for music compared to Audessy and YAPO a kind of both mixed. So i use Audessy for movies all time and DIRAC for music with recievers.
Normally i hear music untouched with any equing ( Streamer/DAC to XLR input of my dedicated music amp) most of the time, and some times with DIRAC. So depends on my mood i will change and it is really good.
I know most will disagree on this, but i learned this on my journey slowly.
I respect measurements since I do for all my tuning and verification.
My subjective opinion is based on my learning curve and i admire others opinion as well and that's why these forums are great..
coming to the point, in my subjective listening , Denon 3800 & cinema 50 is not same sonic behavior and i believe it might be due to HDAM implementation..
I don't have the Denon anymore.
Sounds reasonable overall. The key point of your whole rationale is, as you said "My subjective opinion.."! Because it is subjective, and especially if (only if, not saying it happened to you) the idea is already planted in your mind, you cannot get rid of it. It started many years ago when electronic circuitry, parts and components could result in those kind of sound signatures often enough, that people noted, actually heard such differences between brands and models of even devices with seemingly low distortions. Such resulting talks then naturally got circulated via electronics magazines such as Stereo Times, Stereophile, Sound and Vision, WhatHifi etc., and began to influence hobbyists and audiophiles. Because of the internet, such talks(myths in many cases) could spread much faster and wider within the audio community. So, people read a lot of such opinions on the internet, forums etc., plus marketing teams of manufacturers such as Marantz smartly reinforce such beliefs/myths by inserting the almost redundant buffer stage aka HDAM in ways that almost make no sense in their AVR line; and use a slow roll off filter in the digital circuitry, thereby giving the somewhat technical knowledgeable reviewers something to go with, and spin, and spin.. With all such forum hearsay and marketing strategy, those who believe in the so called sound brand sound signatures are already biased, before they actually sit down and do their own AB. Now if they were to do such ABs following controlled tests, preferably SBT or DBT, such preconceived, seeded, biased opinions would likely not been effective, but 99.99% of such AB done in dealers or homes are going to be sighted, and often not even level matched to within 0.5 dB and in pure direct mode etc., you can imagine who so many who have done such AB comparisons could form their opinions of "sound signatures" between brand.
The example you cited on HDAM is a great point, if it was done like the way Marantz did in their integrated amps, there would have been a good technical argument, or merit except one can still argue whether the minute difference resulted in things like THD and FR (mostly) or even slew rate, could have audible effects, but there could easily be at least measurable differences due to the HDAM buffer, or amp stage (if used that way). The fact is, (yes it is factual as you can see in Marantz own published block diagrams), in their AVRs, they placed that extra buffer stage right at the end of the preamp/dac signal path. So you don't have to be knowledgeable in electronics circuitry to understand that such an extra buffer stage, i.e. the HDAM stage, even if it is perfect in terms of slew rate (Marantz main claim of benefit in their marketing info) would has no effects on the final outcome because it is going to be bottlenecked by other parts such as the volume control, dac, and opamp chips up and downstream the audio signal chain.
Just take a look of the following block diagram from the Masimo video:
You can see that the HDAM module is positioned at the end of the volume control block, and ahead of that block is the DAC (if digital inputs such as HDMI are used). Actually, as bigguyca pointed out before, since around 2019, or 2010 don't remember for sure, D+M also added another opamp at the end of the pre out signal path so as I mentioned before, you don't need to know anything about EE, just have to think logically, that the claimed benefits of the HDAM in terms of low impedance and high slew rate due to the fact that it is basically a discrete opamp buffer with unity gain (that is no gain) cannot be realized because the weakest link, whether it is the DAC, E. Vol, or opamps in the signal path.
For example, the slew rate of the opamp amps, in this case the NJM8080G's slew rate is 5 V/us typ., according to the downloadable datasheet. Such slew rate for an opamp is not SOTA, but is more than sufficient for transparency for the audio band that is only up to 20,000 Hz. That is not really the point though, the real point is, if the opamp in the signal path is limited to 5 V/us, it does not matter if any opamp, such as the discrete HDAM downstream has slew rate of 50 V/us of higher because the pre out signal is still going to be limited to 5 V/us. The important thing is for the HDAM to not drag down the opamp IC's performance.
This article defines what amplifier slew rate is and its real world implications. We also show how to calculate an audio amplifiers slew rate based on bandwidth and power level.
www.audioholics.com
I have seen a few discussions about slew rate and thought it might be a worthwhile thread. Slew rate is defined as the amount a signal (voltage, current, power, whatever) changes in a given time period. For the math types, it is the first derivative with respect to time. For a single-frequency...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Note: Regardless, I do recognize that without looking into the details, the Marantz website and the Masimo videos do look convincing as they cited the reasons why Marantz as a distinct sound signature than Denon's, and they also tell you each team has their own "Soundmaster" who ensure the target "sound" is achieved. All that despite no bench test measurements manage to show any the audible effects they identified, not even in their own bench measurement results. They failed to convince me, but I can understand why they must have convinced many, if not most potential customers.
The only exception is the rolled off high frequency that would start from about 10 kHz, that applies only to digital contents with sampling frequency of 44.1 kHz.
Here's the 4800's block diagram, again the opamp ICs are not shown, but the prior year models has the NJM8080G as well, as shown in service manuals such as that of the 4500, or SR6014, or AV8805.
The signal flow, as shown in the block diagrams are the same, the ICs used for the ADC, DSP, DAC, Selector, Vol. are the same, except Marantz C60, 50, 40, all have the extra discrete HDAM buffer amp, that invariable would add distortions and noise, however minor (that was the suspected reason for Marantz lower SINAD as found on Amir's test bench).
Lastly, if you look at the at least 4 Marantz AVPs/AVRs and Denon AVRs reviewed and measured by Amir, you cannot find any evidence to support any Marantz sound signature than Denon's except they had a little lower SINAD, but the minute difference at the below 1.5 V pre out voltage did not point to audible differences between their corresponding models.
Back on the subjective side, I have owned quite a few Marantz AVP, preamp, and power amps as well as a few Denon AVRs and can happily live with any of them. Only once I thought I heard a difference (the my first Marantz AV had a "warm sound" lol, but quickly realized the real reason for the perceived difference. Other than that, they are all transparent enough to me without DSP engaged, with DSP and Room EQ/correction, it is hard to say which one sounded better to me overall.
If you think you can consistently identify different sound signatures between say, the Cinema 40 and AVR-X4800H, it would be a good idea to go with the one that sounded more pleasing to you, even if the perceived difference were not due to something else other than DSP related (hence as you alluded to, cannot be fixed via DL or Audyssey). That's not because I think what you heard would not be there in a DBT, but because if you don't go with your ears/brains, you may end up with what they called buyers remorse. It is better to error the side of caution/safety.
By the way, as I posted before about the one obvious difference between the two brands design/implementation of the DAC is that Marant uses the slow roll off filter. Most dac ICs have provisions for the user to choose different filters, the Marantz team obviously prefer the slow roll off type and Denon prefers the standard type. Using the slow roll off filter would result in a slight roll off of the high frequency range. Amir's measurements show it would start to roll off at about 10 kHz and dropped by about 2.5 dB at 20 kHz. Most over 40 will likely have enough HF hearing loss to notice the drop of 2.5 dB at 20 kHz but some may so that could at least explain why Marantz may sound less bright for some individuals. That, however, will not affect analog inputs performance because then the DAC is not even involved, let alone the output filter. Even when the dac is involved, the roll off should mainly have audible effects only for contents at the lower sampling frequencies such as 44.1 or may be even 48 kHz, based on theories related to the well-known Nyquist frequency.
en.wikipedia.org
www.zkelectronics.com
