-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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 SR6014 AVR Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
And yet Marantz continues to make some of the best sounding AVR's in the business. I think the HF rolloff is intentional as a 'flat'response is generally too bright. A big mistake made by many manufacturers trying to impress for movie dynamics at the expense of 'scratchiness' and uncontrolled bass.... Marantz adds a certain level of elegance and refinement to their sound usually not heard in other competing products. This is most evident in their success producing pleasing mid-bass and silky smooth highs. Probably due to their efforts in controlling drivers through HDAM and current feedback technologies, along with short signal paths and use of higher-grade audio components... As one expert tuner from the Marantz team once said: Some qualities of the final product cannot be measured or quantified. The end result is often greater than the sum of it's parts and must be looked at as such.... Marantz has a unique and fantastically detailed and controlled sound and never fails to give me goosebumps. - Truly a special breed for those who have the ears to hear.
Last edited:
It is not worth waiting for the test, life is short. We are all surprised by the sound of the SR8015. In this year's production, it is a unicorn.
i use Google translator
Last edited:
Well, if a Marantz "expert" thinks flat performance is not the proper metric, what is?
The DACs have selectable filters so why not let the customer decide. for cripes sake, my Oppo UDP-205 and many inexpensive desktop DACs have selectable reconstruction filters.
- Rich
If you look at the schematics you would see that it is just marketing hype because they put the HDAM at the end of the preamp signal chain with the same preamp vol control IC used in the Denons upstream. So that vol control IC has already determined the fate of the best possible signal quality, and the extra HDAM used as a unity gain buffer will only add distortions, cannot really take advantage of the current feedback thing. Measurements over and over again found Marantz AVRs/AVPs have higher distortions than Denons that skipped this extra buffer stage. The only exception seems to be the SR8015 (but not the SR8012) that apparently has a different version of HDAM and perhaps the circuitry are different too. May be they did it like they did with their integrated amps, then the current feedback vs voltage feedback would make sense, at least in theory.
That sounded like typical marketing people talking unless they were referring to things like style/look/ergonomics. If we are talking about technical performance such as accuracy, voltage/current/power output etc., real engineers would not have said such a thing. Those are engineered products designed by engineers/or their equivalents, of course everything that matters to technical performance can be measured and quantified.
Linear audio amplifiers should just amplify the signal linearly, while keeping unavoidable distortions and noises as low as possible. So all else being equal, since Marantz AVRs have been found to have distortions (of any kinds) and noise higher as shown by the measurements than Denon's, I can understand why Amir recommended Denon's over Marantz, even if the higher distortions/noise were still below the threshold of audibility in many practical applications. Again, there are of course some qualities that cannot be measured or quantified, such as the "look", style, or even ergonomics, if that's what the Marantz team referred to, then I would agree with them.
Last edited:
Hello,
I tried to dig up in this thread, but I didn't find any information on what is the sinad for hdmi in -> speaker out ...
Could it be that internally the voltage used by the dac is in the 1 Volt ball-park, effectively outputing a better sinad than say the output on the pre-out + internal amplifier ?
I tried to dig up in this thread, but I didn't find any information on what is the sinad for hdmi in -> speaker out ...
Could it be that internally the voltage used by the dac is in the 1 Volt ball-park, effectively outputing a better sinad than say the output on the pre-out + internal amplifier ?
So is it possible that the HDAM circuit is designed to add back in a bit of distortion to sound more “musical” intentionally? Is it not possible that marrantz does this intentionally as it’s their signature or trademark sound?. I mean we have been adding distortion to guitars and other instruments for decades and most love that sound. I find it hard to believe that marrantz would go on developing HDAM technology over the tried and true just to make it sound worse. I have the PM6006 because it has a high SNR and specifically to avoid a dry flat sound of some other amps I listened to. I thought the marrantz sounds excellent for what it is. Only after coming here I’m now reading that my amp like this one tested here has a lower SINAD among other issues, which is a term I was not familiar with until coming here. Sometimes ignorance is bliss though lol and I guess now finding out marrantz is not good on paper ruins it a bit even though it shouldn’t. Especially since I pair my Hifiman 400i with a little dot I+ tube amp which I know full well adds distortion intentionally.
I understand the marrantz has a lot of people confused and arguing but we just have to ask ourselves. What is our motivation for listening...is it the music or the equipment? I think what Amir is doing is great though, it’s educational, fun and interesting but at the end of the day unless we are running a recording studio we should base our purchasing descisions on what sounds the best to us within the targeted budget rather than paper graphs.
I noticed that Amir does not post listening impressions of amps and this one in particular like with speakers, but instead just the documentation. Perhaps it’s because the differences are so audibly small that it’s not worth dedicating the time to do so with the amount of amps he reviews. Amir also reviewed a lot of speakers though aswell and always posts listening results, this should tell is something.
It’s a possibility marrantz knows something we don’t but perhaps not for everyone. Appearently they don’t belong in a recording or reference studio for example. Still though their products for decades continue to put a smile on its consumers faces around the world so I think that is a win in my books. Some people listen to the equipment and others get lost in the music, there is nothing wrong with either and products for both types. Sometimes sound and how the brain perceives it is a magic like the notorious but elusive illusion of soundstage for example. It’s hard for science to explain someone’s preference....Denon for my home theatre, marrantz for my listening room, Just my humble preference and opinion.
I understand the marrantz has a lot of people confused and arguing but we just have to ask ourselves. What is our motivation for listening...is it the music or the equipment? I think what Amir is doing is great though, it’s educational, fun and interesting but at the end of the day unless we are running a recording studio we should base our purchasing descisions on what sounds the best to us within the targeted budget rather than paper graphs.
I noticed that Amir does not post listening impressions of amps and this one in particular like with speakers, but instead just the documentation. Perhaps it’s because the differences are so audibly small that it’s not worth dedicating the time to do so with the amount of amps he reviews. Amir also reviewed a lot of speakers though aswell and always posts listening results, this should tell is something.
It’s a possibility marrantz knows something we don’t but perhaps not for everyone. Appearently they don’t belong in a recording or reference studio for example. Still though their products for decades continue to put a smile on its consumers faces around the world so I think that is a win in my books. Some people listen to the equipment and others get lost in the music, there is nothing wrong with either and products for both types. Sometimes sound and how the brain perceives it is a magic like the notorious but elusive illusion of soundstage for example. It’s hard for science to explain someone’s preference....Denon for my home theatre, marrantz for my listening room, Just my humble preference and opinion.
Last edited:
I may have backed this statement one or two decades ago, when dsp + eq wasn't so much widespread. As of today I'd expect manufacturers to be as close as possible to the "true" signal, and leaving the choice to the consumer to add "musicality" or not (through post-processing). I'd rather see the audio industry shooting for an as-flat-as possible sound for all the "hardware" chain (from dac to speaker), and leave the differentiation (that could definitely be done by the same who manufacture the hardware) to the software (pre-dac).
Highly unlikely because
a) if true you would see such harmonics in the FFT. If you compare the FFTs of the Denon (no HDAM), you don't see more 2nd harmonics and 4 th harmonics.
b) the "Total" harmonic distortions is higher than Denon's equivalent models but still below the threshold of audibility (AV8805), even the 7705 and the SR6014 measured by ASR were higher than 90 dB SINAD at or below the rated 1.2 V/2.4 V RCA/XLR. Same for the PM series integrated amps such as the PM11S1 and PM11S3, all have pre out SINAD around 90 dB or better if I remember right.
c) if that's the case, how about Marantz models that don't have HDAMs, such as the Slim line series?
.
I may be wrong but I thought in those cases we would be talking about intentional distortions at high enough level, for it to be easily audible to even people with some hearing loss.
Agree, that's why many "prefer" manufacturers who design for uncolored, neutral, or transparency (as much as possible) sound so that they can either leave it alone or manually tweak the sound to their personal preference. If Marantz actually designed for a certain sound signature, they should tell us how would they know the buyers would prefer that particular "signature".
Lastly, according to Marantz, their philosophy is:
That to me requires their amplifiers to be designed for accuracy, not to electronically fudge the signal to create some kind of sound signature, unless that sound signature is created to be the same as the input signal, just amplified.
I have actually google a few notable hifi manufacturers for their stated, goal, philosophy, or mission statements etc., and they all seem to say similar thing such as Marantz "just as the artist intended", just different wording.
I would like to emphasized that Marantz's measured THD+N is only a few dB higher than the Denon's. The gap increased only when the pre out voltage is much higher than 1.4 to 1.5 V.
Below are the FFT for the 1 kHz signal test as an example, I don't that evidence of the so called worm sounding even harmonics in the Marantz's vs Denon's. If anything the Marantz has the 3 rd harmonics 20 dB higher, but still that's 0.01%!! It also show about 15% higher in the 5th harmonics. It may be different for different frequency obviously, but Marantz and Denon both specified 0.005%, 20-20,000 Hz (analog) and 0.008% (digital) for THD.
Last edited:
Highly unlikely because
a) if true you would see such harmonics in the FFT. If you compare the FFTs of the Denon (no HDAM), you don't see more 2nd harmonics and 4 th harmonics.
b) the "Total" harmonic distortions is higher than Denon's equivalent models but still below the threshold of audibility (AV8805), even the 7705 and the SR6014 measured by ASR were higher than 90 dB SINAD at or below the rated 1.2 V/2.4 V RCA/XLR. Same for the PM series integrated amps such as the PM11S1 and PM11S3, all have pre out SINAD around 90 dB or better if I remember right.
c) if that's the case, how about Marantz models that don't have HDAMs, such as the Slim line series?
.
I may be wrong but I thought in those cases we would be talking about intentional distortions at high enough level, for it to be easily audible to even people with some hearing loss.
Agree, that's why many "prefer" manufacturers who design for uncolored, neutral, or transparency (as much as possible) sound so that they can either leave it alone or manually tweak the sound to their personal preference. If Marantz actually designed for a certain sound signature, they should tell us how would they know the buyers would prefer that particular "signature".
Lastly, according to Marantz, their philosophy is:
That to me requires their amplifiers to be designed for accuracy, not to electronically fudge the signal to create some kind of sound signature, unless that sound signature is created to be the same as the input signal, just amplified.
I have actually google a few notable hifi manufacturers for their stated, goal, philosophy, or mission statements etc., and they all seem to say similar thing such as Marantz "just as the artist intended", just different wording.
I would like to emphasized that Marantz's measured THD+N is only a few dB higher than the Denon's. The gap increased only when the pre out voltage is much higher than 1.4 to 1.5 V.
Below are the FFT for the 1 kHz signal test as an example, I don't that evidence of the so called worm sounding even harmonics in the Marantz's vs Denon's. If anything the Marantz has the 3 rd harmonics 20 dB higher, but still that's 0.01%!! It also show about 15% higher in the 5th harmonics. It may be different for different frequency obviously, but Marantz and Denon both specified 0.005%, 20-20,000 Hz (analog) and 0.008% (digital) for THD.
View attachment 114011
View attachment 114012
a) if true you would see such harmonics in the FFT. If you compare the FFTs of the Denon (no HDAM), you don't see more 2nd harmonics and 4 th harmonics.
not sure what this means but I’m still new to the whole science approach and terms, so I’m learning. I think my biggest point is that regardless of what the graphs say it’s always best to have a listen first before we judge a book by its cover which is the short version of my post below.
c) if that's the case, how about Marantz models that don't have HDAMs, such as the Slim line series?
perhaps they made compromises and couldnt fit it in the targeted budget and form factor. Or they wanted to test the waters with a completely different product line. I would imagine that the HDAM r&r and integration costs a lot more money, since they appear to be tweaking denons amp it doesn’t make any sense to add cost to product to make it sound worse. Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to rebrand the denon and mark it up with a marrantz name, maybe give it a bit more bass and a premium look? I mean differences between amps are subtle in ABX tests at best how would anyone know. The marrantz Pm6006 that i own which I’m told has only a SINAD of 60dB but yet a SNR of 102DB, 0.08% THD @8ohms and 45 watts ...which I thought was pretty good specs... I still don’t understand how SINAD is calculated and superior to SNR but ok...lets go with it. I did listen to the marantz before buying, i also compared it to my older Nikko power amp and preferred the marantz for its realistic and far from digital sound. The SINAD measures worse than even this marrantz amp on review, maybe my ears just suck and I’m only 29 but ive always worn ear plugs in live venues. What I’m really questioning and having a hard time with is is why would marrantz spend money tweaking the amp, adding technology to change the sound to make the sound worse. Yet they are still in bussiness as they have been for decades, and don’t seem to be having issues selling anything. Maybe their tweaking makes for a more warm and analogue sound at the expense of distortion which is mostly inaudible. I mean let’s be honest most audiophiles or those at least serious about their audio will trust their ear over what the graphs say, engineers on the other hand want the raw data. Consumers that purchase marrantz are either audiophiles or serious about their audio, otherwise they wouldnt spend the extra for marrantz over entry level Sony and Yamaha offerings.
In addition and in response to what you said about recreating what the artist intended. How do we know the artists prefer to be recreated with a largest noise free signal as possible by music affectionados? I know that sounds strange but allow me to explain, for my music I would personally take a musical, full sound where the notes come alive over clinical and digital. I play classical guitar but if I did record music I would want to have people engaged and emotionally moved. I will leave the clinical, dry sound to the recording engineer as it’s necessary to tweak the sound as objectively as possible and perfect the recording. If I have to take a bit of distortion to ensure music is engaging and analogue, well I guess that’s the compromise. Of course I realize that is not everyone’s cup of tea. Now whether or not the distortion is audible and ruins the experience for example is subjective and an entirely different story. Here is another angle, perhaps marantz performed tests and found these deficiencies were not audible so it was a good compromise. Think class A amps vs class D or class AB, class A has a certain energy around the notes that is hard to put into words....they are noisier but somehow sound more realistic and engaging.
There was a blind test done on amp preferences a while back, it was found that those that participated preferred the pioneer SX-1980, a high end class A I believe from ~40 years ago. I would be curious to see the distortion and noise measurements of that unit.
https://www.cnet.com/news/how-can-30-year-old-receivers-sound-better-than-new-ones/
Im just trying to provide a different perspective, there is quite possibly more to the story than just having as distortion free signal as possible. If not so than vinyl would not have emerged from the gutter it was left in 40 years ago, the same with tubes. My point is i think it’s best to have a listen before we make a purchase, the measurement graphs might be a tool in our selection toolbox and a lot of fun but realistically might be best left to the engineers rather than the consumers.
My last point is that people buy marrantz for its enveloping, emotional and musical sound. I think what has come at a bit of a shock that this comes at the expense of higher noise and/or distortion. Quite possibly a side effect of an attempt at a organic musical reproduction if you will.
Last edited:
I could be wrong but marantz seems marketed at the old school crowd, they only just got on board with network capabilities. It’s likely hard to believe but a lot of people in today’s day and age still don’t own a computer. Myself personally I’m surrounded by technology, on call 24/7 for work via the cell phone. Technology is starting to take a toll on me, I try to avoid DSP where possible aside from parametric EQ via REW. In fact, the whole reason I bought my marantz pm6006 was because it was fully analogue and sounded the most natural and not digital at all which is more than I can say for some of the other amps I listened too.
I got your points, but I was responding specifically to your point, that I quoted and re-quote below:
That I thought was not logical because if Marantz used those HDAMs to add back ....distortion...for the units to sound more musical, then such distortions would have been easily identifiable by Amir and should be visible to us readers anyway.
Anyway instead of repeating, I have already listed my point in my post but I should add that Audioholics tested the newest Marantz SR8015, and its SINAD appeared to be much closer to the Denon's and a little better than the much more AV8805.
So think about this, ignore my earlier long post, if adding "distortion" was the reason, can we expect the practically distortion free SR8015, or even the AV8805 to sound less musical than the SR6014 and the AV7705? I hope not..
By the way, I read that Steve Guttenberg's article, as well as the original Brent Butterworth's too long time ago. It included some measurements, and you can see that the Pioneer SX-1980 has much lower THD+N, it it was matched with something like my Denon AVR-4308, also measured by S&V where Brent was in charge of bench tests at the time as far as I know.
I added the measurements for the Denon AVR-4308CI for comparison, too bad Mr. Butterworth couldn't not include it for the shoot out. The results, I bet, would have been more comparable. As it was, the Pioneer SX-1980 is among the most powerful receivers, probably second only to Marantz super receiver, the Marantz 2600, so it wasn't surprising for it to beat the RX-A1800 that was a mid range Yamaha receiver and it has clearly much higher THD+N, and perhaps most like the reason it lost the battle because of its poor cross talk, -65.66 dB at 1 kHz, -48.16 dB at 20 kHz and Butterworth called it "embarrassing weaknesses"
Also worth noting, if you read the whole article, 6 out of 8 listeners picked the Pioneer their favorite, but 2 did choose the Yamaha. And the so called "beat the hell out of the other receivers" likely correlate with the comments " seems to correlate with the other comments " All of them praised its awesome bass power, which was by far the most noticeable difference in the sound. "
There was nothing mentioned about "musicality", "emotion" sort of buzz words..
My take away from that shoot out:
- The much stronger power output of the Pioneer likely was the reason it made an audible difference (based on a score of 6:2 win) and that tells me while Mr. Butterworth said none of the units was pushed past their limits, without stating the maximum input voltage, it might be possible that the weaker Yamaha did get pushed pass its limit during some heavy, loud bass passages.
- They used a Denon DVD player as source, a Marantz preamplifier for volume control, so that's really not an apples to apples test because now there is the factor of impedance and level matching involved. I would have prefer to see the Denon DVD players analog output connected to the receiver's analog input, with both the Denon DVDP and the Yamaha set to pure direct. The Yamaha's level trims can be used to level match the Pioneer. Without know the specs of the Marantz and exactly how the interconnections were done, I can't see for sure it would have made a difference, to me it at least cast some doubts.
- 8 participants only, was it a large enough group/sample? I would leave it to others more familiar with DBT protocols for such comparison tests to comment. May be someone like @Kal Rubinson could tell us how many participants Harman, Revel would use for their DBT sessions.
Receiver Shoot-Out: Vintage vs. High-Tech – Innovative Audio (iavscanada.com)
Not surprisingly, the SX-1980 put out a lot more power than the other receivers. It delivered 273.3 watts into 8 ohms and 338.0 watts into 4 ohms, both at 0.5% total harmonic distortion (THD), both channels driven.
The Denon's measured output into 4 Ohms:
Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reached 0.1% distortion at 298.0 watts and 1% distortion at 343.4 watts.
Attachments
Last edited:
I think what I’m getting at is that the HDAM is there for a reason which seems to somehow create a more live, musical sound which is also what marantz said on their website. Apparently at the expense of added distortion just the same way that tubes would. Does it color the sound like tubes do in a hybrid design? Maybe but for many that have heard the amps we like that sound most of the time. Marantz is a music first company, that much is true all over their website. At any rate take my pm6006 with a distortion of 0.08% THD that translates to 61 DB SINAD, i thought that anything under 1% in inaudible anyways. Is that true? Assuming that’s true and If I was a manufacturer I know full well that anything under 1% THD is a inaudible that gives me a lot of wiggle room to do whatever I want with the amp to get it sound the way I want as long as I keep it under 1% THD. I know it sounds like I’m a marantz fanboy but I’m not, I’m looking at it objectively because I like the PM6006 which was my first ever marantz purchase but coincidentally would likely measure poorly. Really I’ll buy whatever fulfills my needs and sounds best to me, which typically falls in the value or best bang for the buck category. Regardless of brand. Applying that logic I bought the marantz for music and the denon for movies.
I’m just curious and not for sake of argument but I promise for pure curiosity, do you own any marantz products with HDAM or have you heard them for an extended period of time? I would absolutely love some blind tests. i do have a denon x1600h, if I can somehow find a way to do an ABX blind test with the marrantz I would post the results. i have an RCA switcher already, would you just use a speaker selector box For the speakers?
Last edited:
The fact is, you can hear that "Marantz sound" right? How come I can't, neither could others that I know... I have had, still do, own Marantz preamp, prepro, multi-channel and two channel power amps, couldn't hear that specific sound that believers claimed they heard, not when no dsp's involved anyway. I can hear differences between my loudspeakers, subwoofers, even some dacs under some conditions though.
If 1% THD is inaudible, and I believe it would be audible under some conditions, but even if it is, what would that "wiggle room" be used for? If you are still thinking some intentionally added harmonics, how could they be hidden from the Audio Precision instrument? Marantz used the same kind of instrument for their internal measurements too! If it isn't distortions, FR, SNR, XT, DR etc. etc., what is it then, getting to sound like Marantz preamp, power amps are double purposed for EQ/tone control as well??
I hope if Amir and others know the answers would chime in, as Marantz for sure won't. I obviously cannot convince you that if the level of distortion is not audible, and the frequency response is flat or flat enough, then the claimed "musicality", "emotion" etc., were imagined, though I understand it clearly would still be real to the believers. Neither can you convince me that those were real, especially when I have heard many, and own a few Marantz gear. Grant you, that frequency response roll off due to their choice of DAC reconstruction filter would definitively have audible effect to those with good hearing, but that won't affect analog inputs, and only affect digital inputs if sampling rate is 44.1 kHz, or 48 kHz to a lesser extent.
Its been a good discussion, just no conclusions to the point discussed, not based on known facts and available data anyway, and the unknown would likely remain a long time.
The fact is, you can hear that "Marantz sound" right? How come I can't, neither could others that I know... I have had, still do, own Marantz preamp, prepro, multi-channel and two channel power amps, couldn't hear that specific sound that believers claimed they heard, not when no dsp's involved anyway. I can hear differences between my loudspeakers, subwoofers, even some dacs under some conditions though.
If 1% THD is inaudible, and I believe it would be audible under some conditions, but even if it is, what would that "wiggle room" be used for? If you are still thinking some intentionally added harmonics, how could they be hidden from the Audio Precision instrument? Marantz used the same kind of instrument for their internal measurements too! If it isn't distortions, FR, SNR, XT, DR etc. etc., what is it then, getting to sound like Marantz preamp, power amps are double purposed for EQ/tone control as well??
I hope if Amir and others know the answers would chime in, as Marantz for sure won't. I obviously cannot convince you that if the level of distortion is not audible, and the frequency response is flat or flat enough, then the claimed "musicality", "emotion" etc., were imagined, though I understand it clearly would still be real to the believers. Neither can you convince me that those were real, especially when I have heard many, and own a few Marantz gear. Grant you, that frequency response roll off due to their choice of DAC reconstruction filter would definitively have audible effect to those with good hearing, but that won't affect analog inputs, and only affect digital inputs if sampling rate is 44.1 kHz, or 48 kHz to a lesser extent.
Its been a good discussion, just no conclusions to the point discussed, not based on known facts and available data anyway, and the unknown would likely remain a long time.
The fact is, you can hear that "Marantz sound" right? How come I can't, neither could others that I know...
I will admit that i have not ABX blind tested the unit yet so it could very well be my mind playing tricks on me, they have some pretty nice language on their website that has me convinced so right there my opinion is biased, especially if you love music. Im hoping to do some blind tests, and who knows...maybe i wont even hear a difference.
If you are still thinking some intentionally added harmonics, how could they be hidden from the Audio Precision instrument?
I have no idea but i wish i knew, the only thing im hung up on is why they would spend time and money adding the HDAM if it makes the sound worse, it obviously makes the performance worse. There has to be a reason why and its bugging me why we don't know. Im disappointed Marantz did not feel the need to justify their low performance. A part of me believes they are being cocky thinking this wont affect sales because they have been in business so long, which is not true...its 2021 you cant hide the facts from everyone...even their seasoned audiophile fanboys.
Grant you, that frequency response roll off due to their choice of DAC reconstruction filter would definitively have audible effect to those with good hearing
I agree that the DAC is complete garbage, they really crapped the bed on that one.
Its been a good discussion, just no conclusions to the point discussed, not based on known facts and available data anyway, and the unknown would likely remain a long time
I agree, its disappointing that Marantz would not respond or provide any documentation to help out. Or even a simple explanation to their rationale.
On a side note, what would be the best way to do a blind test? I have an RCA/source switch. would getting an A-B speaker switch be the best option? Than just have the wife switch both at the same time?
Last edited:
I would use the RCA source switch if you want to compare two sources such as CD players, you still have to level match and that is the trouble because of the time delay each time you switch source. If the two source devices happen to have the same output level then it won't be an issue. For CD players, I guess you would have to have two discs.
I just bought a 3.5mm y cable, ill use rca's from there to go to each amp. My Ibasso DX120 will be the source, now i just need a way to safely switch the speakers without spending a fortune. I can either make something or just use simple banana connectors, which wont be ideal because that would cause the delay. I have the calibrated minidsp mic so i should be ok to use that for level matching.
I did find someone on AVS that claims to have done some bling testing.
https://www.avsforum.com/threads/my...rantz-and-blind-testing-the-employee.3090254/
Another member extrapolated from the test:
"So the Marantz is physically warmer. The HDAM chip is the culprit for this. Denon does not use this chip"
Some more brain food anyways, but take for face value of course.
Last edited:
I do not know. The info might be in some of their papers. Alternatively, you could also ask @Sean Olive.
More food for thought re your question on whether HDAM adds intentional distortions for the intended "marantz sound".
You mentioned you have a PM6006 with THD+N spec: 0.08%. That's at the power amp output, at pre amp output, where HDAM has effects, for sure it would be lower, likely less than 0.005%. It is 0.005% for the SR6014, I expect the PM6006 can do better.
Did you know their flag ship integrated amps were 0.005%, and that's at the power amp output so the pre out's would likely be in the order of 0.001%!!
Those integrated amps have the much higher end HDAMs and are situated in the right place, that is upstream, instead of at the power amp input like they are in the AVRs and AVPs.
At 0.005% distortion/noise level, you can rule out the effects of any "intentionally added distortions", how could it be, if they did add distortions then why would be so low? What would it be if no distortions were added, 0.002%? Can we hear the difference between 0.005% and 0.002%, I guess not.
By trying to answer your question, I am now fully convinced, by logic alone, that while HDAM would in fact add a little bit of THD+N. but no it wouldn't be intentionally done... It adds distortions and noise because that's what electronic amplifiers do, HDAMs are unity gain buffer amp stage so with that extra stage, you get extra distortions and noise. As to why would they do it that way, with the HDAM, I have an idea but I would rather keep it to myself this time.
May be bigguyca wouldn't mind telling us what he thinks the real reasons may be...
