WHAT filter? There isn't one.
It probably wouldn't destroy the tweeters but my dogs would not like the ultrasound.
-
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 SR7015 8K AVR Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
It probably wouldn't destroy the tweeters but my dogs would not like the ultrasound.
Does this DAC employ ANY filter at all, though? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinc_filter for there to be a sinc function operating on the output there needs to be a DSP filter that performs this transform. Amirm says "essentially no filtering" on his graph at https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-avr-dac-filter-audio-measurements-png.86253/
I wouldn't want to run expensive speakers with expensive tweeters on this AVR, it sends a LOT of ultrasonic noise to the speakers. Once it blew out a few thousand dollars of high-end tweeters I'd definitely get that sincing feeling
It's unlikely that music will cause damage to tweeters as high frequency content doesn't have much energy in it, but playing a full scale 20kHz signal might.
We can''t forget there are content out there with 96khz, 192khz...even some players/DACS upsample/admit those frequencies and higher.
On the other hand, a 96khz container doesn't mean that there are useful info in that range.
Not saying that those frequencies are useful or audible, just saying that no way that ultra sonic info could damage speakers, headphones, your ears...
The filter is just the typical slow-roll-of which can be found in AKM DACS.
¿ Do you think you can hear the differences in your room with your setup ?
On the other hand, a 96khz container doesn't mean that there are useful info in that range.
Not saying that those frequencies are useful or audible, just saying that no way that ultra sonic info could damage speakers, headphones, your ears...
The filter is just the typical slow-roll-of which can be found in AKM DACS.
¿ Do you think you can hear the differences in your room with your setup ?
Promit
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2020
- Messages
- 197
- Likes
- 523
Thanks but I’m mainly an A4L buyer. I picked up a 3400 back then and I’ll get a 36 or 45 when it’s time to put my Atmos height speakers in.
KaiserSoze
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2020
- Messages
- 699
- Likes
- 592
You motivated me to look at accessories4less, and they have the X4500H for $200 less than Crutchfield. That's a great value. They also have several of the Yamaha AVRs in the same rough price bracket at steep discount.
SINAD value used is the one from the Dashboard that has a 22.4 kHz filtering for measurements. In other words, it already has the filtering that AVR does not have. In that regard, that SINAD is independent of the filter performance. So fixing that won't change its standing.
None are here for testing. A fancy processor is here for testing though!
You have me very intrigued.
KaiserSoze
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2020
- Messages
- 699
- Likes
- 592
For me personally, one of the most significant advantages of HDMI is the avoidance of thick bundles of cable. With component video you have three separate shielded cables plus two more for stereo audio, and if you want 5.1 or whatever, you need even more cables or else you use a single cable to carry the digital multiplex, in which case it is kind of funky because you're carrying the audio digitally while using analog for video. Not that there's anything wrong with that per se, but it just seems, oh, I suppose inconsistent. I had a very nice Yamaha RX-V2090 that I was very fond of, and even though it didn't do component video, I still had a bundle of cables about as thick as my arm. When I bought an HDTV with component video input and had a satellite receiver with component video output, I had to connect them directly, which meant that occasionally I had to switch the video input at the TV. If I had bought another receiver to do component video switching, the bundle would have become impossibly thick. Thankfully I had the foresight to wait for a few more years. I hated that my RX-V2090 was already obsolete, and I wouldn't have liked it if I had bought another big AVR and it also became obsolete after just a few years. I delayed replacing the RX-V2090 for a few years after HDMI had become established, but once I did that conversion, any regrets I had were only with missing some of the things I liked about the RX-V2090. Like that slick servo-operated analog volume control. I loved that volume control and still miss it.
In addition to the convenience factor, video transmission via satellite and cable was rapidly converting to digital, and even DVD was digital, so if the AVR used as the primary switch were only able to switch analog video, the digital video signal would have to be converted to analog in the video tuners and the disc players. And when it got to the TV, for flat panel TVs the continuous analog signal would need to be converted to digital. Given that video is encoded and recorded digitally and transmitted digitally, it just wouldn't make a lot of sense for the primary switch to require it all to be converted to analog and back to digital at the flat panel TV.
- Joined
- May 31, 2020
- Messages
- 590
- Likes
- 989
I’ve picked the last one up in a store nearby for only 477 euros....! Amazing deal.
Attachments
Vasr
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 1,409
- Likes
- 1,926
HDMI works for 99% of the target audience - HT Use via streaming commercial services that have DRM, allows a simplified connection to the central AVR from each source, a single connection to the TV, enables TV remote to control the operations via CEC (which is basically an extended trigger mechanism), allows audio from content directly received by TV to be played via AVR using ARC/eARC in the same connection, etc.
Most of the belly-aching about HDMI is from the non-HT (or barely use HT) crowd (we had it better with blah, blah) who don't see the need for the convenience and usability of that simplified connection that made AVRs common household items with minimal fuss.
The problem isn't the HDMI with HDCP. It is with rest of audio/video industry not developing a non-DRM version (an open source if you will) for other uses including multi-channel HD audio and the ability to include all of the above convenience functions. Instead, you get their own niche, silo solutions - we got Dante, we got USB, we got XLR, we got IP, etc. This is why you don't put engineers as product managers because they just can't think like average consumers.
Thanks for the clarification, Amir! I remember when measuring one of the Denons the the processing, specifically down mixing the channels to stereo caused significant drop in SINAD. How would we explain that?
I agree but except with this: there is no Denon AVP (preamp only) available that I know of, so there is no Denon counterpart for the Marantz AV770x/880x series.
Shortcuttomoncton
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2020
- Messages
- 2
- Likes
- 11
Ok, so—long-time reader here. This is the first time I’ve seen something that I’ve had some direct experience with and can’t help but comment since it is so relevant.
I have the previous Marantz SR7013 4K version of this receiver. I’ve wanted to step up to the mighty Denon 8500 for years but just can’t justify the cost, so I’ve recently been curious about the x6700 which is the Denon version of the Marantz 8012 (also expensive) and received excellent reviews.
So in the interest of seeing whether these latest Denon receivers are actually significantly better as the ASR measurements suggest, a few weeks ago I ordered the Denon x6700 with a return policy and spent about two weeks switching back and forth between them.
Now I’ve done blind audio A/B testing before but due to the complexity of wiring for these boxes and my limited time, I couldn’t do that here—I had to manually switch inputs which doesn’t give this any scientific weight. I also did not do any measurements or anything else that ASR would consider necessary—this was a purely subjective sit and listen and decide process for a couple weeks. It was also made more difficult by the power differences between the amps, but I did try very basic loudness tests with a phone app to try and keep the dB levels roughly matched to the respective power outputs since that would otherwise have a big subjective impact.
I used both receivers in a 5.1 HT setup with Totem Tribe III speakers and in-wall surrounds, and also in 2.1 stereo/2.0 direct modes for audio streaming via Tidal hi-res. Late-30s ears here, along with my wife and some friends who popped by for a couple hours. All sorts of movies and types of music—rock, folk, pop and hip hop.
Long story short: I was looking for reasons to justify the Denon, but ended up preferring the Marantz for music especially. For HT the Denon seemed a little bit more crisp and precise, which was probably better overall but very tough to judge subjectively (hard to separate from the power output differences as well). But when it came to music, we ended up consistently finding that we preferred listening to music with the Marantz; it seemed smoother and more engaging in comparison and we were less likely to find it hard or analytical and sharp on the ears if you will. After two weeks of back and forth it really came down to the power output benefits of the Denon, and since I have a couple young kids and don’t see concert-level volumes in my immediate future, I couldn’t justify spending a decent chunk of cash for what seemed like a lateral move at best. Sent the Denon back for a refund just last week.
So that is my purely subjective take: I put a well-reviewed Denon X6700 and a less-well-reviewed Marantz SR7013 side by side for two weeks, and despite the ASR measurements seeming to indicate that the Denon should be clearly superior, my ears preferred listening to the Marantz. That includes all the audio adjectives like sharp and round that drive ASR folks bananas, so take it with as many grains of salt as required.
I have the previous Marantz SR7013 4K version of this receiver. I’ve wanted to step up to the mighty Denon 8500 for years but just can’t justify the cost, so I’ve recently been curious about the x6700 which is the Denon version of the Marantz 8012 (also expensive) and received excellent reviews.
So in the interest of seeing whether these latest Denon receivers are actually significantly better as the ASR measurements suggest, a few weeks ago I ordered the Denon x6700 with a return policy and spent about two weeks switching back and forth between them.
Now I’ve done blind audio A/B testing before but due to the complexity of wiring for these boxes and my limited time, I couldn’t do that here—I had to manually switch inputs which doesn’t give this any scientific weight. I also did not do any measurements or anything else that ASR would consider necessary—this was a purely subjective sit and listen and decide process for a couple weeks. It was also made more difficult by the power differences between the amps, but I did try very basic loudness tests with a phone app to try and keep the dB levels roughly matched to the respective power outputs since that would otherwise have a big subjective impact.
I used both receivers in a 5.1 HT setup with Totem Tribe III speakers and in-wall surrounds, and also in 2.1 stereo/2.0 direct modes for audio streaming via Tidal hi-res. Late-30s ears here, along with my wife and some friends who popped by for a couple hours. All sorts of movies and types of music—rock, folk, pop and hip hop.
Long story short: I was looking for reasons to justify the Denon, but ended up preferring the Marantz for music especially. For HT the Denon seemed a little bit more crisp and precise, which was probably better overall but very tough to judge subjectively (hard to separate from the power output differences as well). But when it came to music, we ended up consistently finding that we preferred listening to music with the Marantz; it seemed smoother and more engaging in comparison and we were less likely to find it hard or analytical and sharp on the ears if you will. After two weeks of back and forth it really came down to the power output benefits of the Denon, and since I have a couple young kids and don’t see concert-level volumes in my immediate future, I couldn’t justify spending a decent chunk of cash for what seemed like a lateral move at best. Sent the Denon back for a refund just last week.
So that is my purely subjective take: I put a well-reviewed Denon X6700 and a less-well-reviewed Marantz SR7013 side by side for two weeks, and despite the ASR measurements seeming to indicate that the Denon should be clearly superior, my ears preferred listening to the Marantz. That includes all the audio adjectives like sharp and round that drive ASR folks bananas, so take it with as many grains of salt as required.
Promit
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2020
- Messages
- 197
- Likes
- 523
The two receivers measure differently. Given that fact, there are only two possibilities: the differences are audible or they are not. If we assume they are audible, then subjectively it’s to be expected that people will have a preference for one or the other. (Even if this preference is “wrong”.) if it’s not audible then it’s merely a difference of money and aesthetics..
So that is my purely subjective take: I put a well-reviewed Denon X6700 and a less-well-reviewed Marantz SR7013 side by side for two weeks, and despite the ASR measurements seeming to indicate that the Denon should be clearly superior, my ears preferred listening to the Marantz. That includes all the audio adjectives like sharp and round that drive ASR folks bananas, so take it with as many grains of salt as required.
I will note that room correction makes it awfully difficult to compare receiver sound, if you use them as intended
Denon engineers to to get a green light to build a 16 channel Digital in only AVP. If they can get the X8500 to 103 Sinad I would be very curious what they could get SINAD to on an AVP if they dropped all the analog inputs, and didn't have to deal with all those internal amps (13 in the case of the X8500). On the Denon/Marantz side of things it is a shame to be limited to the relatively poor measuring 7705/8805 when obvoiusly the Denon side of things could bring out a much better measuring product. At this point, there is no reason to complain about Marantz as it is obviously a choice by them to measure they way they do.
On Amazon, the refurb 4500’s don’t seem to have a strong reputation.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
KaiserSoze
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2020
- Messages
- 699
- Likes
- 592
Say Whhaaaaatt? That's only $562 US! That's ridiculous! Well, it looks like it was an "open box" unit, but that's okay as long as it isn't beat up and has the remote, the mic and the manual. And being open box, a fair price would have been maybe $850, considering that new-in-box is now going for about $1000. That's one of the very best bargains I've ever seen. Now take some of that money you saved and make a donation to Amir.
They definitely made it clear that the Marantz team tuned the AVPs/AVRs to have a different sound than Denon. Problem is, aside from the slow roll off filters effects, I can't see how they could sound different, when considering the following facts:
- flat response from 20 to 20,000 Hz, except the roll off due to the deliberate choice of the slow roll of dac reconstruction filter, that does not affect analog inputs, and should have zero to negligible effects on higher sampling frequency digital source.
- low distortions, higher than Denon's but still low enough that they should not sound noticeably different.
- IMDs measured similar to Denon's.
- SNR/DR measurements were not that different.
- the HDAM's is an extra buffer stage at the end of the pre out signal chain, it is a buffer, not an equalizer or tone control.
- power amp section look identical (I haven't seen the 2020 models), even the rail voltages and bias look the same.
May be I missed something, doubt it but always possible as I have not analyzed every page of the schematics in great detail, just the block diagrams and the power amp schematics. It just seems that there is no clear evidence that they would sound that different except under some conditions when using digital inputs, because of the different filter choice. It was interesting that they said "tune...." implying its not the hardware??. Regardless, I have time on my side so I will try and to a more detailed comparison on the schematics, say between that of the AVR-X4400H or X4500H and the SR7012, or SR6014 to see if I did miss something obvious.
If they do sound different, how did the Marantz team know what kind of difference people prefer, why wouldn't they just let the amp amps as accurately as possible, and leave the tuning to the users? Also, whatever they did to the FR, wouldn't Audyssey mess it up anyway? Or if direct/pure direct is used, for analog inputs, the only difference is an extra buffer stage, and for digital inputs, the reconstruction filter, that should only have effect on 44.1 kHz and may be even 48 kHz sampling frequency but not higher.
I think people heard the difference because they have been told, and expected the difference. If they did not know which one they were listening to, like in a DBT, I would bet money on the safe side, that they could not ID which is which. I have both, roughly 50/50, and I could not say I hear a difference no matter how hard I tried, but then I am not easily influenced by hearsay, not overly prone to expectation bias, at least that's what I think.
By the way, I am all for Denon to build an AVP, even if they wouldn't drop the analogs, but I always thought it would be wishful thinking because it would almost definitely hurt Marantz AVP sales.
Last edited:
You guys are making it very difficult to make a decision. The Marantz SR7105 that Amir measured is my AVR and after looking at his testing I went out and bought the Denon X6700. After reading all of these great posts I went back to the Best buy and did a completely unscientific listening of the Denon X3700 and the Marantz SR6014 since that is all they had set up. I used the same volume and a pair of KEF speakers.
Here is my inexperienced unscientific take on the two AVR's. I would agree with shortcuttomoncton. There is a definite difference in sound signature between the two AVR's. The Denon is punchier, a bit brighter and a little fatiguing with music. The Marantz was softer and easier to listen to music. I couldn't say which was better and just that there was a definite difference in sound. I think it comes down to personal preference. Tough part is I know in my head that the Marantz had miserable measurements compared to the Denon but I really don't listen to measurements. Most seem to be inaudible.
My two cents.
PG55
Here is my inexperienced unscientific take on the two AVR's. I would agree with shortcuttomoncton. There is a definite difference in sound signature between the two AVR's. The Denon is punchier, a bit brighter and a little fatiguing with music. The Marantz was softer and easier to listen to music. I couldn't say which was better and just that there was a definite difference in sound. I think it comes down to personal preference. Tough part is I know in my head that the Marantz had miserable measurements compared to the Denon but I really don't listen to measurements. Most seem to be inaudible.
My two cents.
PG55
They definitely made it clear that the Marantz team tuned the AVPs/AVRs to have a different sound than Denon. Problem is, aside from the slow roll off filters effects, I can't see how they could sound different, when considering the following facts:
- flat response from 20 to 20,000 Hz, except the roll off due to the deliberate choice of the slow roll of dac reconstruction filter, that does not affect analog inputs, and should have zero to negligible effects on higher sampling frequency digital source.
- low distortions, higher than Denon's but still low enough that they should not sound noticeably different.
- IMDs measured similar to Denon's.
- SNR/DR measurements were not that different.
- the HDAM's is an extra buffer stage at the end of the pre out signal chain, it is a buffer, not an equalizer or tone control.
- power amp section look identical (I haven't seen the 2020 models), even the rail voltages and bias look the same.
May be I missed something, doubt it but always possible as I have not analyzed every page of the schematics in great detail, just the block diagrams and the power amp schematics. It just seems that there is no clear evidence that they would sound that different except under some conditions when using digital inputs, because of the different filter choice.
If they do sound different, how did the Marantz team know what kind of difference people prefer, why wouldn't they just let the amp amps as accurately as possible, and leave the tuning to the users? Also, whatever they did to the FR, wouldn't Audyssey mess it up anyway? Or if direct/pure direct is used, for analog inputs, the only difference is an extra buffer stage, and for digital inputs, the reconstruction filter, that should only have effect on 44.1 kHz and may be even 48 kHz sampling frequency but not higher.
I think people heard the difference because they have been told, and expected the difference. If they did not know which one they were listening to, like in a DBT, I would bet money on the safe side, that they could not ID which is which. I have both, roughly 50/50, and I could not say I hear a difference no matter how hard I tried, but then I am not easily influenced by hearsay, not overly prone to expectation bias, at least that's what I think.
By the way, I am all for Denon to build an AVP, even if they wouldn't drop the analogs, but I always thought it would be wishful thinking because it would almost definitely hurt Marantz AVP sales.
I think the point is Marantz reason for being (raison d'être) is an AVP option and "audiophile" performance.
There is clearly a problem with measured performance and that should not be the case with an audiophile product.
- Rich
