Review and Measurements of Marantz AV8805 AV Processor

[digicidal]

I even wrote to Marantz about this , but their reply was basically its the DAC's filtering, not a problem with our product.

Corporate speak for "We already deposited your money... now run along like a good little consumer."
I'm irritated I gave them as much money as I have over the years... but at least that won't be happening going forward.

 

[RichB]

How can they say that?
Its their DAC so its their filtering so its their problem!

The DAC has more than one selectable filter choice, they chose a fashionably, poorly IMO.

Emotiva also chose a slow filter but when contacted, said they would consider a selectable fast option.
Will they follow through? I hope so, but at least they didn’t dissemble.

- Rich

 

[Bear123]

And they seem to be doing it better and better. Just take a look at this measurement of my Denon HEOS soundbar with WiFi sub. I'm using it for movies but it's not bad with music at all..

This is probably higher fidelity than 90% of "pure" 2.0 channel systems that eschew subs and eq

 

[P_M]

And this is what it looks like when playing music -

 

[RichB]

This is probably higher fidelity than 90% of "pure" 2.0 channel systems that eschew subs and eq

I don't think we can say that a system subjectively sounds better than another looking at graphs.

- Rich

 

[Bear123]

I don't think we can say that a system subjectively sounds better than another looking at graphs.
View attachment 56060

- Rich

In many cases I think we certainly can. Look at a measurement of many B&W speakers, then what they look like in room without subs or eq. It would be a scary looking response graph, and I feel very confident that a response as that posted for the Heos sound bar and sub has a good chance of sounding better. I mean, I realize we aren't going to get superb stereo imaging out of a sound bar, but the graph leads me to believe it will sound surprisingly good.

Also, something doesn't look quite right with your posted graph. Below 100 Hz actually looks relatively smooth and free from huge swings in response(other than a rather enormous rise), but above 200 Hz, you've got 20-30 dB swings in response, masked by the 20 dB increments on your graph. If this is for the speakers I think its for, I can't imagine something isn't quite right(with the measurement). Also, it would seem the bass is 25 dB hotter than the rest of the sound. I find a Y-axis of around 45-105 dB usually gives the correct scale for the proper or common visual representation of FR with 5 dB increments.

 

[RichB]

In many cases I think we certainly can. Look at a measurement of many B&W speakers, then what they look like in room without subs or eq. It would be a scary looking response graph, and I feel very confident that a response as that posted for the Heos sound bar and sub has a good chance of sounding better. I mean, I realize we aren't going to get superb stereo imaging out of a sound bar, but the graph leads me to believe it will sound surprisingly good.

Also, something doesn't look quite right with your posted graph. Below 100 Hz actually looks relatively smooth and free from huge swings in response(other than a rather enormous rise), but above 200 Hz, you've got 20-30 dB swings in response, masked by the 20 dB increments on your graph. If this is for the speakers I think its for, I can't imagine something isn't quite right(with the measurement). Also, it would seem the bass is 25 dB hotter than the rest of the sound. I find a Y-axis of around 45-105 dB usually gives the correct scale for the proper or common visual representation of FR with 5 dB increments.

Measurements in a controlled environment (an-echoic) are useful to measure speaker performance.
I am not sure when I took those measurements but they were in-room and stereo.

There were a set of videos from Audioholics that are really interesting. In this video multi-point simulation shows how REQ introduced more errors above is the upper frequencies that cannot be measured in room. The measurement in room look great but this is not what we hear.
If you want to save time, start at 30 minutes.

In part 2, they measure a real speaker Martin Logan speaker that happened to be on-hand:

Microphones are measuring all reflected sound. Human hearing is capable of listening through the reflections to register the direct sound. So, we hear more deeply than the sum of all sound. If you correct the all sound, you may be worsening the performance.

- Rich

 

[Bear123]

Yeah I've read up a lot on how full range room correction can do more harm than good, specifically for the reasons you mention as far as eq'ing the combination of all direct and reflected sound, which does/may/can make things worse even if the measured response "looks" better on paper. For this reason, I have chosen to limit eq in my room to below 600 Hz. Although below Schroeder is often regarded as ideal, my response is quite a wreck up to 6-800 Hz so I decided to run a little higher. Above that point, measured response looks reasonably good in my room. Much more so with my current speakers than with my last couple of pairs.

This is a lazy weekend....thought about breaking out REW to measure a bit more, but that's as far as I've gotten. Might be changing subs in a couple weeks so it makes sense to wait until then to play. As I feel like it might garner some interest, I'd like to create a thread regarding subs, eq, integration with speakers, measurements, and maybe some comparisons between my current subs and the ones I'll be switching to, including compression sweeps and distortion comparison. I think I will lose 6 dB or so in the swap. .

For example, perhaps run sweeps on the L,C, and R raw without eq. Then with eq below my cutoff frequency. Same with subs. Raw response, after eq, and blended with speakers to show full range response. So time consuming though.

I'm also interested in looking at distortion from the speakers on compression sweeps without eq, then see how eq affects distortion/headroom.

 

[Sal1950]

Opinions, opinions, opinions, everyone has one, as the old saying goes..

 

[RichB]

Opinions, opinions, opinions, everyone has one, as the old saying goes..

I do appreciate the efforts by Audioholics to examine the benefits and pitfalls of REQ using simulation and measurements.
After all, we don't want to rely solely on manufacturer claims.

- Rich

 

[Sal1950]

I do appreciate the efforts by Audioholics to examine the benefits and pitfalls of REQ using simulation and measurements.
After all, we don't want to rely solely on manufacturer claims.

- Rich

For sure. Don't take me wrong, I greatly respect the work being done by Gene and the guys at Audioholics. They are one of only a couple objective audiophile groups that shine the light of reality on the BS puked up by the mass of $ and marketing controlled side of audio. To finish Peter Aczel's quote in my sig.
"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"
If this stuff is new to many of our new members, take the time to read Peter Aczel's "My Legacy, What I have learned after 6 decades in audio"
https://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/audio_critic_web1.htm#acl

 

[Frank Dernie]

The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?

Absolutely.
Mind you "audiophile" could be replaced by "human being" since peoples behaviour has been illuminated by the internet.

 

[maverickronin]

Absolutely.
Mind you "audiophile" could be replaced by "human being" since peoples behaviour has been illuminated by the internet.

Is it just my imagination or does the audiophile industry have a significantly higher fantasy/reality ratio than others? There's woo and BS everywhere but it seems much more pervasive in hifi.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Is it just my imagination or does the audiophile industry have a significantly higher fantasy/reality ratio than others? There's woo and BS everywhere but it seems much more pervasive in hifi.

I am not so sure about that but I am loath to step over the line into politics.

 

[peng]

In part 2, they measure a real speaker Martin Logan speaker that happened to be on-hand:

Microphones are measuring all reflected sound. Human hearing is capable of listening through the reflections to register the direct sound. So, we hear more deeply than the sum of all sound. If you correct the all sound, you may be worsening the performance.



- Rich

That's an excellent video that you linked. I do have concerns about whether Matthem himself have some misconceptions of his own, but I hope not. I think I understand what he (I suppose Dr. Floyd too) is saying, but I am not sure if they are totally right, without also hearing from Dr. Kyriakakis and/or Dr. Mathias.

I would like to make a couple of points, such as a) we should give those two Dr. a chance to express their views and b) does Matthew know for sure Audyssey and Dirac Live did not have build in algorithms to deal with effects he cited/perceived. If I remember right, at one point in the video Matthew might have said that Dirac had said they did factor in those effects (not in so many words), but he (Matthew) seemed to brush it off by saying "it can't..." If so, who should we believe? To me, if the mic is able to pick up the ".....sum of all sound..." then the software should be able to do the EQ taking into consideration of the fact that "...we hear more deeply than the sum of all sound..", logically speaking. Surely those two Ph.D knows that, if would be shame if they don't when at least one of them was a professor in a reputable university.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Conclusions
From pure objective performance, the Marantz AV8805 Processor cannot touch 2-channel dedicated desktop DACs which cost less than its shipping cost! With no published measurements by Marantz, nor that of any reviewer, companies are getting away releasing products that leave good bit of performance on the table. Fortunately there is nothing drastically wrong here, sans the DAC filtering. That aspect needs to be reported to Marantz as hopefully can be fixed with a firmware update.

From subjective point of view, if you wrestle enough with Audyssey Room EQ, you should be able to get better in-room performance than any non-EQ DAC in a real room. Then again, you can get the same in much cheaper AVRs and processors.

I would say buy the Marantz AV8805 because it has the features it has not because you think it will provide reference quality audio performance. It will not.

I have followed this thread since its initial appearance and, just recently, needed to find out if you ever tested the signal transfer performance from one of the analog 7.1 inputs to either an RCA or XLR output. These are, as has been discussed, the only inputs that are subject neither to D/A nor A/D/A processes. Despite some effort, I cannot find this info. @amirm, can you comment?

Kal

 

[peng]

I have followed this thread since its initial appearance and, just recently, needed to find out if you ever tested the signal transfer performance from one of the analog 7.1 inputs to either an RCA or XLR output. These are, as has been discussed, the only inputs that are subject neither to D/A nor A/D/A processes. Despite some effort, I cannot find this info. Can you comment?

Kal

Kal, I know that has been discussed, but as far as I know is based on people's assumptions/speculations but is not true. From the information in the service manual, I could see that as long as you use direct/pure direct modes, and analog inputs, the signal chain will bypass the ADA/DA double conversions. It does not matter if you use the MCH analog on the Marantz or the two channel analogs on the Marantz or Denon units. I know the fact that you can still have the sub on and the crossover settings would still seem in effect so one would think that DSP must still be involved and that would imply A to D and then D to A would have to be still in effect, but the schematics clearly show the bypass scheme achievable via the multiplexor/switches. So I ended up double checking by emailing D+M technical support and asked for their engineering to give me a credible answer, and they did confirm what I thought.

 

[audioBliss]

The question I usually always ask is why anyone would use Direct/Pure direct though? This means no bass management, which means no subwoofers which means you could just as well buy a dedicated 2 channel preamp instead. Also you're missing out on room correction and so on. It is not worth the effort to try and run a Pure Direct setup with an AVR imo. Unless that is that you have an external crossover filter and doing a very advanced setup and need no room correction due to rebuilt room etc. But then again with kind of money buy a state of the art 2 channel preamp+DAC combo instead.

I have tried Pure Direct on a Marantz unit with surround during a demo scene with 10Hz content (this was years ago) without quite knowing what pure direct does. And at least in my unit the center channel 9" woofer was going crazy so for sure no bass management activated there. That was the last time using it. Imo at least no speaker is big enough to run full range. Always off-load to subs for less distorsion from speakers.

 

[RichB]

Kal, I know that has been discussed, but as far as I know is based on people's assumptions/speculations but is not true. From the information in the service manual, I could see that as long as you use direct/pure direct modes, and analog inputs, the signal chain will bypass the ADA/DA double conversions. It does not matter if you use the MCH analog on the Marantz or the two channel analogs on the Marantz or Denon units. I know the fact that you can still have the sub on and the crossover settings would still seem in effect so one would think that DSP must still be involved and that would imply A to D and then D to A would have to be still in effect, but the schematics clearly show the bypass scheme achievable via the multiplexor/switches. So I ended up double checking by emailing D+M technical support and asked for their engineering to give me a credible answer, and they did confirm what I thought.

As I understand it, you confirmed the following:

• the 7.1 always bypass, meaning no A to D conversion and no bass manaagement
• the other analog inputs can bypass A to D conversions but the exact settings used to do so are unclear
• Marantz is not interested is "splainin" the details

So, I don't know that we have established the features the cause A to D on other analog inputs.

- Rich

 

[peng]

As I understand it, you confirmed the following:

• the 7.1 always bypass, meaning no A to D conversion and no bass manaagement
• the other analog inputs can bypass A to D conversions but the exact settings used to do so are unclear
• Marantz is not interested is "splainin" the details

So, I don't know that we have established the features the cause A to D on other analog inputs.

- Rich

It was quite clear that it would have to be in direct or pure direct mode and there would be no DSP, ADDAC in the path. I did PM the details at the time. The part that was not clear to me was, how then did it do the crossover thing. All he said was there was a tone control at the end of the volume IC.. I re-checked the block diagram and did not see the such tone control.