• 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!

Review and Measurements of Marantz AV8805 AV Processor

OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,373
Likes
234,443
Location
Seattle Area
Strangely enough, guys from EBU (Tech. 3276 – 2nd edition) think that linear response is important..
Broadcast (and cinema) people live in dark ages of sound reproduction. In many ways sound reproduction in rooms is far more advanced and has benefited greatly from research and technology implementation. All of this was explained in my article. Instead of posting snippets, I suggest reading that, the references within, and then we can speak.
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,065
Location
Zg, Cro
Broadcast (and cinema) people live in dark ages of sound reproduction. In many ways sound reproduction in rooms is far more advanced and has benefited greatly from research and technology implementation. All of this was explained in my article. Instead of posting snippets, I suggest reading that, the references within, and then we can speak.

I'm simply not buying the idea that some non-linear response sounds better than linear (wtih the same slope curve). If that is the case you should be able to draw that specific non-linear response which sounds better than linear so we can all adjust our corrections to it.

That is, of course, if you can prove that it really does sounds better, and that article certainly doesn't prove it. From what I can see you can't define what kind of non-linear response sounds better than linear, which makes me think how legit was the test you linked.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,373
Likes
234,443
Location
Seattle Area
I'm simply not buying the idea that some non-linear response sounds better than linear (wtih the same slope curve). If that is the case you should be able to draw that specific non-linear response which sounds better than linear so we can all adjust our corrections to it.

That is, of course, if you can prove that it really does sounds better, and that article certainly doesn't prove it. From what I can see you can't define what kind of non-linear response sounds better than linear, which makes me think how legit was the test you linked.
It is not important what you are or are not buying. What matters is what evidence you put forward for members to read and get educated. For my part, I have done that with published AES papers and my own published articles. I can also bury you with references if needed. :) Bottom line is this: what you believe is generally correct but is subject to confirmation with listening tests. Those tests need to be controlled as we advocate in other domains. A single microphone has a heck of a time approximating what two ears hear, and the brain that adjudicates between them.

You need to take notice when I, as someone who publishes more audio measurements these days than the rest of the blogging/review industry, tells you that you have to be careful in doing the same with room acoustics. I have performed many such tests, have experience with many systems, and have read countless research papers on this. And spoken to those authors. My articles by the way are blessed by luminaries in this industry.

It would be easy and convenient to ride the "measurements for all" into sunset in this domain. When I don't go there, there is reason, good reason.
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,065
Location
Zg, Cro
It is not important what you are or are not buying. What matters is what evidence you put forward for members to read and get educated. For my part, I have done that with published AES papers and my own published articles. I can also bury you with references if needed. :) Bottom line is this: what you believe is generally correct but is subject to confirmation with listening tests. Those tests need to be controlled as we advocate in other domains. A single microphone has a heck of a time approximating what two ears hear, and the brain that adjudicates between them.

You need to take notice when I, as someone who publishes more audio measurements these days than the rest of the blogging/review industry, tells you that you have to be careful in doing the same with room acoustics. I have performed many such tests, have experience with many systems, and have read countless research papers on this. And spoken to those authors. My articles by the way are blessed by luminaries in this industry.

It would be easy and convenient to ride the "measurements for all" into sunset in this domain. When I don't go there, there is reason, good reason.

Well, I'm not willing to accept an argument stating something like "it is so because I say so, and I'm an expert who wrote the article".

As I said, if you are stating that some non-linear response is better sounding than linear response you should be able to provide a graph which shows how exactly that better sounding response looks. It would be nice to see a test where linear response is then compared to that specific non-plus-ultra sounding non linear response so we have a confirmation.

Does the article you linked provide such non-linear response that we can use as a new target when doing EQ or not? Can you provide it?
Because if not, I think I'll stick to the good old linear response with 10dB downward slope from LF to the end of audible spectrum.

Btw, if you can come with that "magic non-linear yet superior sounding" curve I suggest you sell it to the DAC chip manufacturers so they can incorporate it directly in the DAC chips so all following parts of the audio chain can simply be linear and still end up with that magic better sounding curve. ;)
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,373
Likes
234,443
Location
Seattle Area
Well, I'm not willing to accept an argument stating something like "it is so because I say so, and I'm an expert who wrote the article".
You are posting more than you are reading the answers. I said there are countless references of published papers that say the same. They are listed at the bottom of my article:

References
A Survey Study Of In-Situ Stereo And Multi-Channel Monitoring Conditions,Aki V. Mäkivirta and Christophe Anet, Genelec OY, AES Convention 111, November 2001

The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products,Sean E. Olive, John Jackson, Allan Devantier, David Hunt, and Sean M. Hess, Harman International R&D Presentation

The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products, Olive, Sean; Jackson, John; Devantier, Allan; Hunt, David, AES Convention 127, October 2009

A New Draught[draft] Proposal for the Calibration of Sound in Cinema Rooms,Philip Newell, AES Technical Committee paper, January 2012

Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms,Dr. Floyd Toole, 2008 [book]


I encourage you to read the above references and lots more listed in Dr. Toole's book. Indeed the cornerstone of this views on sound reproduction is what I have been trying to explain.
 

ryanmh1

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
93
Likes
117
Just FYI. The AV8802A uses the same chip, and probably performs the same. (I bought a used 8802A last year; fortunately, I got a good deal on it.)

Denon used the same AK4490 in the x7200wa, and they use the AKM 4458 in most of the rest of the higher end line, which is effectively the same chip but with 8 channels instead of 2 channels on the die, and a slightly reduced dynamic range. At least, that's what AKM claims. Given that Denon isn't able to make use of the maximum performance of the chip within the confines of a receiver or processor, the difference in DAC is probably irrelevant. It's going to come down to things like power supplies and shielding. I would be surprised if there was all that much difference in the basic mechanics of the signal processing circuitry.

The various price tiers likely have more to do with adding channels and features. It would be interesting to see if you can get roughly the same performance out of the now discontinued and discounted to $900 or ($750 factory refurb) AVR-X4400W. There is no other product in all of audio-land that packs even close to as much value in a single box, that I'm aware of (one criteria being XT32 or better room correction). XT32 is probably not quite as good as Dirac Live, but its close, and with the app it is very flexible.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,373
Likes
234,443
Location
Seattle Area
Does the article you linked provide such non-linear response that we can use as a new target when doing EQ or not? Can you provide it?
Because if not, I think I'll stick to the good old linear response with 10dB downward slope from LF to the end of audible spectrum.

Btw, if you can come with that "magic non-linear yet superior sounding" curve I suggest you sell it to the DAC chip manufacturers so they can incorporate it directly in the DAC chips so all following parts of the audio chain can simply be linear and still end up with that magic better sounding curve. ;)
I will repeat again: the issues is NOT what curve is right. The issue is that you MUST listen to results of room equalization and only then declare what works and what doesn't. Throwing graphs at me as proof of one system being better is wrong. The graphs are produced with one microphone. Not two ears. And a brain.

This is what we are discussing, not what target curve is correct.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
A quick note. If it's like a 7701 it will show sample rate for 2 seconds after switching sources. Otherwise looks like 7701 performance more or less.
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,078
Likes
8,914
Oh.

I guess you never dealt with one of these. Each wire pair = one (analog at this point) landline telephone (one "channel" on the machine).

View attachment 22758

The channels of the switch are cabled (hidden) to those blocks. Channel 1 through how ever many thousands, in chunks of 10,000 for large offices - last four digits of a phone number 0000-9999).

Another set of similar blocks are connected to the copper that goes outside and down the road to the houses and businesses. They look a little different, usually vertically oriented, and have lightning arrestors on each pair. Here, they used red and white jumoers.



The jumper wires above connect a specific channel on the machine to a specific pair on the outside. There is no rhyme or reason to the pattern, for a new subscriber, an unused channel is jumpered to the cable pair that goes to his phone, and remains until a fault, or the subscriber stops paying the bill, and someone else is assigned that now vacant machine channel.

It's all unshielded, but is twisted, to avoid (most) instances of crosstalk.

I didn't mind doing small offices - a couple of thousand lines - places like Iola Wisconsin, and Show Low Arizona. Fortunately my exposure to the big ones was much more limited - Cincinnatti Bell had five big ones, I visited to help out for a week. Remember watching the Berlin Wall come down at the motel.

Adoption of digital and other modern technologies has been a bonanza for phone companies. Huge, well located buildings used for switching are being replaced with relatively small facilities. This surplus real estate is a great source of revenue. One not too far from my home is slated to be redeveloped.

I am used to dealing with complexity, but it is a different kind involving many seemingly arbitrary rules and abstract concepts.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,201
Likes
16,983
Location
Riverview FL
This surplus real estate is a great source of revenue.

It's hard to imagine it replacing a couple of hundred thousand $30/mo accounts plus the long distance tolls they had.

Maybe a million lines in a big city at $30/mo or so. More for businesses. Plus nice features like Call Waiting and Touch Tone Dialing.

Remember 10 cents a minute long distance?

In terms of data, at that rate (64kbit), a gigabyte would cost us $208.00, or $238.00 if they were really only giving 56kbit.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
This a really awful performance. I really would like to know how much worse the AV7705 must be...
I wouldn't be too sure of that.
A quick note. If it's like a 7701 it will show sample rate for 2 seconds after switching sources. Otherwise looks like 7701 performance more or less.
As Blumlein 88 mentions, I don't see any differences to grumble over since he measured my older 7701
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/marantz-avr-7701-dac-measurements.3485/
Strange as it seems, at least in this line of Marantz AV's, the big jump in price doesn't seem to be reflected in measurable performance.

Not with my AV7701, its not listed in the App as supported.
Besides the fact I wanted Atmos type immersive sound compatibility, the new Audyssey Editor app was at the top of the desired features that made me upgrade from the 7701 to the 7703. A big bonus if you want to have control over the results and be able to tweak them a bit.

I've directly compared playback of Redbook and better files off my PC both into 7703 directly over HDMI and also via USB into my Emo DC-1 DAC into the 7703 analog in. I haven't been able to detect any difference between the two, but then I'm near 70 and half deaf. :) I'll also mention that playing 5.1 High Def BluRays via my Samsung player> HDMI from Alan Parsons, AIX records, Pink Floyd, etc; that the sound is still some of the best I've heard, even after listening to a number of 6 digit systems at the Tampa show last week.
Bottom line is I woundn't sweat some of the marginal measurements here as being very audible.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
It's hard to imagine it replacing a couple of hundred thousand $30/mo accounts plus the long distance tolls they had.

Maybe a million lines in a big city at $30/mo or so. More for businesses. Plus nice features like Call Waiting and Touch Tone Dialing.

Remember 10 cents a minute long distance?
Yea but now they got half the world walking around with a "smart" phone up their butts paying $100-200 a month for the privilege. :mad:
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,078
Likes
8,914
It's hard to imagine it replacing a couple of hundred thousand $30/mo accounts plus the long distance tolls they had.

Maybe a million lines in a big city at $30/mo or so. More for businesses. Plus nice features like Call Waiting and Touch Tone Dialing.

Remember 10 cents a minute long distance?

In terms of data, at that rate (64kbit), a gigabyte would cost us $208.00, or $238.00 if they were really only giving 56kbit.

The smart phone companies invested in mobile phone systems.
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,923
Likes
7,616
Location
Canada
Strange as it seems, at least in this line of Marantz AV's, the big jump in price doesn't seem to be reflected in measurable performance.

I actually bet this is replicated among most major AVR manufacturers. The marketable differences tend to be features and additional channels, measurable performance isn't an axis of differentiation.
 

GoMrPickles

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
170
Likes
182
Bottom line is I woundn't sweat some of the marginal measurements here as being very audible.
For sure.

BUT, one wonders if some better engineering, with the same BOM, would result in 10-20 dB better performance, or lower jitter, or if the price premium one pays for features/channels (13.2, Atmos, etc.) vs a lower-priced (7.1) pro/pro is ENTIRELY for those features, and the difference in sound is entirely minimal. A/B testing a home theater setup is pretty challenging, so this kind of measurement is - I think? - the next best thing. (Depending on your opinion of A/B testing, it might be a better thing.)

Kinda weird how divergent multichannel AV has gone from stereo audio.
 

ryanmh1

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
93
Likes
117
For sure.

Kinda weird how divergent multichannel AV has gone from stereo audio.

It's not necessarily divergent. Absolute performance differences are to be expected. There is vastly more engineering that goes into something like this than a stereo DAC. When you're adding in lots of stuff, signal paths, various forms of interference--all of it gets complicated. RME may use the same DACs, but that's basically all it does for $1,100, on 2 channels. For perhaps double the money, you can buy a multichannel processor that has something like 11 of those DACs in it, and which also does everything under the sun. I'm sure for $20,000 Denon would be happy to build and sell a multichannel receiver that weighs about 100 pounds, has half a dozen power supplies in it, is littered with shielding everywhere, and measures up like an RME. There's just no point in burning up all that cash on someone most system cannot resolve and/or most people won't hear anyway, and almost no one would purchase. Presumably, they aren't running into DAC limitations at this point. They're running into limitations of the analog circuitry, somewhere, and all of the extra litter being tossed about in these AVRs.
 

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,760
Likes
9,442
Location
Europe
I've directly compared playback of Redbook and better files off my PC both into 7703 directly over HDMI and also via USB into my Emo DC-1 DAC into the 7703 analog in. I haven't been able to detect any difference between the two, but then I'm near 70 and half deaf. :)
I'm younger but my ears are no longer what they used to be (nothing above 10 kHz and quite some less above 2 kHz). Still it was no problem to hear the differences between the AV7701 and the Classè.

This may be a relieve for aging audiophiles: as long as the hearing loss comes very slow you will not notice it with music. All the fun does not get lost. My late father needed hearing aids, but in the opera he always preferred listening without those. Understanding of speech in loud environments gets worse and is the only hint that something is wrong. I was quite shocked when I saw my frequency response and could not understand that I had not realized how bad it is. I still recognize small variations in frequency response of audio components as long as they occur within my hearing range.

Good thing is I don't have to care about THD rising above 5 kHz, can't hear K2 or higher anyway. ;)
 

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,760
Likes
9,442
Location
Europe
Presumably, they aren't running into DAC limitations at this point. They're running into limitations of the analog circuitry, somewhere, and all of the extra litter being tossed about in these AVRs.
I'd second that. One problem could be though that the AV prepros probably reuse most of the electronics of the AVRs which are not designed for higher specs. All the analog stages don't look as if they were shielded in any way. On the other hand, looking into the Classè Sigma SSP there is also no shielding to see:
https://www.audioholics.com/av-prea...a-ssp-and-sigma-amp5-review/over_sspsigma.jpg
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
I can hardly believe that a more linear response can sound worse unless something else was wrong.
The off axis response is also very important to what you perceive. Equalising the on axis response at the listening position can screw up the off axis/sound power. That will of course depend on your speaker.

This lecture from our favourite Floyd Toole covers some of it. 33 mins in.


With my dsp speakers and Acourate software I first measured the driver response at very close range and corrected this. Being minimum phase this is correctable by EQ. So basically what you put out into the room is good in the first place. This actually left a good measurement at the listening position apart from some room mode issues. A further correction on top of the first tamed those issues but didn't need to do much else.

Auto systems can work, I got good results out of Dirac, but rarely out of Audyssey.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom