Review and Measurements of Marantz AV8805 AV Processor

[Krunok]

I know Vizio does “wireless” rears, where they are wired, but into the wireless sub, so they need the sub to be near the seating area. True wireless speakers for the front would each need their own power cords, so that seems like a mess, but an RCA connection to the soundbar would work (and hopefully it has auto sensing so it can go from a 2/3 channel soundbar into a center channel on its own).

With Denon HEOS you can use Heos 1, 3, 5 or 7 as wireless rears, but not as fronts. I don't see it to be complicated to adopt them as front though so they will probably do it soon.

 

[LTig]

FYI, I just shipped this unit back and it cost almost $90! Are folks getting proportional value out of the review of these massive/heavy boxes?

Definitely yes. It should be possible to build a system suitable for both music and film, and for this purpose it is good to have information whether AV components suit such a task.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Thanks to @amirm and the member that loan it to him! The biggest bonus here is that there is a complete void of this type of investigation into units in this market corner. But the more this gets around to the public, the more uneasy it will make the manufacturers and hopefully improve the breed as time goes on. Kal reviewed this unit at Stereophile but unfortunately Atkinson didn't put it on the bench.

1. Reviews of multichannel equipment in Stereophile are, generally, confined to my column.
2. Products reviewed in columns are, generally, not subjected to JA's bench tests.
3. Ergo,..................................................................

 

[anmpr1]

I am curious as to who buys these monsters, and from what retailers? My guess is that consumers able to spend these amounts of dollars on specialty gear don't even put their systems together. I imagine a builder does it, or they go to a local home theater shop and simply take the salesman's advice. A tech comes to their home and sets it all up. Dealer pads his costs with expensive interconnect cables and line power conditioners. Consumer is then given a remote, some cursory instructions, and that is that. The source is obviously mostly movies. As long as special effects explosions are loud enough (powered subwoofers), and as long as the dialog is intelligible, consumer is fine with his purchase. Music, either two channel or more, is likely not part of the equation. On the other hand, I could be completely wrong. Maybe it's sourced from mail order outfits like Crutchfield, and assembled at home by the end user. If so, how does one even go about making a decision? On "features"? Certainly not from external looks. I'm not trying to be a crank. Not being in to this level of home theater stuff, just curious.

 

[LTig]

I am curious as to who buys these monsters, and from what retailers? My guess is that consumers able to spend these amounts of dollars on specialty gear don't even put their systems together. I imagine a builder does it, or they go to a local home theater shop and simply take the salesman's advice. A tech comes to their home and sets it all up. Dealer pads his costs with expensive interconnect cables and line power conditioners. Consumer is then given a remote, some cursory instructions, and that is that. The source is obviously mostly movies. As long as special effects explosions are loud enough (powered subwoofers), and as long as the dialog is intelligible, consumer is fine with his purchase. Music, either two channel or more, is likely not part of the equation. On the other hand, I could be completely wrong.

You may be right regarding people who really want a dedicated HT. But there are also people like me who prefer a good 2.1 system for music but who do not want to add a complete 2nd HT chain just for viewing movies. When I bought the AV7701 it was both for getting better SQ (see my posting #15 in this thread) and for better comfort switching video sources (SAT TV, BD-Player, PC with slide show software). I could connect all sources and feed the beamer which throws on a 100" roll down screen. Viewing movies or concerts is a lot of fun.

I probably don't know what I'm missing without surround channels but each time I was in a dedicated HT demo at a dealer I did not think that I'll miss much at home - I don't watch a lot of action movies.

 

[Sal1950]

Not being in to this level of home theater stuff, just curious.

You don't seem so much curious as having a negative mind set.
There are a good number of surround enthusiasts here to whom music playback is at least as important as "special effects explosions".
To answer your question, you guessed it. I bought mine on a year end close-out sale from Crutchfield.
I'm not sure where Kal Rubinson of Stereophile's "In The Round" bought his, perhaps he'll answer.
Yes the decisions are pretty much made on features for mid-highend Pre/Pro or AVR gear. These are extremely complicated devices with a plethora of various options available from the different manufacturers. You pick something in your price range that offers the features important to you. Personally I also do some homework on the net and print reviews to find out what others think.

Where did you buy your rig and how did you make your decision?
Do you pay attention to the ravings of all the audiophools on veils lifted and blacker blacks?
Since outside of this site and Stereophiles Atkinson reviews, we're all left in the same void of any real hard evidence.

 

[ryanmh1]

Reasonable by whose standards? Here are the specifications from AKM on the DAC chip in there:

View attachment 22807

And this is what I measured:

View attachment 22808

You want to tell me how I am supposed to be OK with a product that costs thousands of dollars but leaves 20 dB of the DAC performance on the table?

Because you tested it as a preamplifier putting out 4 volts. You did not test (and probably cannot test it) as a stereo DAC with 2V lineouts straight off the chip, and it is not intended to be used that way. But that's all a standalone DAC has to do.

I think it's important to maintain a basis for comparison. I had trouble finding a test of any preamplifier that measured as well as you're demanding the Denon measure to avoid "leaving DAC performance on the table". Almost all of them will. But... Then I found a few--very, very few. For $28,000, you can buy the SimAudioMoon Evolution. Or the mbl 6010d for, uh, $24,000. On the cheap end of the spectrum, you can get it out of a Benchmark DAC3 Pre, for $2000. All of these are just two channels, and the Benchmark isn't a very full-featured product by any stretch.

For comparison's sake, Archimago's measurements of his Onkyo NR1009, which was about a $1400 piece of equipment, came in around .03% THD+N. So you are getting something for the extra money. You're just not getting a level of performance of a separate standalone DAC.

My complaint is the comment that companies are "getting away" with releasing products that leave performance on the table. Many purveyors of kilobuck crap do, but that isn't clear here. It's perhaps a minor complaint, but I don't think it's fair in context. Now, if this was a $6000 stereo DAC that measured like this? Yeah, we should all be spitting nails. But it isn't. If memory serves, there are eleven AKM4490 DAC chips in this thing. There are full video processing circuits. There is room equalization. There are no fewer than seventeen preamplifier channels in this thing, with (if handled in the analog domain), just as many volume controllers. There's a phono preamp, Bluetooth, etc, etc. That you can get so much, with so little distortion (all but measurably transparent at 1kHz on CD audio), for such a small price is amazing. To see if the distortion really is too high, or if Denon is "getting away" with anything, you would need to measure a product that costs about $1500, to see if that does worse, and then $800 to see where that lands. If it does the same or better, then ... yeah, Denon is getting away with charging for not much more than a few extra processor channels and balanced outputs. Of course, that would also mean that Benchmark is completely screwing everyone (which I don't think is the case). Else, this is simply an astonishing value for the money.

 

[ryanmh1]

You want people that think as long as something is good enough, it should get praise, you are in the wrong forum.
I have no sympathy for my peers who don't believe in delivering excellence. None.

Well, that depends on your definition of excellence. If excellent means "without any likely audible deficiences which are capable of being measured", that's one thing. If excellence means achieving the best technical performance possible, regardless of audibility, that's another.

The former is my standard for what I think most semi-objective audiophiles (i.e. those who eschew the power cord and interconnect nonsense) are after and actually want. The latter is what a tiny sliver of technophiles probably demand and fret about, probably because they believe on some deep-down level their ears must be able to resolve anything that can be measured. I think a lot of people are tempted by that latter camp, and that's it's important to tell people (as you did in the Cambridge Duo review) that they can't possibly hear the level of detail Product X is capable of resolving. Reference grade though it may be, it won't actually do anything for you in the playback chain.

 

[JJB70]

I think that surround sound has immense potential for music, in fact I can see why high res makes sense in the case of surround sound recordings, adding atmos etc. I've been enjoying a few classical recordings in surround sound and do think it adds a much more immersive experience.

 

[Sancus]

You may be right regarding people who really want a dedicated HT. But there are also people like me who prefer a good 2.1 system for music but who do not want to add a complete 2nd HT chain just for viewing movies.

Not only this, but a number of sources and people report positive results for the effect of surround processing on certain kinds of music, but not all music, including Dr. Toole. If you want a setup that can do that in addition to good 2.1 sound and you watch movies... it only makes sense to merge the two setups in most people's homes. Plus multi-channel music does exist and is apparently quite impressive when mastered well.

Music, either two channel or more, is likely not part of the equation.

Not many people have either the space or the funds for two completely separate, full multi-channel setups in their home.... it doesn't really make sense honestly.

 

[GoMrPickles]

I am curious as to who buys these monsters, and from what retailers? My guess is that consumers able to spend these amounts of dollars on specialty gear don't even put their systems together. I imagine a builder does it, or they go to a local home theater shop and simply take the salesman's advice. A tech comes to their home and sets it all up. Dealer pads his costs with expensive interconnect cables and line power conditioners. Consumer is then given a remote, some cursory instructions, and that is that. The source is obviously mostly movies. As long as special effects explosions are loud enough (powered subwoofers), and as long as the dialog is intelligible, consumer is fine with his purchase. Music, either two channel or more, is likely not part of the equation. On the other hand, I could be completely wrong. Maybe it's sourced from mail order outfits like Crutchfield, and assembled at home by the end user. If so, how does one even go about making a decision? On "features"? Certainly not from external looks. I'm not trying to be a crank. Not being in to this level of home theater stuff, just curious.

I bought an 8802A (used) to replace a 20yo receiver I was using as a processor. In general, given the high initial costs for these components, there's a robust used market. The 8802A was introduced at $4000, was reduced to $2500 when the 8805 came out, and sells used for ~$1500-2000. People do use them for multi-room setups, home theaters, video processing, etc. I wanted something balanced pre-outs and 4k upscaling, so I bought one when I found used one for what I was willing to pay.

There's no shortage of buyers, and people with enough savvy to ask about things online:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...-av8802-13-2-xlr-pre-pro-official-thread.html (15,000+ posts)
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...-av8805-15-2-xlr-pre-pro-official-thread.html (newer model, 3,000+ posts)

For stereo listening, these units also offer balanced analog inputs (you can see them on the back panel photo), so you can use a separate stereo DAC, pass it to the processor, and use the amplifier(s) you have for your front L/R speakers. I haven't tried this but it might be worth it with the SU-8, for example, or if one is lucky enough to own a UDP-205.

 

[ryanmh1]

For stereo listening, these units also offer balanced analog inputs (you can see them on the back panel photo), so you can use a separate stereo DAC, pass it to the processor, and use the amplifier(s) you have for your front L/R speakers. I haven't tried this but it might be worth it with the SU-8, for example, or if one is lucky enough to own a UDP-205.

You could, but it isn't clear whether that would be worth it since the performance of the unit as an analog preamp was not measured. I think it is unlikely that the "limitations" in the unit tested were all at the DAC level. If they were largely at the preamp level, that would make an external DAC redundant.

 

[amirm]

I am curious as to who buys these monsters, and from what retailers? My guess is that consumers able to spend these amounts of dollars on specialty gear don't even put their systems together.

Well, my company does deploy the Marantz processors although last I checked it cost less than this one. The reason is simple: once HDMI came, it basically killed the high-end processor market. HDMI silicon companies don't want to support low volume, speciality audio companies. A few struggled to produce products with HDMI but then compatibility was hell.

Major consumer electronics brands have both the brand and volume to get direct support form silicon companies. And they do a much better job of testing HDMI due to impact on their business if it doesn't work right. At Madrona Digital, we got tired of dealing with the issues of high-end companies so started to use products from likes of Marantz. For a $300,000 theater, what the processor costs is not material and at any rate, can be a $300 AVR. Features like balanced output are quite useful for example.

 

[RayDunzl]

You did not test (and probably cannot test it) as a stereo DAC with 2V lineouts straight off the chip ... that's all a standalone DAC has to do.

Which DACs do you have in mind that don't have something between "the chip" and the RCA/XLR jacks?

 

[anmpr1]

You don't seem so much curious as having a negative mind set.

Where did you buy your rig and how did you make your decision?
Do you pay attention to the ravings of all the audiophools on veils lifted and blacker blacks?
Since outside of this site and Stereophiles Atkinson reviews, we're all left in the same void of any real hard evidence.

Not negative at all. Just trying to figure out who spends 4 large on an AV preamp? How do they make their decisions? I really don't know. Honestly.

I'm a two channel person. My gear would be laughable in today's market. Two mono tube amps I built (Ed Laurent-Dave Hafler designs from the early '60s). 70s era turntable with 60s era Denon MC cartridge (although I have a half dozen more modern cartridges). Late 70s era MC pre preamp design adapted from EE guru Marshall Leach (Audio magazine do it yourself project). JBL studio monitors from the 70s. Everything I own is retro, however my preamp is a 'modern' design, also hand built (SS rectifier feeding JFET phono input follwed by 12AY7/12AX7 tubes). For digital, I use a PC to feed a Cambridge Audio DACMagic Plus--Music Bee interface, WASAPI output into Presonus powered monitors. My home theater consists of a Yamaha integrated amp driving two Paradigm mini monitors, next to a Samsung flat panel. LOL

To answer your question as to how I made my decisions? I wanted stuff I could build myself, and, for me, tubes are easier to deal with than SS. Also, my other gear are items that have impressed me over the years. And stuff that has held up. None of it is SOA, but it's OK by me.

I don't think there are any audio magazines doing a good job. At least that I know of. Peter Aczel's belated thing was good. Audio, Hi Fi, and Stereo Review had their moments. The others I've read are a joke. A bad joke. Very little on line is worthwhile. This site is pretty good. I have to remember to donate. At least a little something.

 

[amirm]

Well, that depends on your definition of excellence. If excellent means "without any likely audible deficiences which are capable of being measured", that's one thing. If excellence means achieving the best technical performance possible, regardless of audibility, that's another.

The former is my standard for what I think most semi-objective audiophiles (i.e. those who eschew the power cord and interconnect nonsense) are after and actually want.

What they want and what they can are different things. I cannot guarantee inaudibility of distortions until they get to a level where we can prove such. And I can tell you, that is not 90 dB SINAD. That lands in the sea of gray with respect to audibility.

Now, if getting lower distortion cost a lot of money, you could make the argument of settling for less. But we have shown beyond shadow of doubt that is not the case. Look at JDS Labs Atom. When I asked John how he got such remarkably low distortion figures at high power without THX like feed forward and such his answer was telling: "it was all about layout; after three tries we got it right." In other words, how you interconnected the components on the PC board was the key to excellent design and performance. That cost zero in manufacturing. The designer had to care and spend the time to get it right.

There a a lot of "objectivists" that walk around excusing any level of measured performance as being inaudible. That is not me. Or this forum. If you like that, forums like HA are waiting for you.

In this forum, when I say something is excellently engineered, it means lots of care went into a design to get us as close as we can to "provable inaudibility." If you don't like that, then that is that. I am not entertaining lowering that standard. It is what we have established collectively as needed to move the industry to care more about product design, to tell the truth in their marketing material and deliver the level of performance customer expect.

If it is still not clear what my position is, watch this commercial:

 

[amirm]

But you are testing a complete AV processor, not a D/A converter chip in isolation. You've taken the output from the line outs, with goodness knows what in between the D/A and those XLRs. You've adjusted the digital level control. You've tested it with arbitrary levels above its rated spec.

No, I tested it at lower than max level. I explained clearly in the review that I brought the balanced level down to get to 4 volt nominal. This is what I do in every review to make the comparisons fair.

As to your other comment, I am not sure what that means. I took the final output of the processor which would normally then feed a power amplifier. There is no other output to test or measure.

All the processing in AV Processors or AVRs occurs upstream in a DSP to decode the various audio formats, stream data from networked subsystems etc. Nothing is downstream other than a DAC and its necessary output buffer. The problem here is quite clear from the dashboard:

Simple, high levels of harmonic distortion even though I am running the unit below max volume level. This is simple analog design done wrong. It has nothing to do with what else the unit is doing. If there were tons of noise, etc. then we could make that hypothesis. But not here. We have a company that has been in audio business for decades and designs a product which has third harmonic distortion near -90 dB.

I should note that there are two jitter spikes on each side of our main tone. That, is likely due to interference from the rest of the unit and could have been fixed with better attention to isolation, regulation, filtering, etc. Stuff that I expect to be done in any unit, let alone a high-end one.

I mean really, where do we hang our hat on if we excuse those two tall harmonic spikes? What is to high-fidelity audio engineering if that is to be excused? What will we fault then? The color of the case?

 

[GoMrPickles]

You could, but it isn't clear whether that would be worth it since the performance of the unit as an analog preamp was not measured. I think it is unlikely that the "limitations" in the unit tested were all at the DAC level. If they were largely at the preamp level, that would make an external DAC redundant.

@amirm, could that be tested, or was it already shipped back?

Perhaps @Kal Rubinson can comment on his review.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-75

The AV8802A was also able to let me hear the subtle effects of some digital tweaks (see below). The best things I can say are that it didn't seem to impose any constraints on what it was fed, and that listening to some of my favorite tracks was wholly satisfying. My only quibble was that the AV8802A delivered the same gracious, rounded sound as Marantz's esteemed Reference-series components—some may prefer a more prismatic clarity. That exact distinction was evident when I compared the sound from the Benchmark DAC via the Marantz's XLR inputs to the Benchmark going directly into the power amp. Although the difference was clear, the matter of my preference was a toss-up.

Based on that, it would seem like the Marantz was adding some distortion to the Benchmark DAC output.

 

[ScofieldKid]

I bought an 8802A (used) to replace a 20yo receiver I was using as a processor. In general, given the high initial costs for these components, there's a robust used market. The 8802A was introduced at $4000, was reduced to $2500 when the 8805 came out, and sells used for ~$1500-2000. People do use them for multi-room setups, home theaters, video processing, etc. I wanted something balanced pre-outs and 4k upscaling, so I bought one when I found used one for what I was willing to pay.

There's no shortage of buyers, and people with enough savvy to ask about things online:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...-av8802-13-2-xlr-pre-pro-official-thread.html (15,000+ posts)
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...-av8805-15-2-xlr-pre-pro-official-thread.html (newer model, 3,000+ posts)

For stereo listening, these units also offer balanced analog inputs (you can see them on the back panel photo), so you can use a separate stereo DAC, pass it to the processor, and use the amplifier(s) you have for your front L/R speakers. I haven't tried this but it might be worth it with the SU-8, for example, or if one is lucky enough to own a UDP-205.

Uh, only comment on this last point... Typically, these days, if you go into anything, it touches it with the ADC. So bypassing the internal ADC is not possible. The preamps with "analog bypass" are rare anymore...

 

[MZKM]

I explained clearly in the review that I brought the balanced level down to get to 4 volt nominal. This is what I do in every review to make the comparisons fair.

Correct, but the Marantz is only rated for 2.4Vrms, so while you wanted to stick to the standard output for balanced connections, it is much higher than the Marantz is rated for (2.4Vrms is enough for most balanced amps, but some do need more). Going off Audioholics’ measurements of the Denon X3300, you should get a SINAD of at least 97dB if you tested it at its rated output.