Struggle replacing Old AVR - tried RZ50, 4800h, and Cinema 70 - what now?

[GXAlan]

The Cinema 70 also had MultEq but I don't think it was identical to the 8002 being that it's 15 years newer.

It’s actually the same, minus the updated target curve for upfiring Atmos and SubEQ for multiple subs.

My speakers are older B&W 700s with the rounded curve and someone said the B&W speakers don't play nice with measurements but I don't know enough about it.

Was it ever measured at Stereophile?

Piano Samples

Piano A
Piano B

Listening to it on just the iPhone’s speaker

Spoiler

It seems like Piano B is a darker tone compared to A. I did not level match. Presumably that’s the Marantz.

Try downloading DeltaWave and running the comparison between the two recordings.

 

[techsamurai]

It’s actually the same, minus the updated target curve for upfiring Atmos and SubEQ for multiple subs.


Was it ever measured at Stereophile?


Try downloading DeltaWave and running the comparison between the two recordings.

We have the measurements - yes, SoundAndVision did them I think.

I used Delta Wave but the drift was poor and I had to use an alternative method. Which chart am I supposed to look at?

 

[sysfc6]

If you like the SR8002, it means you prefer the less intrusive room EQ. I have shown with my Bose 901 that the factory EQ and Dirac EQ are generally similar. To my ears, Dirac widens the phantom center while the factory EQ keeps the center more focused.

XT32 and Dirac are superior to MultEQ but maybe you have a “lucky” room where less is more.

Having owned Marantz, Denon, Sony, Yamaha, Arcam, and Monolith… I would tell you to try using the Audyssey iOS app to limit your room correction of your X4800H to 500Hz only, or get a Yamaha RX-A8A.

Yamaha’s approach to room EQ is similar to MultEQ in that it isn’t too aggressive by default, even though it does full bandwidth correction, it is conservative with its correction about the transition frequency. The A8A has plenty of power, and as I pointed out in the Marantz AV10 review, the CX-A5100 still beats the AV10 in SINAD below 0.5V which is 25-50W of power (8 vs 4 ohm) for a standard 29 dB gain amplifier

The other thing that’s good about Yamaha is that the DSP (“SciFi”) does enough trickery to make your speakers disappear.

What speakers do you have? Maybe they don’t have the ideal directivity so over aggressive EQ from calibration worsens the sound.

Guru, in Dirac do you think the rz50 is better or the 4800h? Sound quality

 

[GXAlan]

Guru, in Dirac do you think the rz50 is better or the 4800h? Sound quality

Lol, I am no guru. Just a hobbyist like everyone else on here.

Two ways to answer that question.

$900 refurb vs. $1500 refurb. $600 delta. Dirac license on the Denon is $259.

The nice thing about the RZ50 is that Dirac is included. I have not found DLBC to make a big difference in my HTP-1 setup but different rooms may differ and only the X4800H has DLBC potential.

DACs will be similar, but the amplifiers both in SINAD and cross talk give an edge to Denon. I think it will be hard to hear differences between the two. Denon has dynamic volume through Audyssey if you choose not to run Dirac.

So Denon by the measurements should edge out the RZ50 for 2 channel sound quality although it is likely to be very small.

Here’s the thing.

If you just have a base layer with the Denon, going with the RZ50 + four Klipsch RP-500SA to give you upfiring Atmos will give you better performance.

Or take the RZ50 with the on-sale $700 Klipsch 14” sub. That is better than the Denon with DLBC and a budget sub.

Or RZ50 with Ascend Acoustics Sierra 1 LX versus the Denon with a Triangle Borea BR03.

I spent a lot of time comparing amps and DACs and even AV processors. I am in the camp that says there are small differences which can be measured and occasionally heard. A lot of my own measurements confirm that.

But the weak point is always the speaker. When comparing awesome electronics with very good speakers or very good electronics with awesome speakers, the awesome speakers always wins.

It’s much harder to install new speakers, sell old speakers, etc. It’s much easier to upgrade electronics and if you’re missing 4K or Atmos you need to upgrade electronics anyway.

But dollar for dollar, if I had to do it all over again, it would be spend very little on electronics and get the biggest and best speakers I can fit and afford.

So those are the two answers. Denon is better than RZ50 head-to-head, but buying the Onkyo and then allocating the rest toward better speakers is a much better use of your money.

My two cents.

 

[techsamurai]

Lol, I am no guru. Just a hobbyist like everyone else on here.

Two ways to answer that question.

$900 refurb vs. $1500 refurb. $600 delta. Dirac license on the Denon is $259.

The nice thing about the RZ50 is that Dirac is included. I have not found DLBC to make a big difference in my HTP-1 setup but different rooms may differ and only the X4800H has DLBC potential.

DACs will be similar, but the amplifiers both in SINAD and cross talk give an edge to Denon. I think it will be hard to hear differences between the two. Denon has dynamic volume through Audyssey if you choose not to run Dirac.

So Denon by the measurements should edge out the RZ50 for 2 channel sound quality although it is likely to be very small.

Here’s the thing.

If you just have a base layer with the Denon, going with the RZ50 + four Klipsch RP-500SA to give you upfiring Atmos will give you better performance.

Or take the RZ50 with the on-sale $700 Klipsch 14” sub. That is better than the Denon with DLBC and a budget sub.

Or RZ50 with Ascend Acoustics Sierra 1 LX versus the Denon with a Triangle Borea BR03.

I spent a lot of time comparing amps and DACs and even AV processors. I am in the camp that says there are small differences which can be measured and occasionally heard. A lot of my own measurements confirm that.

But the weak point is always the speaker. When comparing awesome electronics with very good speakers or very good electronics with awesome speakers, the awesome speakers always wins.

It’s much harder to install new speakers, sell old speakers, etc. It’s much easier to upgrade electronics and if you’re missing 4K or Atmos you need to upgrade electronics anyway.

But dollar for dollar, if I had to do it all over again, it would be spend very little on electronics and get the biggest and best speakers I can fit and afford.

So those are the two answers. Denon is better than RZ50 head-to-head, but buying the Onkyo and then allocating the rest toward better speakers is a much better use of your money.

My two cents.

First, you make some amazing points there that I'd never even thought of like the ease of selling electronics vs speakers.

I'm going to throw a massive spin onto this. DSP like Audyssey or Dirac can change the way your system sounds. They are supposed to be corrective and are supposed to provide a better sound but they are not magical.

Both the RZ50 and the Denon are great for home theaters and can slam which is great when you watch a movie with the entire family but not so great for 95% of the rest of the time unless you have a dedicated home theater in a remote part of your house.

DSP change the sound more than any speaker ever will. If you have a computer with Dolby Atmos just play around with it to see what EQ can do. I had no idea EQ can transform the soundstage so much and change the brand of your speakers or electronics even.

On regular stereo receivers that have Bass or Treble controls switching Treble to a position (at least on Yamaha) pulls the curve up or down by 8 db or so. I think New Record Day measured them with the Yamaha 1000 or 2000 so you can check the review and see the measurements. Same with bass. These are not small changes but clearly the manufacturer provides them with the understanding that people making them will want to modify those frequencies by what appears to be a massive number in order to change the sound.

 

[truwarrior22]

Speaking of upgrade hell, I find myself in the middle of it after trying 3 new AVRs

My Marantz 8002s (3 of them) are getting old and I'd like to get HDMI 2.1 and eArc. I also thought I could go separates and use the 8002s as an external amp as they certainly have better power than almost any Denon or Marantz on the market today.

My original expectation was better sound especially in stereo with the 8002 as the amp. Now I would settle for similar or very close sound since clearly none of these are the 8002's equals.

My focus is on music because I've lived with the 8002 for 15 years and as we'll find out later, it's very musical and almost an anomaly in the AVR world. My jaw often hits the floor in movies, shows, and games when the 8002 decides to show off. There's zero fear that anyone's jaw will hit the floor with any of the 3 AVRs I've purchased. In that regard, they are quite safe choices.

I bought a RZ50 and quickly returned it - the Onkyo sounded clinical in music and Dirac Live could not save it. It was difficult to switch between the 8002 and RZ50 in music - the RZ50 has a massive soundstage but it was barren. The 8002 is a much smaller canvas but that canvas has the quality of a Monet painting or a reproduction of it.

I bought a Denon 4800h and I had high expectations as it's similar to the Cinema 40 (the current top of the line AVR in Marantz's lineup) and made in Japan. I ran Audyssey XT32 and I was hoping that would also help bridge the gap to the 8002. Also, the 8002 is used as the amp in stereo so the 4800h is just a preamp, hopefully giving a leg up in musicality.

Unfortunately, the Denon 4800h even with the 8002 as the external amp cannot reproduce the music as the 15 year old SR8002 - guitars don't sound the same, voices have no presence etc. I enjoy it as background music a lot because it completely disappears sonically but I'm not sure that's a quality that Denon would like to be known for.

In movies, it has slam and is amazing but it's almost a bit too much for a living room theater and it gets tough taming its volume so I can hear the center channel without irritating my family. But the RZ50 and Cinema 70 are also slammers and would fare better in a dedicated home theater than a living room theater.

Finally, I bought a Cinema 70 + 8002 (amp) to use in preamp mode with all channels powered by the 8002. The Cinema 70 sounds stellar in music, well, stellar, until you play the same song with the 8002 and you hear parts of the song that are important.

But part of that can be my personal preference or what the 8002 does in Stereo mode which bypasses surround processing and seems to do its own thing. It seems to find a lot of nuance and detail in voices, guitars and all instruments and I've isolated that to the 100hz to 1khz range which is the fundamentals range of sound as I'm learning. Whatever the 8002 does there, it makes it different and imho magical. I've always wondered why folks thought that AVRs can't play stereo music and I suppose if you are used to the sound of your amazing stereo receiver, you're in for a surprise when you hear these AVRs which is where I find myself, only I have an AVR that does that.

I can't fault the RZ50 because it's a cheap AVR on sale and is well made. I can't fault the Cinema 70 because it sounds great for a cheap AVR with separates and is also well made.

I can only find fault with the 4800h which has the best version of Audyssey and is the Cinema 40's cousin. At its normal price (I paid $1,400), I'd expect the 4800h to match the 8002 in stereo music given the fact that 15 years have passed by.

Here's a review that sums up the 8002 and this is echoed by anyone that's heard this puppy:



It's exactly what I would have said. It's a magical AVR and now I wonder if even the AH1 can come close in 2 channel stereo. People have even been critical of the $14,000 AV10 and AMP10 in music... My BDI cabinet cannot accommodate any of those so they are not even in consideration, nor am I inclined to pay that much.

I can keep the 8002 and use it for music but it's a massive pain changing the volume.

Also if I keep the 4800h or Cinema 70, I'll have to settle for a less refined movie theater, TV, and game experience which are 75% of my use case.

So what choice do I have? Should I call Marantz and Denon and ask them to get back to work?

I wonder if Denon and Marantz changed their signature/house sound at some point. When I previously compared the X4700 to the SR7015, there were differences but both had a similar house sound. I thought my old Denon 2808 sounded good but wasn’t completely happy with the SR8015. Today I compared the Arcam AVR5 to the X4800 and even the “lowly” AVR5 pulled ahead of the X4800 when it came to a extra detail and clarity. Again I don’t know if the Denon and Marantz are just so dynamic that the lower details don’t come out or if there just too much lower midrange or something. Overall both are good but I’ll take a cheaper Arcam over an expensive Denon/Marantz when it come to just movies and music. Probably for gaming too but it seems Arcam doesn’t support some HDMI features.

 

[Chrispy]

I wonder if Denon and Marantz changed their signature/house sound at some point. When I previously compared the X4700 to the SR7015, there were differences but both had a similar house sound. I thought my old Denon 2808 sounded good but wasn’t completely happy with the SR8015. Today I compared the Arcam AVR5 to the X4800 and even the “lowly” AVR5 pulled ahead of the X4800 when it came to a extra detail and clarity. Again I don’t know if the Denon and Marantz are just so dynamic that the lower details don’t come out or if there just too much lower midrange or something. Overall both are good but I’ll take a cheaper Arcam over an expensive Denon/Marantz when it come to just movies and music. Probably for gaming too but it seems Arcam doesn’t support some HDMI features.

What is house or signature sound? How does that work? What particularly characterizes it aside from internet/sales hype?

 

[truwarrior22]

What is house or signature sound? How does that work? What particularly characterizes it aside from internet/sales hype?

You just have to listen very carefully and try different songs and switch AVRs quickly. It not that hard to find a Best Buy to do this. Give and SPL meter. Focus on the detail and clarity. Listen to specific instruments and not everything at once. Once you hear it, you’ll know. To me to sounds like a veil over certain sounds. It not obvious, but once you notice it’s hard to forget :/

To be far, I thought the C40 i listened to had great sound stage with a solid center image, little better than the Acram, but I give it to the Arcam for clarity and detail for most content.

 

[Chrispy]

You just have to listen very carefully and try different songs and switch AVRs quickly. It not that hard to find a Best Buy to do this. Give and SPL meter. Focus on the detail and clarity. Listen to specific instruments and not everything at once. Once you hear it, you’ll know. To me to sounds like a veil over certain sounds. It not obvious, but once you notice it’s hard to forget :/

To be far, I thought the C40 i listened to had great sound stage with a solid center image, little better than the Acram, but I give it to the Arcam for clarity and detail for most content.

LOL. Seriously?

 

[truwarrior22]

LOL. Seriously?

Yep, sorry I’m just veryyy picky when it comes to my audio. Some don’t care as much lol

 

[Chrispy]

Yep, sorry I’m just veryyy picky when it comes to my audio. Some don’t care as much lol

Detecting small differences can be attributed to other things than your amazing abilities ?

 

[DonR]

I wonder if Denon and Marantz changed their signature/house sound at some point. When I previously compared the X4700 to the SR7015, there were differences but both had a similar house sound. I thought my old Denon 2808 sounded good but wasn’t completely happy with the SR8015. Today I compared the Arcam AVR5 to the X4800 and even the “lowly” AVR5 pulled ahead of the X4800 when it came to a extra detail and clarity. Again I don’t know if the Denon and Marantz are just so dynamic that the lower details don’t come out or if there just too much lower midrange or something. Overall both are good but I’ll take a cheaper Arcam over an expensive Denon/Marantz when it come to just movies and music. Probably for gaming too but it seems Arcam doesn’t support some HDMI features.

That's not how any of this works. How do you know what you are hearing is not affected by your internal bias? What do you mean by dynamic? All these receivers measure pretty similar and have similar frequency response and slew rate.

 

[truwarrior22]

Detecting small differences can be attributed to other things than your amazing abilities ?

We can beat around the bush all day, but I think it’s something with the Denon and Marantz preamp section. I tried external amps on my SR8015 and analog inputs hoping for a little different sound and didn’t get to where I wanted to be. If your not happy, some times it best to let go and just try something else. I’m not saying the Arcam is perfect but it gets me closer to what i want.

 

[truwarrior22]

That's not how any of this works. How do you know what you are hearing is not affected by your internal bias? What do you mean by dynamic? All these receivers measure pretty similar and have similar frequency response and slew rate.

DACs ability to to bring out lower details? Not sure on bias part. Maybe a 3rd party and review my audio forum journey over the years lol

 

[DonR]

DACs ability to to bring out lower details? Not sure on bias part. Maybe a 3rd party and review my audio forum journey over the years lol

Both of the DAC chips used in the AVR5 and the 4800 have noise figures that are at or beyond the threshold of hearing. The AVR5 does have the better chip but audibility over the 4800 is questionable. Could be you are sensitive to the type of filter used in the Denon. House sound is a myth as shown by measurements and blind tests.

 

[truwarrior22]

Both of the DAC chips used in the AVR5 and the 4800 have noise figures that are at or beyond the threshold of hearing. The AVR5 does have the better chip but audibility over the 4800 is questionable. Could be you are sensitive to the type of filter used in the Denon. House sound is a myth as shown by measurements and blind tests.

Could be, I wish filters could be adjusted :/

 

[DonR]

Could be, I wish filters could be adjusted :/

Some DACs let you choose the filter shape. As you get older, this becomes a non-problem.

 

[truwarrior22]

Some DACs let you choose the filter shape. As you get older, this becomes a non-problem.

Yes, strange the AV10 allows this but I don’t believe any other Marantz AVR models allow this.

 

[pogo]

All these receivers measure pretty similar and have similar frequency response and slew rate.

Even on a complex load such as a loudspeaker? I know, for example, a power cube measurement of a Marantz amplifier and it strongly indicates a sound image that is being cut off. Impulses/details in the reproduction on a complex load are not to be expected here.

 

[techsamurai]

I wonder if Denon and Marantz changed their signature/house sound at some point. When I previously compared the X4700 to the SR7015, there were differences but both had a similar house sound. I thought my old Denon 2808 sounded good but wasn’t completely happy with the SR8015. Today I compared the Arcam AVR5 to the X4800 and even the “lowly” AVR5 pulled ahead of the X4800 when it came to a extra detail and clarity. Again I don’t know if the Denon and Marantz are just so dynamic that the lower details don’t come out or if there just too much lower midrange or something. Overall both are good but I’ll take a cheaper Arcam over an expensive Denon/Marantz when it come to just movies and music. Probably for gaming too but it seems Arcam doesn’t support some HDMI features.

Yeah, that's an interesting one about the sound possibly changing - details, clarity, and center image are words I would also use. I've been trying to pull the sound to the center and give it a warmer tone. I wonder if you had the same issue I had.

We'll see if a new calibration with my old approach and limiting frequencies gets me there.