Marantz AV7005 - Page 255

Anyone got photos of the internals of the two?

(I'm not saying it's the same concept but sometimes this conversation reminds me of people who say an Acura TSX is a terrific car but since it is based on the the Honda Accord, they go with the latter.)

^With close enough macro images so that you can see the chips are the same? No. But here:
Marantz 6005:

Source
Denon 3311:

Source

I'd like to hear a plausible explanation why they seem to use identical topology, heat fins, boards, capacitors, EI transformers, etc, yet supposedly they have decided to use different chips in those boards, in the same year of production, when buying only one kind of chip in bulk (and using it in both) would obviously save them, D&M Holdings, more money. Hmm?

Note: I suspect the thinner ribbon cable to the front panel has been removed temporarily, on the top one, only for photographic purposes, so we get a better view.

Here's also the 7005 preamp/tuner (with the thinner ribbon cable, as seen on the Denon 3311 picture, left in place):
http://www.avforums.com/forums/attac...005-inside.jpg
Since it has no amp section, the transformer, power supply, massive heat fins, etc, need not be the same size, and there are probably other minor differences besides what just came to my mind at the moment, but the main preamp/processor board looks mighty similar.

Oh , and that's not a toroidal transformer, because Marantz tells us it's not, right? Just a round casing, I guess.

Bah, you think that's good? If I listen closely I can tell you what brand of solder they used to put those opamps in, and what the geo-normalized, gravimetric, bipolarized, Gaussian flux of their wave soldering apparatus was when the solder cooled [assuming I know the given humidity that day, of course].

If everyone think HDAMs (Hyper Dynamic Amplifier Modules) are so good, wait till you folks hear the markedly superior GODDAM chips I've been privately evaluating for NASA, in my research facility... [I'm not really supposed to talk about though. Sorry.]

Guess if they:

A. Blow them away
B. Sound more "open" and "airy"
C. Have DTB (deeper tighter bass)
D. Better imaging and sound stage
E. Higher resolution and detail, like a veil was lifted
F. All of the above

Hint: They cost more.

Compelling photographs. I could conceive of where there might be significant differences in terms of some of the analog stages, materials used, shielding in areas we cannot see, etc, but clearly they seem to be based on a common layout, and lots of the same parts, especially in the digital realm.

That makes me wonder whether the lack of XT32 on the Marantz is really a technical limitation or just a factor of circumstance, because all the digital bits we can see appear to be common.

Thanks for posting!

you forgot prat...

Hmm...are these internals helpful? See attached for an example comparing the internals of a macbook pro core duo to a quad-core i7.

Given that their boards look nearly identical, I guess the performance is the same?

Also, they look identical from the outside (both unibody aluminum) have similar I/O ports and run the same OSD (OS X).

Mlb11, Marantz tells us they are different. You seem to trust them so you have your answer, right? If I found a giant high resolution image, that wont easily fit in this forum (actually one of my images already was too big, sorry folks for all the scrolling it necessitates. I hate that too!) that showed the chips to be identical, it would be a waste of my time, I'm sure, because I'm confident you would simply claim there are elements underneath the visible boards that make "differences", so it's really pointless trying to convince you; you've made up your mind:

"Marantz has spoken, straight from the source, straight from the "chief design engineer" (who conveniently has no name and can't be consulted or linked to for verification), and audio companies like Marantz never lie, distort, or make errors."

hahaha...yep just what I thought unsubstantiated claims those two were clones.

Thanks!

@mz...

ain't worth it my friend... i'm finally learning "try twice, then let it go"...

^Thanks, friend. I'm following your advice.

Wow, that was a lot to take in guys.

I am now convinced I know much much less than I thought I did about this hobby.

Yeah... nothing has changed on this thread. Three or four guys espousing the same stuff over and over again and then patting each other on the back and tag-teaming until they beat down anyone who has a different opinion. It's no wonder they have posts well into the 1000's.

Sorry... I've just got to stay away from this thread... it's now worth it.

How are posts like this constructive?

^^^
They are not in the least constructive. Check out the thread tools - you can ignore certain posters who continually rant the same old thing over and over.
On another topic - I was mistaken about the Marantz capabilities. I thought it could not decode 192 kHz. I was only partially wrong/right. It cannot take a 192 kHz bitstream, but it can take in a 192 kHz PCM signal. My old player would try to pass through a bitstream, and it sounded like a digital train wreck in the Marantz. New HTPC and I can listen to 192 kHz FLACs. Not 100% sure if there is a difference yet - as I have yet to get a redbook CD and compare it to an "audiophile" release, but at least I can try it out....

I'll tell you how. Perhaps the next time you, or maybe another reader, hears one of the self proclaimed "golden ears" praising the "superior" sound of some "Super Duper Dynamic Opamp", using one of these very expressions, A through F (plus "prat"), it will trigger a recollection of my post's use of these overused and fairly meaningless bits of drivel, and it will finally come to light (perhaps not to all, but at least I hope some readers ) that the author of that new document being read is nothing more than a blow hard "audiophile", gushing about how beautiful the Emperor's new clothes are.

Actually, I think they work in reverse regarding their intended purpose. Their posts and opinions are long discarded. Much like hearing a cult... you tune it out rather quickly. Sure there might be some good general information but one can't paint with such a broad stroke and have any definition.

If I had reason to believe you were correct regarding 99% of forum readers, but that I had successfully opened the mind of just 1% of readers, I would feel I was completely successful in my endeavor to promote evidence based science over the huge amount of superstition, myth, and snake oil peddling, I see so often in this forum.
---

"Open" and "airy" might properly be used in describing a device like a speaker or a microphone, both transducers, due to predominantly frequency response differences, whereas opamps on the otherhand, such as Denon and Marantz ones, have "ruler flat" frequency responses over the audible bandwidth (not to mention negligible distortion and little noise under most conditions). Because of this, anyone describing the AV7005 as "open and airy due to the opamps it uses; I can hear that." is

A) incorrect

and either

B) errantly applying an expectation bias they have as to "which should sound better" [Gee, more expensive separate preamp over cheaper all-in-one receiver? How surprising.] in their decision making, because their test is not using scientific protocols to preclude human biases

or

C) falsely attributing a small change in the system's frequency response which they deem "open and airy" (a perfectly acceptable description, I have no problem with) caused by other factors, such as different microphone placement during Audyssey room correction calibration runs, (or small, expected, sample to sample variations, even if they glued down the same microphone to the exact same room locations for the two calibration runs)

or

D) lying.

Well without all these discussions we'd have little to talk about in this thread: great pre-pro, great price, missing xt32, no replacement scheduled.

Thread stays quiet until someone comes along and asks a question because they didn't digest the manual.

How boring.

Of course, it does read like half the posts are critical of the unit, by people that no longer own one.

I enjoy my AV7005 very much (one of the 1st adopters who purchased 10/2010), but since music represents 75% of my use, I definitely need to look into a seperate hi-fi preamp with HT bypass...or another prepro with a better 2CH analog section.

I'm not expecting either Denon or Marantz to put enough priority in that section on any of their upcoming models, specially within the existing price range. A seperate preamp, or moving up in the prepro ladder, certainly look like my only options.

Check out the Wyred 4 Sound STP-SE.

I own a Marantz SR5005 and use it as a pre-pro in my 4.1 system (no center channel).
I use external amps and nothing is connected to the speaker outputs on the Marantz.

i would like to try 6.1 by adding 2 speakers on the back wall.

could i just connect those 2 speakers to the Marantz' speaker outputs for back surround ?

^^
Yup ... sure can, and the center speaker can be connected to the speaker posts as well if you decide to add it down the road (especially improves center channel dialog in movies).

I explored HT bypass preamps at considerable cost in time and $ and reported my experience in this thread. Allow me to summarize. Given decent source material, speakers and processor (and the 7005 is certainly "decent"), the most important limitations on SQ will be your room acoustics and your sub/speaker placement. IMO recent breaktroughs in DSP and especially room correction have rendered dedicated analog paths kinda irrelevent, unless you're one of those folks who have good formal acoustic room treatments, good speaker/sub placement, are spinning vinyl and absolutely loving the sound. Apparently you're not and you're seeking SQ improvements for music.

I was looking for exactly the same thing when I had Polk RT800i towers($1100 MSRP) and a Polk sub ($400). The first thing I did was get better speakers (Dali Helicon 400s), which helped a lot. Then I tried a lot of analog gear (see thread linked above) and found that although the good analog preamp route with an external amp had potential to improve some aspects of SQ (detail, imaging, airiness), the untamed bass in the room resulted in overall poorer SQ. The poor WAF means no bass traps or acoutic panels. So what to do?

Well, a better sub (Velodyne DD10) with built-in SMS subEQ helped. Adding a twin to it helped even more, especially after optimal opposite midwall placement helped reduce room modes. My Denon AVR 4310 (MSRP $2K) with MultEQXT was pretty good, especially for HT, but I wanted even better SQ for music. When I finally got a DEnon AVR A100/4311 with XT32 it really improved things musically for me. And when I added the Audyssey Pro calibration it bumped it up another notch to pretty much just what I was shooting for. My upgradosis has abated.

SoundOfMind raises a good point, though it's not his main point: What's your listening room like?

If it's like my living room (untreated, unideal shape, SAFered up the wazoo, etc) then your path is different from your path if it's like my dedicated listening room (treated, measured, sealed, optimized, and the spouse is a guest, not the owner, of the space).

(SAF = spouse acceptance factor)

In any event, *this* thread is less likely to get you the best advice. If you have a well treated dedicated room, you may consider the threads about analog pre-amps with HT bypass. If you are fighting against a tough room, you may want to look into models with more powerful Audyssey or other room correction solutions. In such a case, the 7005 is not state of the art.

And of course even in a well treated, calibrated room, there are many fans of room correction addressing things that cannot be resolved in domestic listening room spaces due to the size of our homes.

Some clarification, please. Since "HT bypass" is sort of nebulous concept, just as "pure direct" is [i.e. there's nothing stopping a manufacturer from defining the specifics of these however they see fit] I'm a bit unclear on a certain matter. Would someone explain to me how the audio outs on the AV7005, "VCR" and "CDR" [what would've been called "Tape Outs" back in the day], can not be considered as functional equivalents to "HT bypass outs"?

Thanks.

The intention of a unit with HT bypass is that it would be an additional, probably analog two channel, pre-amp, typically connected to a separate amp, ahead of the 7005 in the signal chain. The concept (please let's not debate it here, there are several topics about it already, example chosen at random: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1345579) is that this allows one to listen to two channel audio without that audio ever touching the HT gear (pre-pro, processing, amp).

So it's not that the 7005 has the ability to do a bypass, but that the dedicated other piece(s) of gear have the ability to function without the 7005.... or pass the signal untouched (via HT bypass) to the 7005 setup, when you want to use the 7005.

EDIT: I was coffee-deprived when I wrote the above. See corrections graciously provided below. The two channel pre-amp with HT bypass goes AFTER the 7005, using the same amps, etc, but of course different analog source(s) connected directly into the two channel pre-amp.

Sorry, but I find both of these comments would require quite a bit of extra hardware to implement as discussed.

MZ, you could consider the tape outs for use in an HT bypass but there are better ways as this likely wouldn't give you the surround processing you're looking for (might be pre-pro feature dependant).

Nathan, you wouldn't need additional amps, that kind of defeats the purpose of having a 2 ch pre that has a HT bypass input.

Basically, if you have a 2 ch pre that has HT bypass capability, it will have an input that can be used as a "Unity Gain" input. Using this input would pass the audio signal through unaltered, bypassing the 2 ch pre's volume control and any other settings that might normally be used for 2 ch. The 2 ch pre normally needs to be on with this input selected for use with HT. Your 2 ch listening source is connected to the 2 ch pre as are your amps and speakers, your pre-pro is not used for 2ch listening.

The front left and right pre-outs of your pre-pro (or AV7005) feed to the unity gain input on the 2 ch pre. When doing HT, all your pre-pro processing is applied to the output signals as if the 2 ch pre was not installed. Your volume control also works and there is no need to adjust the volume on the 2 ch pre to compensate for it's effect due to its unity gain feature/function.

The only extra hardware in this scenario is one set of interconnects and your HT bypass capable pre amp.

Hope this helps. Norm

Well said.

Well said.

First off, I'm glad we could get back to the main subject of the thread and in this case, what are the pros and cons of this unit as part of the 2CH path.

If you check out my link at the bottom, you'll see what my room and equipment look like. It's a dedicated room without any interference from WAF.

At the present time, in 2CH, my SACD's definitely sound more organic and natural when coming through my player's DAC's, in comparaison with the path of Audyssey and the 7005's DAC's. Same room, same system. . Note that I don't use my sub in 2CH, with either paths. I introduced my brother's Soulution 720 preamplifier into my chain last Fall, I was very impressed by the improvement. Same room, same other components.

This enlightening experience has taken me to this path of improving my SACD 2CH performance through the integration of a new preamp...or a processor with a better performing analog section.