Marantz AV7005 - Page 293

Sorry;

The Plasma, Outlaw Sub, PS3, Toshiba HD DVD player and wii are connected to a Monster Power Bar 1200.

The Amp, Pre, Sony DVD jukebox, Sony CD jukebox, Oppo 93, DirecTv HD DVR were connected to a Monster Power HTS 2600, but I just bought a brand new Tripp Lite Supressor.

The Monster 1200 and the Tripp lite are connected to the same 20 amp circuit, but different outlets. Both outlets were tested and are grounded correctly. All circuits in my electrical panel are tight.

To further clarify; If I connect multiple HDMI cables to the 7705 (Sony jukebox DVD, Oppo and the DirecTv DVR, I get the buzz even though it is not connected to the TV.

I thought it may have been the Monster 2600, but the new Tripp Lite is doing the same. I even tried connecting the amp and preamp directly to an outlet, leaving the other source components unplugged to power, and I stil lgot the same result (buzz).

Crutchfield reviews revealed one owner who returned his due to the buzz, but he had his in a metal rack. My cabinet is wood.

ANd correct, I did NOT have this issue with the Onkyo 886

Check to see if the buzz disappears when the cable/sat RF coax wire is disconnected from ALL devices in your system [TV, cable/sat box].

Done that too....

Are you sure you left everything in place and just disconnected the DirecTV DVR's incoming sat dish/OTA RF wire(s)? [not the HDMI connection] If that's the issue, there are remedies.
---

It would be nice to think that everything connected to the same circuit breaker has "the same ground potential", however that's not always the case. Even two outlets in the same room may have a variation large enough to cause problems in some sensitive gear, and the Marantz is known to be a sensitive device. Try piggybacking all your various AC strips to each other and then the SAME outlet. If distant devices won't reach (sub? TV?) then don't even connect them to any AC outlet and see if the buzz is gone.
Edited by m. zillch - 12/7/12 at 7:27pm

"Are you sure you left everything in place and just disconnected the DirecTV DVR's incoming sat dish RF wire(s)? [not the HDMI connection] If that's the issue, there are remedies."

I left the 2 sat cables and the OTA cable connected to the DirecTv DVR during the swap of the 886 and 7705. I unplugged the DVR and then unplugged the HDMI fromthe DVR at the 886, and when I hooked cables up to the 7705, I connected the HDMI at the 7705, then turned the 7705 on and the DVR on. This was done with all devices.

Your 2nd suggestion involves plugging everything into the same outlet. Due to the location of the TV, you are correct in the assumption they are too far apart. However, I have unplugged the power for the TV (I hope I did not lose all my custom ISF adjustments on the Panny Plasma when I unplugged it, when it was plugged back in it went thru a "first time set up" for date, time, etc...) , sub, PS3, HD DVD and wii, and also disconnected the corresponding cables for these items as well.
Edited by cp1966 - 11/21/12 at 1:32am

I went through a similar drill when I installed my 7005. Like you I have a lot of components in my system and ground loops were a real issue. In my case the solution was (with everything connected) to individually unplug each component from its power receptacle and check to see if there was any affect on the hum. If not, reconnect and go to the next component. Eventually I found a component that, when disconnected from its power receptacle, eliminated the hum. I put a ground lift adaptor on that power cord (it has a resistor on the ground terminal and does not leave the component ungrounded) and the problem was resolved. Anytime I reconfigure or add a component I have to go through this again because it will then be a different component.

Here is what worked for me:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/365781-REG/Ebtech_HUM_X_Hum_X_Ground_Loop.html
Edited by Ranger41 - 11/21/12 at 11:07am

I had grounding problems with my 7005 that I didn't have with my previous pre-pro. I bought an isolator for my cable input that solved the problem. I don't remember the make, but it was inexpensive and took care of the hum immediately. It's one of the little in-line barrel shaped things.

You can test to see if that is your problem by unhooking your cable or satellite from the chain and checking to see if you still get hum.

I think you mean one of these, right? They do wonders, even if some may balk that it is a "band-aid" approach...Thank goodness for band-aids!

Thanks- helpful FAQ. I have set fronts to small and will run the Audyssey set up again. (This time leaving coffee table in place.) Though I suspect that I may have to manually decrease rear surround levels.

You'll most likely have to set them to small again after Audyssey. Audyssey will suggest the large setting.

So I did a HDMI board/handshake reset, which basically involved unhooking (HDMI) connections and power to all sources, waiting at least 30 minutes, then powering up the TV, then the 7005, and then 1 by 1 connecting the HDMI sources and powering them up (It is more detailed specific than this but this is a summary).

It did not help. Once again, after connecting 2 HDMI cables or more the buzz was more poronounced.

Unfortunately, Outlaw closed early for th eholiday but Scott and Jim have been very helpful and patient with me in trying to solve the issue. I will call them again next week after the holdays to see what to try next. I am thinking a swap of 7005 units is in order.

Did any one compare the 7005 and 7007

So, I am entertaining an idea of replacing my (historic) Arcam AVR200 (that I use as pre/pro), with Marantz AV7005.
Trying to figure out how much improvement will it bring me (beside the obvious ability to decode HD audio formats)? Is there a big difference between HD audio and legacy formats?
In your opinion, will it bring me improvements in analog audio part as well? I use 5.1 analog from my Pio DV58 when I listen to DVD-a/SACD.
Thanks for your input.

No, in fact the only published evidence shows the only audible difference is if you artificially crank up the volume and listen to the noise floor between tracks. Even this will be impossible to make out, for most music, because the noise floor of the master recording is often inferior to the medium of CD itself, and therefor will mask the "benefits" of the lower noise floor that formats such as SACD have.

Keep in mind when you do read anecdotal stories about how much "better", for example SACD is, there is almost never any attempt to:

A. Level match the two recordings using outboard instrumentation

B. Synchronize the two recordings

C. Verify they came from the same master tape source [Which pretty much NEVER is the case. Some degree of EQ, compression, limiting, etc is almost always applied differently]

D. Use protocols to preclude bias expectation (placebo effect) such as ABX or double-blind testing.

So they aren't scientifically valid.

Good reasons to buy the AV7005 might include some feature you desire or its room correction circuitry, Audyssey XT.

P.S. People who say they are "immune" to the placebo effect/expectation bias, level mis-match, etc., so these rules" don't apply to them", are either liars or deluded. We all suffer from these issues, NO EXCEPTIONS.
Edited by m. zillch - 11/26/12 at 11:43am

^^^ I assume you're talking about legacy recordings that are remastered, and not about new recordings?

I meant (stereo) SACD vs CD as audio formats. The year the recording was made is immaterial.
Edited by m. zillch - 11/26/12 at 12:13pm

Sorry guys, I wasn’t clear enough:
Under HD audio I presumed audio tracks on BR (DTS HDMA, DD TrueHD or whatever) compared to legacy DTS and DD.
As far as HD music goes, all my DVD-a and SACD’s are multichannel decoded by my DV58 – so I’m using only analog section on my AVR200 playing them. Wander how good is Marantz analog section in comparison.

Ok, so to answer your question: a HD Audio Recording (e.g. DTS MD or Dolby TH) will be absolutely superior to any CD recording.

Hardly.

When David Birch Jones and Geoffrey Morrison, two veteran audio journalists, visited Dolby Laboratories and then a week later DTS, for an A vs. B test of their respective new, "superior" HD surround sound systems , in nearly ideal environments, through state of the art sound systems, [Dolby's is said to be around $50,000] , they concluded the difference was:

"So Subtle
What impressed, or perhaps surprised, me most about these tests was how good the base codecs actually are. The difference between the original audio and the basic Dolby Digital and DTS is a lot subtler than you’d expect, given the extreme amount of compression (around 10:1, a similar ratio to that of 128 kbps MP3).

That said, I could definitely pick out the difference between the lesser (or perhaps it’s more accurate to say “better”) compressed versions and the higher compressed versions. The difference is mostly in the presence, or ambience. The lossless, Dolby Digital Plus, and DTS-HD High Resolution compressed tracks were just a little more open and airy. I hate to say it, but they just sounded more realistic and transparent. The 448 kbps Dolby Digital and standard DTS tracks were less so, a little more closed off. Between the 640 kbps Dolby Digital and the uncompressed, the difference was even less noticeable. Enough so that most people, even those trained to listen for it, probably won’t be able to hear the difference.

The core DTS call is a little harder, as there wasn’t the same blind system in place to A/B as precisely as at Dolby. "

So if not blind, then meaningless in my book. only the Dolby Labs test was truly valid and even then the test conductors, Dolby technicians, were present, so it was not double blind and they definitely would have a vested interest in conveying a notion that their new "HD" system was superior to their older, garden variety "Dolby Digital" system. [There are many other questions I have about the test and setup, but I won't go into it here. ]

The writers, Jones and Morrison, also re-iterate what I alluded to earlier, that the notion that any of us have the facilities to do a fair comparison ourselves is foolhardy. This would apply to most audio reviewers who publish their anecdotes in magazines, too:

"If you’ve been listening at home and are sure you can hear a difference on your favorite discs, be wary. There is absolutely no way to tell that compressed and uncompressed tracks on any disc have anything to do with each other. They could come from different masters, they could be mixed differently, or any number of other variables that makes an in-home test, unfortunately, impossible."

[emphasis mine]

The article is no longer on the web, but luckily there was a snap shot taken by the web archive.org "wayback machine" here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20081223110158/http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM?page=0%2C1
Edited by m. zillch - 11/26/12 at 2:50pm

^^^

as usual mz, i couldn't agree with you more... the "difference" between the lossless codecs and the hbr compressed ones is very subtle on the best of systems/room setups, and completely non-existent on others (and "others" include virtually everyone posting in this thread)... this is also true of the legacy codecs for the great majority of users... any "differences" are swallowed up by their listening environment...

op, anyone who tells you there is a "night and day difference" can safely be ignored... here's a good guideline... if you are not in a dedicated AND well "tuned" (for lack of a better term) room, the lossless codecs are the least of your worries...

you would be well served to get a disk spinner that will send dvd-a/sacd over hdmi, thus allowing you to use the room correction provided to you in the pre-pro... there is zero chance that i would go back to using analog connections for this... none...

Well well, besides the all "cables and amps" sounds the same, now we're arguing if lossless sounds better than compressed? So you're saying my Goldfrapp mp3 album sounds the same as the losless version?

Seriously guys?

Last time I talked to the lossy compression mavens I hang with on another forum (some are lossy encoder developers) They tell me that there are a number of 99 % or better lossy encoders, but none are actually at 100.0000000 %.

Bottom line is that the best lossy-encoded files can fool most of the people most of the time but not all of the people all of the time.

This contrasts with good DACs, amplifiers and cables that can fool 100% of the people 100% of the time.

Hope this helps.

It all starts with the source. Crappy source=crappy end product. But if you have a source mastered in HD, and compress it to 128kbp, and then compare it to a lossless version there's no way they sound the same. Remastering an 80s song in HD is a different story.

So to go down this route, a DD5.1 source of a movie soundtrack also sounds the same as a DTS MA HD soundtrack? After all, the DD5.1 is a *compressed* version of the original.

Right?

I see, said the blind man... Or double blind man.

Yeah, it all sounds the same when you're playing within the limits of A-Z. That's why all the folks saying so are running HTiB systems.

Actually, as for the "Home-Theater-In-a-Box" used, where they described the "ever-so-slightly noticeable difference" as "subtle", at best, comparing the direct, uncompressed signal to standard Dolby Digital, using hand picked material (by Dolby scientists) for the specific purpose of demonstrating the difference, David Birch-Jones and Geoffrey Morrison were using Dolby Laboratories' state-of-the-art, $50,000 audio system in a dedicated room built specifically for human listener, audio codec analysis, that adheres to:

" ITU-R BS.1161-1 critical listening evaluation specification and companion BS.1284-1 Annex document that together specify in great detail the precise conditions, procedures and protocols necessary to achieve repeatable and truly useful results in the on-going development of these codecs. A suitably high resolution 5.1 system resides in the room, with five Revel Ultima Studio full range loudspeakers, along with a Paradigm subwoofer and a stack of Bryston power amplifiers rounding out the gear. "

I don't think that would fit, um, "in-a-box".
---

"we compared the original to the Dolby Digital Plus version (that codec is found on numerous BD titles, and like TrueHD, is fully backward compatible with regular Dolby Digital decoders). Even on this extremely high-end system, we couldn’t hear any difference between the uncompressed and the compressed. Then, we compared the higher bitrate (640 kbps) that is found on the Dolby Digital tracks on Blu-rays to the original. "Golden Ears" Morrison was able to hear the difference, but I, and most others in the room with us, did not."

*Wah-wah*, the' two standard fall-back whines we hear over and over again, of "It wasn't obvious, to all, simply because the system they used had poor resolution" and "the selected audio material was a poor choice for hearing the distinction", clearly fall flat on their face here, yet notice it is exactly what they cling to as their knee jerk reaction:

and

It's pathetic.

I've made my point and see no reason to waste any more of my time arguing with the "high end" [hmm, does that mean "on drugs"?] audio fanboys, who blindly accept the tripe fed to them by the high-end audio industry and the magazines which cater to them, for advertising dollars. Bye for now.
Edited by m. zillch - 11/26/12 at 11:33pm

Agreed. I think even the voodoo worshiping, unscientific crowd concede to that point these days.

^^^

i wish you were right there... but sadly, there are still quite a few clinging to "beliefs" that are not grounded in reality...

Hey pot, what color is that kettle?

Moderator

perhaps it is time to move on: the latest discussions may be better suited for another forum such as audio theory and chat