1) AL32 is intact in the Marantz 8801 but is not advertised to preserve brand differentiation or
2) it's there but turned off in FW code
I have a really hard time believing that the company builds 2 separate circuit designs & digital processing boards. that would make no sense for economies of scale in production costs. It makes a whole more sense that the company "comments out" the code that implements AL32 in the processor
it's too bad if AL32 really isn't there. because that would make the Marantz a clear winner. I'm still skeptical that the analog enhancements can compensate for lack of upsampling, I can't even find any reference of any kind anywhere on Marantz products about upsampling. Surely in this day, Marantz wouldn't deliberately leave it out which IMO puts them at a disadvantage to nearly all their competitors. Pioneer has had it for years, as has Denon. Why Marantz wouldn't strikes me as very short-sighted technologically. Having it PLUS the analog enhancements, PLUS the shielding would make it a clear winner. as it is, it's not clear at all, all the subjective opinions not withstanding. Sorry, but the objectivist in me wants to know what technology is used in the boxes & make them tick no different than how I look at gear from Pioneer or Denon.
subjective remarks about how it sounds are fine but more details of what's really in the 2 products & how they differ would also be very helpful IMO.
not just rely on subjective reviews about the sound somehow being "better". are there more people here who can comment on the hardware & implementation differences? Before I would consider trying one of these, this is the kind of information I would like to see. because I know a fair amount about what's in the Pioneers
We know the Audyssey vs Pioneer MCACC issues. What about AL32 vs no-AL32?