Marantz AV8801 Preamp/Processor Official Owner's thread - Page 51

Originally Posted by cp1966 

Discodol,
Did you get your 8801 from Steve at Sound video? He mentioned someone in Florida had a 7005 (like me) and had buzz issues, but now with a 8801 the buzz is gone.

Originally Posted by danielo 

I didn't make any claims about how they sound or what people prefer just about the parts being used. For example you make claims about steering of sound in surround. I just point out they (AVP/4520/8801) are running the same 3 chips mostly from the same board and my guess the same software made by the same people. If there is magic it aint in the digital parts.
Here is the layout of the chips for you :

Daniel.

Originally Posted by planetbrian777 

Steve Herrala with Sound Video dot com. I have bought many pieces over the years and he is a true professional. I just bought a AV8801 and some Golden Ear speakers from him and they are a perfect match.

Originally Posted by planetbrian777 

I just got my 8801 from Steve. I am in Florida and had hum issues with an AV7701 (see previous posts). With the AV8801, I do not have any hum issues now and it sounds outstanding....better than my Lexicon MC12b. For me, it is a master piece.

Originally Posted by planetbrian777 

Steve Herrala with Sound Video dot com. I have bought many pieces over the years and he is a true professional. I just bought a AV8801 and some Golden Ear speakers from him and they are a perfect match.

Originally Posted by ss9001 

It would be great if someone really close to how D&M does things could say if -
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?

Originally Posted by ss9001 

let me ask, have you directly compared the 8801 with the 4520? in same room with same speakers, by chance?
was Joerod able to do that? I know he had both but what I don't remember from reading his reviews weeks ago is whether he had them both at the same time.

Originally Posted by ultra 150 pilot 

I have been following this thread and keep hearing words like buttery smooth and detailed and the first thing that comes to my mind is mcintosh, seeing that d&m sold mcintosh I'm wondering if they used some of that technology from the Mac stuff and incorporated it into the 8801?
I came from an anthem d2 and moved to a Mac mx135 pre and love the smooth detailed sound. I'm thinking of grabbing an 8801 to do a little comparison.
Here's a pic of the back of the mcintosh mx 121
http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/Assets/Pages/ZoomImage.aspx?img=/Assets/Images/Products/MX121/XL_MX121_5.jpg
And the marantz 8801
http://us.marantz.com/us/Products/Pages/ZoomImage.aspx?img=/Assets/images/products/AV8801/XL_av8801_u_b_re.jpg
Maybe someone can put those pics side by side?
Anyone have any inside pics of the the two?

Originally Posted by bfreedma 

The 8801 is certainly a nice unit, but a "game changer"? What do you find to be unique in the 8801?

Originally Posted by planetbrian777 

I just got my 8801 from Steve. I am in Florida and had hum issues with an AV7701 (see previous posts). With the AV8801, I do not have any hum issues now and it sounds outstanding....better than my Lexicon MC12b. For me, it is a master piece.

Originally Posted by ss9001 

^^
"Can we find out please how good this piece really is...I'm talking sound quality, period.?"
agreed

Originally Posted by jdlynch 

Question for you guys moving from your Lexicon MC-12 to an 8801:
Do you like the Marantz better because of features, or, sound quality?
I have had my Lexicon for well over ten years now and have become fan of Logic7 processing. I have only got a 5.1 set-up and have no need for video switching or soundtrack de-coding.

Originally Posted by audiofan1 

If you don't own one, you should reserve your comments until you have objective data in your hands to refute the claims by actual "Owners" not fans but to honest I'm becoming one:p this is an owners thread and not a 8801 vs., I'm sure someone with the reach in there pockets will get around to comparing the two, until then why crash the party:D

Originally Posted by audiofan1 

you should reserve your comments until you have objective data in your hands to refute the claims by actual "Owners" not fans but to honest I'm becoming one:p this is an owners thread and not a 8801 vs., I'm sure someone with the reach in there pockets will get around to comparing the two, until then why crash the party:D

Originally Posted by jam88 

It's always possible but I have the feeling that it's rather implausible. As far I know, the R&D for the Mac gear is still done in McIntosh Labs facilities in NY state. D&M holdings, on the other hand, have been doing the R&D for Denon and Marantz in Japan for quite some time, decades in fact.
.

Originally Posted by jima4a 

I am sure many read a thread to decide if a piece is worth considering. I wanted to go with the Marantz but it took too long to be released in my case.

Originally Posted by audiofan1 

No Sir Iv'e not compared the two,but perhaps asking Joerod how he feels about the 8801 todate vs. the 4020 would give more insight on the subject, I personally would find it very interesting to see an update of his views. There has been a very nice increase in image weight and a less glassy upper midrange in my 8801 via hdmi playback for music (no Audyssey, compared to an Oppo 105 via it's xlr analog outs) Its sounding very refined after 300 hrs of burn in!

Originally Posted by jam88 

I strongly disagree. When a quality oriented manufacturer builds a pre/pro for a mid to high-end price point, he'll use better quality components like toroidal transformers, better capacitors, resistors, transistors, etc. They'll also spend more effort on R&D to develop better performing analog circuitry with lower noise floors, specially in the very important analog output stages. Digital and analog electronics are two very different animals. Why do you think there is such a large SQ difference over the analog outs between the Oppo 93 and 95? Their whole digital front-end is identical; that SQ difference is result of the analog output stages, the DAC, the linear power supply with a toroidal transformer, etc.
The manufacturers like Theta Digital (Casablanca pre/pro), Classé (SSP-800), Anthem (Statement D2v), Lexicon and even Denon with their flagship AVP-A1HDCI(A) all understand that. Like I said in an earlier post, you can take the best DAC solution on the market and still have far from optimal results if you analog output stages aren't well designed.

Originally Posted by ultra 150 pilot 

Makes sense, but they certainly can share info with each other,I noticed too that when Mac was bought out by d&m a few years back and that's when their digital stuff (proc) had all changed and there was a lot of resemblance to the marantz stuff!
The mcintosh stuff is nice no doubt, but you pay a premium for that!

Originally Posted by dahlgren 

So is the analog output stage well designed in the AV8801?

Originally Posted by ss9001 

hmm...well, I don't think I was refuting anything does anyone who knows my posting history think I was saying anything negative out of hand?
I'm not looking to either refute or confirm anything, all I ever seek is objective facts on hardware, implementation, and I also take subjective reviews into consideration.
don't automatically assume that someone looking for data has an agenda. I don't & neither should you.
and just like many threads, anytime someone raises the evil head of being objective and looking for facts into the thread, the fanboys try to run them off...well, it doesn't work. just like the Pioneer BD-09 and Denon $4500 BD player threads, when Jeff Bland tried to tell people not to automatically drink the kool-aid and people that didn't like his objectivity and message objected to him posting there. actually, in the end, he turned out to be mostly right.
I'm very open-minded that this prepro may in fact be just the piece I'd like to eventually own someday. why assume I (or anyone else for that matter) is trying to diss it?
and no one should tell another respected contributing poster to "refrain from comments" in any thread. in fact, you are entirely welcome to post in the Pioneer SC-68 thread if you think you have a POV or helpful information to owners & potential owners, even if it's to say you think Audyssey is better than MCACC
I don't ever try to chase anyone off even if I disagree with them.

Originally Posted by ss9001 

OK, thanks
so you compare gear without the room correction? I do too when I try to compare gear, I like to take that out of the equation so I'm hearing what its capable of by itself, not just the processing.