Marantz AV8801 Preamp/Processor Official Owner's thread - Page 17

Do watch movies in the same room as you listen to music? If so, then it's hard to reconcile your views. If you prefer Pure Direct personally, great, but there isn't a case to be made for not addressing room issues because of your individual preferences.

Your attempt to debunk ABX by attacking the process with unsubstantiated claims isn't advancing your cause - post links if you have them. Basically, if you want to argue that gravity doesn't exist, the burden of proof is squarely on you.

Any professional reviews of this unit? Also am interested in user feedback and possibly a comparison with an interga/onkyo unit.

That completely mischaracterizes of the objectivist position in an attempt to avoid the discussion. I doubt you would find any posts from those you called out stating that speakers/rooms/DSP sounds the same - that's where audible differences and areas for improvement can be found.

Beside having a strong opinion, can you produce any hard evidence that your Parasound A51 sounds audibly different than any other SS amp run within spec? Measurements or independent research?

I have mentioned the same findings elsewhere. There was a debate in HT Secrets a while back that covered it as well. There was also a talk by an ESS engineer which covers how difficult it was for them to understand why something that measures perfectly can sound bad and how the hearing system doesn't just rely on steady states but also how they get the steady states.

Most of the problems with HT IMHO relates to sub eq. In a lot of music, the low frequencies tend to be not as prominent and thus not be as much of an issue to require EQ. As I said before EQ fixes some problems but can make music sound lifeless and uninvolving.

Can we get back on topic and you guys take you off-topic discussion elsewhere.

Actually, it's low frequencies/subwoofers that require the most EQ in the vast majority of rooms. That's why the inclusion of XT32 on the 8801 is such a "big deal".

Same thing I said.

But music usually doesn't contain a lot of information on the lower frequencies, hence alleviating the need for EQ and why Pure Audio can work well with say a multichannel SACD.

I hear you there. Bass management would be nice, I think. I'm using a minidsp to eq my bass. For me I'm still using my Outlaw 990. I've always wanted a Marantz, but would be fine with Integra/Onkyo as well. I'm just really curious about this unti and very close to taking the leap.

I guess it's the tonal quality of the unit and how well the feature set works. $3600 will be the most I've shelled out for a processor or amp.

Well I know there can be tonal differences, but not sure if you get anything "cleaner." I used to have the onkyo pro 885 with MK S-150 system and a D-Sonic amp. That system sounded better than my Outlaw 990, Adcom 7707 with klipsch speakers. Even my wife liked the former. I also have a B&K 305 and again the tonal quality is different from the other two systems. I can't really say wether it's better, but it's clearly different. I have no experience with Marantz and I've heard the new Onkyo/Integra units sound much better than the 885 units. I have no idea where I was going with this other than I'm interested.

HT Secrets is IME a forum that is somehat biased against a scientific view of audio.

The issue of ear versus gear is an old, old issue but is far better understood today than even many EEs think. The ear versus gear debate gets messy when people's idea of listening tests is the sort of uncontrolled mish-mashes that most engineers, reviewers and audiophiles do. For a listening test to be reliable it has to match levels and musical selections fairly fanatically, and bias, mostly due to knowing what you are listening to at all points of the evaluation, must be controlled. Almost nobody actually does that.

It takes a lot more measurements and analysis to understand the issues related to ear versus gear when we talk about loudspeakers and rooms.

This is a good book about the topic:

Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms by Floyd Toole

http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092

I'm curious as to why you would want to use a Pure Audio mode with MCH SACDs. This is where an AVR/prepro with a room correction system like XT32 would really be beneficial. In a mode like Pure Audio you are using the basic BM and speaker settings of the source opposed to the more advanced settings in ones AVR/prepro. I have a number of 5.1 SACDs and DVD-As that really sound so much better when XT32 is used especially for EQing my sub. For quite awhile I was using a Parasound 2100 (2CH preamp with HT Bypass) for 2CH music with no room correction as I felt my Onkyo 886 was lacking with 2CH music. But once I bought the 4311 I did a number of direct comparisons between the 4311 and the 2100. I found I preferred the SQ of the 4311 with XT32 for 2CH music over the 2100. Of course it is a matter of preference but I went from dismissing Audyssey for 2CH music to being a XT32 convert .

Bill

Does anyone have any specifics on the video processor (if any) in the AV8801? I'm looking at this versus a DHC-80.3, which at least utilizes the HQV Vida.

I for one love pure DSD for stereo and only occasionally listen to it pcm converted to add bass mgnt. while I wouldn't consider the trade off something horrific I choose 2ch stereo because of the to my ears clear superiority of DSD, having said that as advanced as the 8801 is it's extremely important to me have a good analog section as I feel my current Anthem avm 20>Oppo95>Parasound Halo A21 setup is audio bliss. This is the first pre to come to market that's priced right ( ok just barely out of my budget) that has the feature set I want which is mostly attention paid hopefully to analog section as well as the digital, my room is well treated and if Audyssey is of any benifit then great if not then off it goes and the hopefully good analog section it is. I would like to think that most here should know, that there is no substitute for good speaker placement and positioning in the first place if not then some after school audio 101 is in order.

In short my adventure is more curiosity on Audyssey , DSD over hdmi, 7.1 or .2 or 11.1 from my existing 5.1 setup, I also plan to add the the new OPPo 105 to see if it can replace my 95 , and also the addition of the new ken Kreisler sub to replace my warhorse M&K MX 150 mk2 sub, this will all be done in stages to gauge each improvement.

Should be fun:)

I think they are anxiously combing the threads in search of a documented chroma error or bass dip/hump in a graph so they can justify their enjoyment/displeasure while looking for excuses to buy new gear. If there aren't any, then they know they have the best, and no amount of listening can change that fact. Because it doesn't matter!

The rest of us poor schmucks will just enjoy the wonderful sound, and the feeling we get from listening. Because we don't know any better!

Bill Mac asked:

Bill, the problem is that you cannot combine direct DSD to analog with any PCM based DSP.

Put another way, you can set your player to output PCM. It will convert the .dff or .dsf files on the SACD for output to your preamp/processor. Then you can utilize Audessy (or any other PCM based format DSP, for that matter). However, if you want to stream DSD to your preamp/processor for direct DSD to analog conversion, you cannot use any PCM format DSP. This should theoretically get you as close to exactly what was recorded on the disc.

^^^

until it leaves the speakers, possibly...

after that, all bets are off...

@jon... ignorance is bliss, i suppose... however, if you want to enjoy "better sound", ignoring room acoustics is not a good way of going about it...

oh well... what do i know?

Likely the same chips used on the 4520 .... Analog Devices ADV 8003, 7850.

Hmmm...while I'm sure it's probably suitable I suspect the HQV chipset will be superior. Shame...I'm having a hard time finding value in the 8801 given the price point.

From what I hear of the Vida chip, I suspect you are correct; however, one rarely hears comments about the stock video chips in these "audio" threads as there are better ways to improve video quality (eg. Darbee Darblet, DVDO Edge).

Agreed, but that only weakens the value proposition for the Marantz. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that a high-end processor be sufficiently stout in the video processing department to optimally recreate creative intent (or leave it alone if need be).

Perhaps, but not something that D&M is apparently focusing on at this point. Perhaps time to check out other brands and come back to the 8801 if not satisfied with the alternatives.

Yes, the QDEO processor is likely better, although there is likely a current 4520CI owner that could confirm.

I agree with Chris in that all will be fine till you play the specific SACD in your room. I have done a number of DSD to PCM comparisons many times. I also had the mindset that DSD was the way to go. But the more comparisons I did I found that using DSD direct when compared to PCM especially with MCH SACDs that I preferred PCM with XT32. The other issue I found and others have as well is low bass output when using the DSD setting with Denon AVRs. This issue has been discussed in a number of threads including this one. It will be interesting to see if the 8801 has the same issue that Denon AVRs have with low bass output when using the DSD setting. What AVR/prepro are you using?

Bill

@jd...

yes, one could, but others don't seem to be interested in "sciency type stuff"...

realistically, in "real world viewing", most modern chips in avrs are essentially indistinguishable whennit comes to scaling/deinterlacing*...depending on which features are implemented by the cem, one chip may be more useful than the other... but that would actually require stuff like measuring and accepting the fact that a "reference standard" exists...

one note on the onkyo implementation... at least in the 818, it is "broken" for 24p (it drops frames)... this is unlikely to be fixed...

* if one cares that much about video processing, a lumagen radiance is a good option... with a "big" screen (100" or larger), the scaling is superior, and rheir adaptive deinterlacing equals or betters what dvdo used to be best at... a "real" video processor such as a lumagen will allow proper calibration and other goodies, which is where the true value in the unit lies...
Edited by ccotenj - 11/27/12 at 6:31pm