or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Marantz AV8801 Preamp/Processor Official Owner's thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Marantz AV8801 Preamp/Processor Official Owner's thread - Page 19

post #541 of 11293
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

No?  I don't know what you listen to but room modes are significant up to about 250Hz in a typical room and there's little music that does not extend below that.  Let's get this out of this thread, btw, as it has nothing, in specific, to do with the 8801.  (And mine arrives tomorrow!)

So Kal, what are your expectations for the AV8801? A definite step-up from the AV7005?
Edited by exm - 11/28/12 at 1:42pm
post #542 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

I have a dislike for proprietary interfaces as they severely limit the user's options.  So, while DenonLink and similar may be effective, you pay for that in other ways.  What I would love to see is a universal implementation of ARC (audio rate control) which is an option in recent versions of HDMI and available to all licensees and which will significantly reduce timing inaccuracies in this ubiquitous interface.  So far, the only open implementation I know of is in the Ayre DX-5 but what can you connect it to?  Sony's HATS and Pioneers PQLS are proprietary versions.  Sigh.


So I'm guessing your not a big Apple fan. smile.gif
post #543 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

I have a dislike for proprietary interfaces as they severely limit the user's options.  So, while DenonLink and similar may be effective, you pay for that in other ways.  What I would love to see is a universal implementation of ARC (audio rate control) which is an option in recent versions of HDMI and available to all licensees and which will significantly reduce timing inaccuracies in this ubiquitous interface.  So far, the only open implementation I know of is in the Ayre DX-5 but what can you connect it to?  Sony's HATS and Pioneers PQLS are proprietary versions.  Sigh.

I thought ARC was Audio Return Channel.
post #544 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by exm View Post


So Kal, what are your expectations for the AV8801? A definite step-up from the AV7005?

I think that's a reasonable expectation.

post #545 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by mankite View Post


So I'm guessing your not a big Apple fan. smile.gif

Nope.  I love my iPad, though.

post #546 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post


I thought ARC was Audio Return Channel.

There are multiple meaning for ARC.   Off the top of my head and just in the audio realm, we have

Audio Return Channel

Audio Rate Control

Anthem Room Correction

Audio Research Corporation

 

Google will give you more.

post #547 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by exm View Post

Bottom line is that the AV8801 is build using better components.

Definitely better build quality on the 8801 over the 4520. But will that equate to better SQ?

Bill
post #548 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

Definitely better build quality on the 8801 over the 4520. But will that equate to better SQ?
Bill

....and that my friends is the $3,600 question.
post #549 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by exm View Post

Bottom line is that the AV8801 is build using better components.

Definitely better build quality on the 8801 over the 4520. But will that equate to better SQ?

Bill

< treading gently >

careful on the assumption of "better build quality"... wink.gif
post #550 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP View Post

....and that my friends is the $3,600 question.

Yea...well given copper is currently trading at $3.52 a pound it better be a lot of copper and make it sound miraculous smile.gif
post #551 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

< treading gently >
careful on the assumption of "better build quality"... wink.gif

Well looking at the internals of the 8801 compared to the 4520 the 8801 looks quite impressive.

Bill
post #552 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

Definitely better build quality on the 8801 over the 4520. But will that equate to better SQ?
Bill

As most of the digital front-end is pretty much the same on both units, it's the differences in the power supplies and the analog output stages (like Marantz HDAM vs Denon DDSC) that will impart distinctive sound characteristics to each unit. This reminds me of a conversation I had at an audio show with the main designer of the Simaudio Moon CD player that uses the ESS Sabre32 Reference DACs; he mentioned that you can choose the best DAC for your design but you can still mess up the implementation by poorly designing the analog output stages.
post #553 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manchild View Post

Yea...well given copper is currently trading at $3.52 a pound it better be a lot of copper and make it sound miraculous smile.gif

I don't want to burst your bubble but the description states that the chassis is composed of COPPER PLATED STEEL, as is electroplated, you know a few microns thick... OK maybe a few thousands of a meter thick. wink.gif
post #554 of 11293
30lbs:D
post #555 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Of course, it is.  

It is illogical to acknowledge that room correction is needed for one mode of listening (headphones excluded) and not for another in the same room.
As for those who deny the value of room correction entirely, their consistency is admirable but misled.

Which kinda makes it odd that the magazine that you write for, drapes Class A+ awards on products that do not incorporate any form of room correction, no? smile.gif
post #556 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof Woof View Post


Which kinda makes it odd that the magazine that you write for, drapes Class A+ awards on products that do not incorporate any form of room correction, no? smile.gif

As Francis Urquhart said, You may very well think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.” wink.gif

post #557 of 11293
The thing is with room treatment and good positioning of speakers vis a vis the listening position, you can mitigate the room effects significantly so as not to incur the penalties of Room EQ.

And that is why music can sound better (stereo or multichannel) without any form of DSP EQ applied because using EQ creates additional artefacts of its own.

I still use EQ particularly SubEQ in movies because I find that with movies, the pros outweigh the cons when there's a lot of low level frequencies that can only be contained using more elaborate bass treatments but that creates additional problems of its own.
post #558 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP View Post

....and that my friends is the $3,600 question.
Wouldn't that be a $1100 question?

8801-4520=1100 wink.gif
post #559 of 11293
I would definitely like for that HDMI feature utilized and become the industry standard. That way you can mix and match brands of players and receiver/processors.
post #560 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by nismo604 View Post

I would definitely like for that HDMI feature utilized and become the industry standard. That way you can mix and match brands of players and receiver/processors.

Ditto.

But ARC like DenonLink tends to improve MPCM data from BluRays more than bitstream data. I find the improvements not as discernable when I send DTS HDMA/TrueHD down HDMI.

DenonLink works more than just as a master clock for HDMI though. With SACD/DVDA/CD, it also acts as a separate digital interconnect which I feel is better than HDMI for DSD/PCM audio
post #561 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof Woof View Post

Which kinda makes it odd that the magazine that you write for, drapes Class A+ awards on products that do not incorporate any form of room correction, no? smile.gif

I don't believe that's a fair assessment. The vast majority of stereo preamplifiers and amplifiers that receive those class A+ distinctions are analog in nature and offer no form of bundled digital room correction. There are a few rare exceptions in the market like some digitally controlled class D integrated amplifiers from makers such as Lyngdorf Audio, Holm Acoustics, Phase Technology, Tact Audio, etc. that offer such capabilities but if Stereophile hasn't reviewed them yet, then they can't possibly have the opportunity to be considered for an award.

However, in the Stereophile 2012 Recommended Components for Music Surround-Sound Components, you'll find under the class A section, the highest distinction for that category: the $9K Anthem Statement D2v with ARC, the Integra DHC-80.3 with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and the $12K McIntosh MX150 with Lyngdorf RoomPerfect.

That same magazine also awarded Audyssey's MultEQ XT32 with the Products of 2011 JOINT ACCESSORIES OF THE YEAR award.
post #562 of 11293
Actually I believe Kal has reviewed some stereo DSP/RoomEQ systems before in Stereophile.

But if RoomEQ is so important and none of the Class A+ gear have them, are those Class A+ systems then unusable?
post #563 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof Woof View Post

Actually I believe Kal has reviewed some stereo DSP/RoomEQ systems before in Stereophile.
But if RoomEQ is so important and none of the Class A+ gear have them, are those Class A+ systems then unusable?

Regardless of all of your attempts to divert/spin the topic, room EQ is as vital for music as it is for movies. Same room, same requirements.
post #564 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

Regardless of all of your attempts to divert/spin the topic, room EQ is as vital for music as it is for movies. Same room, same requirements.

Generally agreed.

I sold both my Classe SSP 800 and CP 800 devices - despite their superb "quality", the in room performance for me was lacking without room correction and bass management.

If you have the freedom to design a purpose built room, with the precise room treatments, size, and positioning required, then products like the Classe would likely shine superior even when compared to room correction solutions i(a well-designed, though not "top their" processor).. But since almost no one has that kind of room, then the benefits of well-implemented room correction can outweigh the superior architecture of a non-room correcting processor when it comes down to plopping our ever-increasing buttock's in the chair to simply listen...in fact I'd argue there is a need for it (not our ever increase buttocks size, but room correction)
post #565 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof Woof View Post

Actually I believe Kal has reviewed some stereo DSP/RoomEQ systems before in Stereophile.

But if RoomEQ is so important and none of the Class A+ gear have them, are those Class A+ systems then unusable?

Isn't all or most of the Stereophile Class A gear potentially useable with some room eq brought into the system some way?

But if you are asking me whether I think that Stereophile's evaluation and rating system ummm, needs some work the answer is YES!
post #566 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof Woof View Post

Which kinda makes it odd that the magazine that you write for, drapes Class A+ awards on products that do not incorporate any form of room correction, no? smile.gif
As Francis Urquhart said, You may very well think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.” wink.gif

Let's talk.

When Kal shows up at SP there is at least one sane man in the room, and when he leaves... ?????
post #567 of 11293
From Kal Rubenson:
Quote:
(And mine arrives tomorrow!)

First, I am green with envy. I am still waiting.

Second, may I ask if you plan to do a Music In The Round review of my new pre/pro? How about the MM-8807, my new amp?

Steven.
post #568 of 11293
Oops! Ignore my question. I should know by now to check to see if their are any posts pertaining to my curious side.

Steven.
post #569 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof Woof View Post

The thing is with room treatment and good positioning of speakers vis a vis the listening position, you can mitigate the room effects significantly so as not to incur the penalties of Room EQ.
And that is why music can sound better (stereo or multichannel) without any form of DSP EQ applied because using EQ creates additional artefacts of its own.
I still use EQ particularly SubEQ in movies because I find that with movies, the pros outweigh the cons when there's a lot of low level frequencies that can only be contained using more elaborate bass treatments but that creates additional problems of its own.

I completely agree.  If people did pay more attention to managing their room's acoustics, a priori, there would be little need for EQ except in the bass.  However, if one is crossing over to the subs below 100Hz, it is likely that all the channels need some LF EQ anyway.

post #570 of 11293
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post


Generally agreed.
I sold both my Classe SSP 800 and CP 800 devices - despite their superb "quality", the in room performance for me was lacking without room correction and bass management.
If you have the freedom to design a purpose built room, with the precise room treatments, size, and positioning required, then products like the Classe would likely shine superior even when compared to room correction solutions i(a well-designed, though not "top their" processor).. But since almost no one has that kind of room, then the benefits of well-implemented room correction can outweigh the superior architecture of a non-room correcting processor when it comes down to plopping our ever-increasing buttock's in the chair to simply listen...in fact I'd argue there is a need for it (not our ever increase buttocks size, but room correction)

But the SSP has bass management and a quite effective EQ.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Marantz AV8801 Preamp/Processor Official Owner's thread