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 263

post #7861 of 11327
The 8801 is a great processor, extremely well-built..
My only negative observations are (2)
A. Unit runs on the hot side, make sure to provide enough free-air clearance for the L/R sides and top
B. Marantz failed to provide enough DSP resources to handle 96kHz
If one is using Audyssey the stream is down sampled to 48kHz, one would think that for its high cost, more DSP power would have been utilized.

Just my $0.02... ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜‰
post #7862 of 11327
I thought that pure direct permitted 96khz.

Although I am to at all sure I can hear a difference. I downloaded Koln concert from HD tracks( 96khz) . It sounds great with Audyssey flat and as well as with pure direct in with my speakers which are fairly transparent (Montis by Martin Logan).
post #7863 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Codeย View Post

B. Marantz failed to provide enough DSP resources to handle 96kHz
Only when using Audyssey.
Quote:
If one is using Audyssey the stream is down sampled to 48kHz, one would think that for its high cost, more DSP power would have been utilized.
True but Marantz is not unique in this.
post #7864 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by htdhvyย View Post

How do you think the DAC3 compares to the DAC3.5VB MkII?

I had the DAC3.5VB which I later upgraded to Mk II.

I think the VB benefited from the Pre3 with the soundstage depth/height improvements but the MkII lowered the noise floor and improved the amount of detail that I was getting that I found it better going directly to the power amp rather than introduce the Pre3 to it. I did think my Audio Research Ref5SE was a good match to the VB Mk II.
post #7865 of 11327
is there a need for separate sub eq like the sms1 when using a 8801 ?
post #7866 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinsonย View Post

Only when using Audyssey.
True but Marantz is not unique in this.

Audio DSPs cost <$10 @ OE buying levels, I would have thought Marantz should have provided this..
For me in my system, Audyssey did more harm especially for the low frequencies than good so I leave it OFF...
Kinda like buying a high performance Z06 Corvette, having the factory install standard tires..

Just my $0.02....๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜‰
post #7867 of 11327
I forget where I found the attached doc, but it details the elements of the display. The Star seems to be for dramatic effect :-)

Marantz Av8801 display 237k .pdf file
post #7868 of 11327
Scratch that ....it's on the documentation CD in the "Links_ENG" folder.
post #7869 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by htdhvyย View Post


It's not that i'm trying to avoid it, i'm trying to land on a single system for home theater and music and hopefully take advantage of the f113 and the Salon 2s in both situations. Setup 2 would work for movies but not for music if i add the preamp. From what ive gathered, the AV8801 (and most other good/reasonably priced home theater processors are great for movies and decent for music. If i add a strong 2 channel preamp, i improve the 2 channel music performance but lose access to the f113 for music. Not that I need more bass than what the Salon 2s provide for 2 channel, but since i already have the f113 it would be nice to have access to it.

You need to listen to what you have and decide whether (1) the stereo output of your prepro is unacceptable to you and (2) the stereo performance needs a sub. ย If the latter, you need an analog preamp with bass management, such as the Parasound P7. ย 

post #7870 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnurย View Post

1. ย I thought that pure direct permitted 96khz.

2. ย Although I am to at all sure I can hear a difference. I downloaded Koln concert from HD tracks( 96khz) . It sounds great with Audyssey flat and as well as with pure direct in with my speakers which are fairly transparent (Montis by Martin Logan).

1. It does.

2. Agreed.

post #7871 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doogie04ย View Post

I forget where I found the attached doc, but it details the elements of the display. The Star seems to be for dramatic effect :-)

Marantz Av8801 display 237k .pdf file

It's the Star of David wink.gif
post #7872 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Codeย View Post

Audio DSPs cost <$10 @ OE buying levels, I would have thought Marantz should have provided this..
For me in my system, Audyssey did more harm especially for the low frequencies than good so I leave it OFF...
Kinda like buying a high performance Z06 Corvette, having the factory install standard tires..

Just my $0.02....๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜‰

We kinda tackled this a while ago that the computing power of the denon isn't capable doing this for all channels, and more importantly, wasting filtering on areas of the audio spectrum that you aren't going to hear anyways.
post #7873 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Codeย View Post

Audio DSPs cost <$10 @ OE buying levels, I would have thought Marantz should have provided this..
For me in my system, Audyssey did more harm especially for the low frequencies than good so I leave it OFF...
Kinda like buying a high performance Z06 Corvette, having the factory install standard tires..

Just my $0.02....๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜‰

Yeah...maybe, but by the same token as this, the majority of people that own a Z06 will never operate it to it's full potential even on the factory tires.
post #7874 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudioย View Post

We kinda tackled this a while ago that the computing power of the denon isn't capable doing this for all channels, and more importantly, wasting filtering on areas of the audio spectrum that you aren't going to hear anyways.

Hmmm.
Let me get this straight..
We spend $3000 for the 8801, internally the 8801 has superb 192kHz DACs, spend even more $ for 192/96kHz lossless AV software....
Then we turn ON Audyssey and now can only process @ 48kHz... rolleyes.gif
Seems to me we are throwing away significant audio resolution...

Just maybe..
I could accept this trade-off in a lower cost AVR but not a high-end AV processor..
We spend the big $ expecting the best sonic performance...
Something doesn't add up here..

Just my $0.02... ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜‰
post #7875 of 11327
You know I tried really hard to hear the difference between 96khz pure direct with the release of the Koln Concert and then with Audyssey flat. Back and forth over short and then long sequences . I failed to discern any differences on my system. (Montis , Bryston, 8801, Oppo 103).

So even though I was very concerned about this when I learned about it, I cannot come up with a logical reason to be upset for listening in my system.

I did the same for several other HD ablums. Same results, jazz, classical piano and quartets, and operatic vocals. I had the same conclusions for these .
post #7876 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Codeย View Post

Hmmm.
Let me get this straight..
We spend $3000 for the 8801, internally the 8801 has superb 192kHz DACs, spend even more $ for 192/96kHz lossless AV software....
Then we turn ON Audyssey and now can only process @ 48kHz... rolleyes.gif
Seems to me we are throwing away significant audio resolution...

Just maybe..
I could accept this trade-off in a lower cost AVR but not a high-end AV processor..
We spend the big $ expecting the best sonic performance...
Something doesn't add up here..

Just my $0.02... ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜‰



You do realize high res recordings are beyond our hearing range right? Marantz is putting their processing power into areas you can actually hear, like 11.2 channels, and DTS MA that is so lifelike it's like your in the movie smile.gif
post #7877 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof Woofย View Post

I had the DAC3.5VB which I later upgraded to Mk II.

I think the VB benefited from the Pre3 with the soundstage depth/height improvements but the MkII lowered the noise floor and improved the amount of detail that I was getting that I found it better going directly to the power amp rather than introduce the Pre3 to it. I did think my Audio Research Ref5SE was a good match to the VB Mk II.
What did the upgrade to MkII run you price wise?
post #7878 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumbย View Post

You do realize high res recordings are beyond our hearing range right?

Then why all the hype for:
96kHz/192kHz lossless source material..
Displays that can handle 4k..
Loudspeakers that go to 40kHz..
Amplifiers that can output 300W per channel...

Quote:
Marantz is putting their processing power into areas you can actually hear, like 11.2 channels, and DTS MA that is so lifelike it's like your in the movie smile.gif

Having a higher quantity of channels such as 11.2, doesn't necessarily mean better quality...
I would rather have superb, sonic performance @96/192kHz in 7.1...
Instead of 11.2 @48kHz..

Just my $0.02... ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜‰
post #7879 of 11327
We have superb, sonic performance but it's 11.2 at 48k with Audyssey engaged, pure direct up to 192k I believe.
I'll do this once more and I'm done smile.gif the best human hearing is 22,000hz but for most of us it's more like 15 or 16,000hz. High res is in a range we can't hear and if Audyssey processes it there would be nothing gained. Chris from Audyssey explained it as we would hear silence coming from the speaker for everything processed above our hearing. So it seems 48,000hz is around triple what we can actually hear. Why does high res like SACD and DVD-A sound so good, I believe it is because a lot of it is multi channel and it's really mastered well. I've also heard zero difference with the ultra high res downloads over many of my red book CD's with Audyssey engaged or disengaged but YMMV.
Edited by comfynumb - 8/26/13 at 6:13pm
post #7880 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Codeย View Post

Then why all the hype for:
96kHz/192kHz lossless source material..
Displays that can handle 4k..
Loudspeakers that go to 40kHz..
Amplifiers that can output 300W per channel...
Having a higher quantity of channels such as 11.2, doesn't necessarily mean better quality...
I would rather have superb, sonic performance @96/192kHz in 7.1...
Instead of 11.2 @48kHz..

Just my $0.02... ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜‰


I truly believe that most of this is just that; hype. A lot of these new toys are not clearly thought out interms of quality that matters for two channel listening .

The almighty $$ is the driving force .
post #7881 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Codeย View Post

I would rather have superb, sonic performance @96/192kHz in 7.1...
Instead of 11.2 @48kHz..

Just my $0.02... ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜‰

Turn off Audyssey. ย Done.

post #7882 of 11327
The biggest gain in HiRes is the 24 bit word length and the mastering, I would guess.
post #7883 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnurย View Post

I truly believe that most of this is just that; hype. A lot of these new toys are not clearly thought out interms of quality that matters for two channel listening .

The almighty $$ is the driving force .

There is not point to building it if you cannot sell it.

Two channels represent 15 % of the channels. Sound about right tongue.gif

- Rich
post #7884 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinsonย View Post

Turn off Audyssey. ย Done.

See my post #7872, we already have turned Audyssey OFF..

Incredible..
How many think their system sounds better with it ON...
To me the bottom line is that many users run Audyssey and simply accept it settings as gospel..
And have little or/no basis of reference or comparison...
I sure would support some creditable publication or test lab to do some face-offs between the various Room EQ schemes, all that make certain claims. A lab could easily run these by using an AP and outputting sweeps through pre-outs. Also they could compare the proprietary target transfer function of each as these can/will vary greatly..

Just my $0.02... ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜‰
post #7885 of 11327
Sure. Lots of people will buy. Very few like stereo. Glitzy panels sell well.

I hope my Kuro 151 will last forever .

Well mastered 24 bit music 2 channels or 11 can be really great.
post #7886 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Codeย View Post

See my post #7872, we already have turned Audyssey OFF..

Incredible..
How many think their system sounds better with it ON...
To me the bottom line is that many users run Audyssey and simply accept it settings as gospel..
And have little or/no basis of reference or comparison...
I sure would support some creditable publication or test lab to do some face-offs between the various Room EQ schemes, all that make certain claims. A lab could easily run these by using an AP and outputting sweeps through pre-outs. Also they could compare the proprietary target transfer function of each as these can/will vary greatly..

Just my $0.02... ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜‰

Simple test turn it on, turn it off and one should not need a face off of the various EQ schemes as this will only tell you which he or she preferred in that room. My room is well treated and one of the features for me when I considered the 8801 besides a good analog interface and output stage was Audyssey XT32 and as long as it didn't break the do no harm to the signal rule I'm good and for the 3K the 8801 has earned my praise as I use my Oppo 105 for my high res via usb and hear it in all its glory, It's not like I'm stuck with Audyssey as a take it or leave it choice but as for it's merits and as one of those in the Pure DSD camp, as for as playback is concerned and an all out assault on sheer Sonics go! The 8801's Audyssey + multich anything( sacd/ movies) = Nirvana period !

Is Audyssey the final word? no! there remains work to be done , but as it stands to date get your wallet out and hope for the best finding better and then look back and say why don't these Highend processors have the features that 8801 has but then tell yourself it was worth it because it does all these little things better wink.gif
post #7887 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by htdhvyย View Post

What did the upgrade to MkII run you price wise?

I could be wrong but it might have been 500 bucks done at my dealer (I didn't need shipping)
post #7888 of 11327
What makes the 8801 so good is it's agile and very adjustable. You want room correction? It does this well. No room correction with full res? It does this well. Pure direct, 2 channel, HDMI, analogs, DTS (how about that dts?) they all sound great! What about the features? Everyone I've used works very well and man does it have some features.
post #7889 of 11327
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumbย View Post

You do realize high res recordings are beyond our hearing range right? Marantz is putting their processing power into areas you can actually hear, like 11.2 channels, and DTS MA that is so lifelike it's like your in the movie smile.gif

comfy - I'm just using your post because it's recent & convenient smile.gif

I thought the main advantage of upsampling & oversampling (similar but different) is not because the higher freq's are audible which obviously they aren't. but instead upsampling allows the digital signals to be so far above the audible range that very gentle filters can be used that will prevent phase shifts, phase errors and other artifacts that can degrade the sense of depth, soundstage, imaging. Every article I've read about upsampling & hi-rez audio talks about this as primary reasons not that it creates new information that wasn't there to begin with. it also has something to do with creating extra information so that digital conversion errors are minimized.

so I'm not buying the inaudible rationalization( yet) wink.gif my own ears tell me 96Khz, 192 Khz, 88.2 etc just sounds better.

all I know is the vast majority of my own SACD & DVD-A collection sounds more real, more analog-like, smoother sounding than typical (not all) CD's and when I have both formats to compare of the same recording, the hi-rez version wins every time. I own more SACD's & DVD-A's than I ever bought since CD's came out. the difference can range from subtle to not subtle, but there usually is a difference to my ears anyway. I've played CD's and SACD's through a $3000 Sony XA-9000ES player, in which the CD is upsampled to SACD sampling rate, and every time a SACD is smoother, less harsh or bright sounding than a CD. and I've compared with no room EQ & using Pioneer's MCACC which doesn't downsample.

not criticizing Audyssey implementations per se, just saying I know I would prefer not to have hi-rez audio downsampled. all the rationalizing in the world can't quite make up for the fact that something is being taken away by applying Audyssey, no matter how small it is. in his heart, I would think Kal would even have to say that. the benefits of applying Audyssey in these implementations I'm sure is worth the trade-off, but it would be far better if the companies would just put in the chips to do it right to begin with.

as MCode says, at this price point, it's not a lot of money to do it right. IMO, not adding <$50 in parts is unwarranted. when NO consumer Audyssey implementation even exists from any company to do it right, not even using their Pro software, every company partnering with Audyssey is being a bit disingenious putting in upsampling (Denon AL32) & whatever Onkyo calls theirs, then allowing Audyssey to take it away. and no company tells the consumer of course rolleyes.gif

I have nothing against Denon or Marantz, as many of you know, I very seriously considered the AVP. and I admit the 8801 had my attention; it's a great piece. so this is not bias against the company or the products. call it bias against the way they are implementing Audyssey.

that's one of a number of reasons I continue to use Pioneer. if I've paid for hi-rez audio, I want to keep it that way & still enjoy the benefits of room EQ.
Edited by ss9001 - 8/27/13 at 8:39am
post #7890 of 11327
Quote:

in his heart, I would think Kal would even have to say that. the benefits of applying Audyssey in these implementations I'm sure is worth the trade-off, but it would be far better if the companies would just put in the chips to do it right to begin with. ย 

Indeed and I have said so. ย Today, I will have lunch with Audyssey and we will have much to talk about.

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