Marantz AV10 AV Processor Review

[IamJF]

It can't do magic, that for sure. If you don't have woofers spread over the room there is little it can do against modes.
Some might even miss the "boom" they are used to - a dry and tight bass is not what everybody wants!

 

[Oddball]

It can't do magic, that for sure. If you don't have woofers spread over the room there is little it can do against modes.
Some might even miss the "boom" they are used to - a dry and tight bass is not what everybody wants!

Agreed. It will be interesting to see how larger public (i.e. Storm being a pretty exclusive brand) perceives ART. My first encounter with ART left me thinking about "dry and tight", although was a bit "high" from the feeling.

There will also be a lots of room/system and total SPL considerations. "Boom" gives some contribution SPL, so if that goes away, some people might find themselves needing additional subs to get to the SPL they are used to. Don't see that going well for most, especially if they shell our $1k for the software only.

Don't have enough experience with ART, but my specific concern is that I don't just want room mode cancelations as contribution from other tower speakers/subs. I want them to overlap in full range and work together on LFE. I have a large loft already too full of speakers and subs and they work pretty well together with limited boom and modes, probably due to very irregular room shape. ART seems to eliminate traditional DLBC crossover concept, but also does not seem to go as far as to allow full overlap between subs and towers, or LFE distribution to towers. Would actually like to see ART working with the full options available with Storm bass management as well as D&M bass management modules.

 

[peng]

Agreed. It will be interesting to see how larger public (i.e. Storm being a pretty exclusive brand) perceives ART. My first encounter with ART left me thinking about "dry and tight", although was a bit "high" from the feeling.

There will also be a lots of room/system and total SPL considerations. "Boom" gives some contribution SPL, so if that goes away, some people might find themselves needing additional subs to get to the SPL they are used to. Don't see that going well for most, especially if they shell our $1k for the software only.

Don't have enough experience with ART, but my specific concern is that I don't just want room mode cancelations as contribution from other tower speakers/subs. I want them to overlap in full range and work together on LFE. I have a large loft already too full of speakers and subs and they work pretty well together with limited boom and modes, probably due to very irregular room shape. ART seems to eliminate traditional DLBC crossover concept, but also does not seem to go as far as to allow full overlap between subs and towers, or LFE distribution to towers. Would actually like to see ART working with the full options available with Storm bass management as well as D&M bass management modules.

It would be great to see some REW graphs to show the before vs after responses for several mic positions for the 20-300 Hz range if that's not too much trouble. Thanks.

 

[Oddball]

It would be great to see some REW graphs to show the before vs after responses for several mic positions for the 20-300 Hz range if that's not too much trouble. Thanks.

My ART experience is from annoying the local Storm and Perlisten dealer twice, but unfortunately they don't allow REW measurements, or customers messing with calibration. First time they have cut off ART at 20hz, second time it was without cutoff but still sounded a bit too dry and tight - I did tell them that I want to hear the bass as hot as it can get. They had only 2 15" subs in the demo room, but by traditional measures for the room of that size it should have provided thunderous bass response, especially with the big R series towers and large S series center (surrounds were smaller but still bigger than most). I am not a complete bass head, but do want to get it loud and tight, but not too tight.

I have AV-10 so will need to wait a bit more for ART. Does not seem that April ART release rumors for D&M will hold as new firmware was just released days ago - without ART. May/June perhaps and hopefully D&M spin-off will not cause disruptions to the ART implementation.

 

[peng]

My ART experience is from annoying the local Storm and Perlisten dealer twice, but unfortunately they don't allow REW measurements, or customers messing with calibration. First time they have cut off ART at 20hz, second time it was without cutoff but still sounded a bit too dry and tight - I did tell them that I want to hear the bass as hot as it can get. They had only 2 15" subs in the demo room, but by traditional measures for the room of that size it should have provided thunderous bass response, especially with the big R series towers and large S series center (surrounds were smaller but still bigger than most). I am not a complete bass head, but do want to get it loud and tight, but not too tight.

I have AV-10 so will need to wait a bit more for ART. Does not seem that April ART release rumors for D&M will hold as new firmware was just released days ago - without ART. May/June perhaps and hopefully D&M spin-off will not cause disruptions to the ART implementation.

There's so much hype on ART, like ARC Genesis, I hope it actually would make some significant difference, at least on paper. The theory/concept is really good for sure.

 

[Oddball]

There's so much hype on ART, like ARC Genesis, I hope it actually would make some significant difference, at least on paper. The theory/concept is really good for sure.

Agreed on all counts. Unfortunately until I get to play with it in my system, quite difficult to tell how it really compares to other solutions.

What raises my eyebrows is that Storm (and likely D&M) bass routing options are not available with ART. If this is just DLBC+cancelations, than it would have to be way, way, way better DLBC+ to make up for lack of real support (i.e. not just cancelation support) between the towers and subs that is available in other solutions. And honestly, if one would need towers just to better support ART cancelations, that is IMO way worse investment that in Audy triple bass option, which already is something very few ever invested in, and returns are not that great.

 

[IamJF]

Agreed. It will be interesting to see how larger public (i.e. Storm being a pretty exclusive brand) perceives ART. My first encounter with ART left me thinking about "dry and tight", although was a bit "high" from the feeling.

There will also be a lots of room/system and total SPL considerations. "Boom" gives some contribution SPL, so if that goes away, some people might find themselves needing additional subs to get to the SPL they are used to. Don't see that going well for most, especially if they shell our $1k for the software only.

Absolutely most people never experienced a tight bass response! We are so used to ported cabinets in rooms ...
The closest would be a very good, open headphone.

"Loud and tight but not too tight" - that's probably not what ART does. You quickly have >10dB boost for subwoofers when tuning by ear. Room modes are often >10dB peaks.

Sound effects like explosions are often TIGHT signals - there is no "Booom" in an outdoor explosion. We are just used to hear it that way cause our woofers can't do better.

Don't have enough experience with ART, but my specific concern is that I don't just want room mode cancelations as contribution from other tower speakers/subs. I want them to overlap in full range and work together on LFE. I have a large loft already too full of speakers and subs and they work pretty well together with limited boom and modes, probably due to very irregular room shape. ART seems to eliminate traditional DLBC crossover concept, but also does not seem to go as far as to allow full overlap between subs and towers, or LFE distribution to towers. Would actually like to see ART working with the full options available with Storm bass management as well as D&M bass management modules.

As far as I understood ART can do exactly that? When you use Speakers fullrange they will also contribute LFE to it when they are capable to do so?
Let's check the ART thread ... https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/active-room-treatment-art-by-dirac.40743/

 

[Oddball]

Outdoor explosions depend on the soundstage, so could be boomy or not. Depends what explodes and where.

Honestly ART thread is not what I had in mind of exploring in detail, especially when ART has been “delayed” on D&M. Would be greatly appreciated if you could share links to some specific posts with measurements before for big tower system so one could see if any SPL is lost or gained.

As far as what’s the best bass, taste will be different based on many individual preferences. Not sure if there is a consensus if blended vs single malt vs double malt tastes better I honestly can’t make up my mind - really depends on the bottle and occasion

 

[IamJF]

As far as what’s the best bass, taste will be different based on many individual preferences. Not sure if there is a consensus if blended vs single malt vs double malt tastes better I honestly can’t make up my mind - really depends on the bottle and occasion

There is no question what best bass reproduction is! It needs to reproduce what's on the recording. Without ringing, delaying, resonances and with flat FR over the listening area.
Playing back recordings is no art form ... making them is.

It can happen that you don't LIKE it that way! And I'm sure many people are not used to this experience. And that's totally fine! It should make fun and pure reproduction often shows way to much and you can forget about the music.

I would suggest to listen to it for a week or 2 and then go back to how it was before. Then decide.
Our brains are lazy, we don't like changes. But we recognise when switching from "better" to "worse", whatever that is for the specific brain.

 

[Oddball]

There is no question what best bass reproduction is! It needs to reproduce what's on the recording. Without ringing, delaying, resonances and with flat FR over the listening area.
Playing back recordings is no art form ... making them is.

It can happen that you don't LIKE it that way! And I'm sure many people are not used to this experience. And that's totally fine! It should make fun and pure reproduction often shows way to much and you can forget about the music.

I would suggest to listen to it for a week or 2 and then go back to how it was before. Then decide.
Our brains are lazy, we don't like changes. But we recognise when switching from "better" to "worse", whatever that is for the specific brain.

I am definitely not with you on what the best bass reproduction for soundtracks/movies is. For both Dirac and Audyssey, reference levels and flat curves are just not nearly enough to provide me with the level of low end experience I want. If that is what artist intended, well many thanks, I will work on their masterpiece the way I want as have the opportunity to do so aka I paid the ticket to do so. It is no secret that people run their bass 15 or 20db hotter than reference.

Especially in the bass area there is really little that would corelate my room and equipment to a room and equipment where the soundtrack was mixed. So I will be forever mistaken trying to recreate what is that the artist intended, so I figure, I might as well do it how I find it sounding the best. Also, not to forget, very little of the current video library would have had the opportunity to be mixed with ART. So ART will at best be second guessing what the intent really was.

 

[IamJF]

I am definitely not with you on what the best bass reproduction for soundtracks/movies is. For both Dirac and Audyssey, reference levels and flat curves are just not nearly enough to provide me with the level of low end experience I want. If that is what artist intended, well many thanks, I will work on their masterpiece the way I want as have the opportunity to do so aka I paid the ticket to do so. It is no secret that people run their bass 15 or 20db hotter than reference.

No - a flat curve at listening position does not make a lot of sense. Even in the studio you often do a house curve, I boost my lows a few dBs so the mixes translate better (cause most playback devices boost it, it get's too fat when I keep my speakers linear).
But 15-20dB hotter ... you cover a lot of details in the (lower) midrange. That's really A LOT.
Not sure if Dirac has even that much boost for the housecurve ... it's probably not the right tool for you.

Especially in the bass area there is really little that would corelate my room and equipment to a room and equipment where the soundtrack was mixed. So I will be forever mistaken trying to recreate what is that the artist intended, so I figure, I might as well do it how I find it sounding the best.

That's totally OK. You should have fun with your system.
But there are guidelines how mixing rooms should be and how ATMOS needs to be set up and calibrated - it's not THAT hard to get there if you where interested in how it was ment to sound. ART would be a great help to save A LOT of money for room acoustics you would need for low frequency control - so it's more useful for the "truthsearcher" as for the "funlistener".

 

[Oddball]

Part of the boost comes from sub gain. Most subs can’t even perform that well at the levels set by Audy and Dirac.

Too each their own I guess. How much you loose from the hot bass will also depend on your speakers. Some loss is inevitable but it’s just different people evaluating gains and losses differently - that’s why we have such vibrant capital markets, and don’t see why we would approach relatively small niche like audio any differently.

I honestly just want to hear it sounding better than I have it now, in my system and room. And realize that will be a very tall task. Obviously, I am not trying to make it sound “as intended” as I do have a take on how it should sound in my system.

 

[Newman]

Absolutely most people never experienced a tight bass response! We are so used to ported cabinets in rooms ...

Ported cabinets are not the source of non-"tight bass response" (your words). That is caused by unequalised deep and strong bass playing the room modes.

Ported cabinets just happen to have more bass than sealed cabinets or dipole bass of similar price, which are just as "non-tight", but you don't notice it because they aren't going as deep or loud. If one boosts them until they deliver just as deep and loud bass as a ported cabinet, they are no "tighter". That's because it's the room that creates "non-tight" bass. And it's the room EQ that fixes it.

PS I do, however, acknowledge that pouring large amounts of bass signal into a ported sub below its tuned frequency will basically cause it to 'crap out', but that merely means that one bought the wrong ported sub.

cheers

 

[IamJF]

Ported cabinets are not the source of non-"tight bass response" (your words).

In theory - they definitely are! Group delay. Higher order filter.
With plenty other disadvantages but many of them ocour at higher levels. (stability, noises, resonances, very low frequencies)

Comparing woofers 1:1 is not easy cause very little changes in position already cause differences in the room. I did once compare a heavy membrane vs light membrane closed woofer (of course EQed in nearfield for same fr) - the difference was the 30cm change of position in the room.

I'm listening to only closed speakers for a long time now, all of them are EQed to get very low (30-40Hz -3dB). Lacking low end is for sure not the difference!
I regularly have the experience of "there is something sounding wrong" in a frequency area at low frequencies, something is "added" to the sound and then realise I listen to ported speakers. Even through the whole room madness. Closing the port (what I often do) helps here but of course in that case there is no proper EQing and listening comparison.


So in short - theory says closed speakers are closer to reproducing the input and I prefer them when listening. No question for me what I design when high quality bass is needed.

 

[peng]

In theory - they definitely are! Group delay. Higher order filter.
With plenty other disadvantages but many of them ocour at higher levels. (stability, noises, resonances, very low frequencies)

Comparing woofers 1:1 is not easy cause very little changes in position already cause differences in the room. I did once compare a heavy membrane vs light membrane closed woofer (of course EQed in nearfield for same fr) - the difference was the 30cm change of position in the room.

I'm listening to only closed speakers for a long time now, all of them are EQed to get very low (30-40Hz -3dB). Lacking low end is for sure not the difference!
I regularly have the experience of "there is something sounding wrong" in a frequency area at low frequencies, something is "added" to the sound and then realise I listen to ported speakers. Even through the whole room madness. Closing the port (what I often do) helps here but of course in that case there is no proper EQing and listening comparison.


So in short - theory says closed speakers are closer to reproducing the input and I prefer them when listening. No question for me what I design when high quality bass is needed.

Sound like you may like those vintage acoustic suspension speakers even more.

 

[hwest]

Will Dirac ART be a 3rd layer of room correction or will it replace DL or even DL+DLBC?

Something that is not even available yet will have it's flaws so we can't ever say it's better before it's actually released and used, furthermore I have seen first hand the results of ARC vs DIRAC and I wasn't that impressed with DIRAC vs ARC, even vs the Lydorf room correction seemed superior to DIRAC.

 

[CCCC]

Something that is not even available yet will have it's flaws so we can't ever say it's better before it's actually released and used, furthermore I have seen first hand the results of ARC vs DIRAC and I wasn't that impressed with DIRAC vs ARC, even vs the Lydorf room correction seemed superior to DIRAC.

$800 for Dirac is a nonsense having free alternatives like Audyssey ONE or other calibration systems included in the cost of the device (e.g. ARC)

 

[dlaloum]

Will Dirac ART be a 3rd layer of room correction or will it replace DL or even DL+DLBC?

Dirac ART adds a layer to Dirac Live... but it replaces DLBC (although it uses much of DLBC's interface to the AVR) - my impression from reading everything available

 

[dlaloum]

$800 for Dirac is a nonsense having free alternatives like Audyssey ONE or other calibration systems included in the cost of the device (e.g. ARC)

Dirac Live is roughly on a par with Audyssey... (I find it better, but that is a debate that goes back and forth) - Dirac DLBC does things with the subs that Audyssey cannot match... Audyssey SubEQ (usually included with any XT32 implementation) can do a little more sub integration than Dirac Live...

So yeah, you have to decide what level of sub integration/tuning you want/need.... DLBC gets expensive, and the next step up, to Dirac ART will be even more... but ART does some things that nothing else short of Trinnov seems to do.

So yeah, if you have an AVR with either of Dirac Live or Audyssey already bundled into the base price/package - that is a great value deal, and provides 80% of the achievable benefits.... but if you want to push for the last 20%... it's gonna cost.
Dirac ART at this stage is by far likely to be the cheapest integrated option on the market (once available for Denon, Onkyo etc...)

 

[GXAlan]

Dirac ART adds a layer to Dirac Live... but it replaces DLBC (although it uses much of DLBC's interface to the AVR) - my impression from reading everything available

On AVSForum, per @Flak (works for Dirac) and @TimoJ (has ART beta on HTP-1)

You can have ART without subwoofers and without DLBC. This is for the theoretical 2 ch with Dirac product.

If you have even one subwoofer at all and you want Dirac ART, you will ALSO need to have a DLBC license even though the conventional DLBC algorithms are not used, but the ART algorithms.