Jump to content

Steam

Marantz AV8805. Worth waiting for?

Recommended Posts

Moderator
2 hours ago, Sime said:

Ok, my arm is officially twisted, but one more question. 

Now with the 8801, If i watch an Atmos movie, of course it’s gets played at the highest standard the 8801 can do, but considering I only have a 5.1 system, if I play an Atmos movie on a 5.1 setup, will the Atmos capable 8802 be better in 5.1 than the 8801?

sime with a 5.1 setup you wont get atmos if what asking ? theirs no such thing as atmos 5.1 that know off ? atmos is just an extension of base dolby truehd so with a 5.1 setup you'll just get the base 5.1 if thats what asking ? 

 

or are you asking if there will be some audio benefit 8801 to 8802 ? there likely is ? eg with article quoted above, but whether worth teh outlay something would have to decide. the 8801 on own was very good !  we are likely talking increments up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sime said:

@AudioGeek ok. You have Atmos, and standard pre-Atmos or, 8802 to 8801. 

 

If you have an atmos soundtrack playing on both systems, but both are playing 5.1, would the atmos 5.1 be better than the standard hd audio varient 5.1

 

Is atmos a better decoder or is it simply adding channels, so once the atmos soundtrack on the atmos processor has been down converted to 5.1, is it better or worse than the HD audio that’s on the 8801.  

 

Just the the same as Dolby digital is compared DTS master soundtracks. 

So is the down sampler better on the 8801 compared to the 8802 is what you are asking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I’m asking is that the atmos processing in all its many speaker combinations  any different than the Dolby True HD and the DTS equivalent, or is ATMOS simply standard HD audio just with more Channels. Is Atmos and atmos capable movies, apart  from more channels, more advanced processing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any guess, what the runout price will be for a 8802a, thinking 3.5k to 4.5k depending on whether it is a shop demo or totally new in box ?

JDH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Sime said:

@AudioGeek ok. You have Atmos, and standard pre-Atmos or, 8802 to 8801. 

 

If you have an atmos soundtrack playing on both systems, but both are playing 5.1, would the atmos 5.1 be better than the standard hd audio varient 5.1

 

Is atmos a better decoder or is it simply adding channels, so once the atmos soundtrack on the atmos processor has been down converted to 5.1, is it better or worse than the HD audio that’s on the 8801.  

The av8802 would be decoding the atmos metadata the 8801 ignores Sime . As this would give you object audios precise steering [its scalable] ;it should be better though not as much as adding a few more atmos speakers . 

You should p.m. Gary Cook as he has tested this and prefers the decoded 5.1 atmos over the straight lossless codecs . I am still waiting ughh for my dream pre pro so cant say sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the 7702 MkII is equivalent to the 8801 in analog output so something is diffinitely upgraded in the 8802 to keep it as benchmark.

 

I don’t believe any processors downmix Atmos to 5.1 or 7.1. My 7702 just takes the alternate Dolby True HD 5.1 or 7.1 track from the disc as I run a 7.2 system. I bought the 7702 on run out as the 7703 didn’t really bring any extra to the party for my use.

 

@Sime, if I was in your position I’d put my money towards a 2ch pre with HT bypass, rather than upgrade your processor... if you have the real estate to do so, or a 8802a if you don’t.

 

Having the latest and greatest is one thing, but throwing significant money away to do so for little or no performance gain is a poor use of the toy fund.

 

Another way to look at it is a pro sound calibration on a 8802 may bring better rewards than the non XT32 pro capable 8805. When Al did the pro Audyssey calibration of my HT, the difference was immediately noticeable over the standard XT32 auto calibration, and we didn’t even tweak anything, just let the pro calibration do its thing just like the in built Audyssey would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won’t do the HT Bypass simply because I need the eq and sub management that the Marantz pre’s have and I’m perfectly fine with the 8801’s audio but I have no issues replacing it if they had improved that part on later models. 

 

Also so don’t be concerned with my budget, that’s not an issue, I’d replace mine for a new one simply for getting a fresh machine, mines been used a lot, starting from scratch isn’t an issue and I consider it a upgrade of sorts. 

I also don’t owne a pro kit and don’t intend to buy one. 

Edited by Sime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, blybo said:

I don’t believe any processors downmix Atmos to 5.1 or 7.1. My 7702 just takes the alternate Dolby True HD 5.1 or 7.1 track from the disc as I run a 7.2 system. I bought the 7702 on run out as the 7703 didn’t really bring any extra to the party for my use. 

Hi blybo ;that's certainly true for normal channel based audio [ I did find it hard to discard the channel based concepts we all know and love :)] . The atmos metadata is another issue ; it steers those sound objects to where it best fits your particular setup ; that's where the scalability come in as dolby explains below. This is why you find 2ch audio tablets with dolby atmos built in  https://www.dolby.com/us/en/categories/tablet.html

 

Quote

 

Dolby Atmos is based on the concept of audio objects. Any sound can be mixed as a single audio element, an object, that's independently placed in three-dimensional space. A child shouting, a helicopter lifting off, a blaring car horn—the filmmaker can decide exactly where the sound should originate and where it should move as the scene develops. 

This approach allows the filmmakers to focus on the story. For channel-based audio, filmmakers must determine which speakers should reproduce which sounds, an approach that could compromise the artistic intent. With Dolby Atmos, filmmakers simply determine where the sound should be located within a scene, and the system intelligently makes the speaker-assignment decisions

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
10 minutes ago, cwt said:

Hi blybo ;that's certainly true for normal channel based audio [ I did find it hard to discard the channel based concepts we all know and love :)] . The atmos metadata is another issue ; it steers those sound objects to where it best fits your particular setup ; that's where the scalability come in as dolby explains below. This is why you find 2ch audio tablets with dolby atmos built in  https://www.dolby.com/us/en/categories/tablet.html

hi cwt.. tablets doing surround sound I would see in same light as those sound bars that claim the same. i dont personally get how can do 3D audio without the 3rd dimension of height. all atmos speaker setup require heights. I cant recall any 3D audio with my marantz 8802 until i put my height speakers in :) ? 

 

sime re audyssey pro its quite possibly someone near you has a pro kit. theres certainly a few people around melbourne i know with one. the only cost is the cost of the license for your machine to pay audyssey, might find someone generous with their time happy to help out. wiht a 8801 and 8802 I have no doubt it would be a good improvement. have to consider the cheap plastic uncalibrated mic they throw in is +/- 2db so could be quite bit out vs the calibrated one of the pro kit.anyways just something to take advantage off wiht 8801/8802 or something miss on with the 8805.

 

if you were going the 8802 or 8805, if in ceilings not a possibility,  are front and rear height for atmos a possibility in your setup ? something like the B&W MT speakers mounted front back pointing at you in listening position ? atmos is definitely one of the best things have done with the system and well worth exploring if a possibility :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@:) al front heights are easy to do, rear ones are a maybe, but as for pro calibration, if I was going to use it id buy the kit so it can be quickly redone when I change gear, but living in Canberra and the chances of finding a kit is low, and my want to do so is even lower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and to add, 99.9% of the time I'm in EQ mode, very rarely use Audyssey @:) al

Edited by Sime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
2 minutes ago, Sime said:

and to add, 99.9% of the time I'm in EQ mode, very rarely use Audyssey @:) al

understand, though if heights front / back are a possibility as per our previous post, i woudl definitely consider and dare say 8802/8805 should bring good benefit in that regard with atmos. even if just going the front heights to explore 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sime said:

and to add, 99.9% of the time I'm in EQ mode, very rarely use Audyssey @:) al

If you just want us to confirm what you’ve probably 99% already decided and say buy the 8805, then just do it.

 

If not, doesn’t Eq mode still use results of Audyssey calibration and bass management  to “flavour to taste”? If so I guess 8802a + pro calibration would still be of benefit over the 8805, and cheaper.

 

If not wanting to use Audyssey at all suggest you try another brand like Anthem AVM 60.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to bother to upgrade, like Al has said on here, if you have an 8802a there is no real need.

 

What am I going to do with 2 extra front height channels? My current 7.2.4 system is more than enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Seandres said:

Not going to bother to upgrade, like Al has said on here, if you have an 8802a there is no real need.

 

What am I going to do with 2 extra front height channels? My current 7.2.4 system is more than enough.

 

59 minutes ago, Seandres said:

What am I going to do with 2 extra front height channels? My current 7.2.4 system is more than enough.

Assuming you have 4 in ceiling Atmos speakers already installed, you would also probably need to re-position your existing 4 speakers to accomodate 6 correctly, probably not a case of just adding another 2 ATMOS speakers.

 

JDH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, :) al said:

hi cwt.. tablets doing surround sound I would see in same light as those sound bars that claim the same. i dont personally get how can do 3D audio without the 3rd dimension of height. all atmos speaker setup require heights. I cant recall any 3D audio with my marantz 8802 until i put my height speakers in :) ? 

So would I Al ; was just an example to show the scalability ; Ime sure they would leave out the atmos decoder to save a few cents when you multiply by the numbers of amazon fire and I pads that are sold ; the savings would be exponential . Otherwise leave an ordinary ic chip instead as its only 2ch. 

That's the thing with atmos the audio objects are precisely steered so height speakers would do a better job than the bed channels ;as dolby says in the link above that was auto edited

Quote

With Dolby Atmos, filmmakers simply determine where the sound should be located within a scene, and the system intelligently makes the speaker-assignment decisions

This all emulates the cinema model which perhaps explains how the speakers are used a bit better ;)

Quote

These can be precisely placed and moved by the soundtrack creator anywhere in the cinema's three-dimensional space—they are not confined to specific channels—though the artist can continue to use channel capabilities as desired. The Dolby Atmos cinema processor then determines which of a cinema's huge array of front, back, side, and overhead speakers it will use to recreate this lifelike movement.

Anyway as said no skin in this game yet ; if you have an android phone Lenovo points out the advantages of atmos here ;

https://devs-lab.com/install-dolby-atmos-audio-system-in-android.html

You probably have an iPhone though don't you with my luck to try it out ? :)Something tells me after you bought the uhd apple tv :cool: Front heights are a good compromise especially if you like auro3d 

Edited by cwt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
51 minutes ago, cwt said:

You probably have an iPhone though don't you with my luck to try it out ? :)Something tells me after you bought the uhd apple tv :cool: Front heights are a good compromise especially if you like auro3d 

haha yes iphone here, its interesting the atv4k has been good for dolby surround. unfortunately no atmos off it. though promised by apple hopefully they come through. auro3D is good indeed with its pronounced forward centric treatment which is definitely more suited to music, rather than artificially putting instruments behind you etc. have taken advantage of the few discs i have utilising the surround ormat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sime said:

@blybo or this has been recommended to me a few months ago

 

http://www.arcam.co.uk/products,FMJ,AV-Processor,av860.htm

 

 

I’ve had no experience with that model but had multiple issues with Arcam avr 360’s my parents had. Menu navigation is also very different to Marantz/Denon/Integras I’ve owned. Parents now have a mid range Marantz and prefer to mid range Arcam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, blybo said:

I’ve had no experience with that model but had multiple issues with Arcam avr 360’s my parents had. Menu navigation is also very different to Marantz/Denon/Integras I’ve owned. Parents now have a mid range Marantz and prefer to mid range Arcam

Yes blybo ;anyone who has read the avs forum thread on the arcams or indeed av forums https://www.avforums.com/threads/arcam-avr550-including-dirac-live®.1985785/page-174#post-24664918 and how they actually arranged bass management  after dirac   may have trepidations ;)Some of Markus767's posts are eye openers .'And a bit uniquely compared to others there is a global crossover rather than individual ones to suit your speakers freq response..

The NAD team over there is a lot more proactive with their dirac avr's it seems :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×