XMC-1 vs Marantz AV7702

[fbczar]

There are a number of processors that can be thought of as direct competition for the XMC-1. Most are much more expensive or lack room correction. However, given its price and features, the Marantz AV 7702 would seem to be a serious contender for MOST direct or most serious competition. The AV7702 has Audyssey XT32, Atmos, and Airplay and from all reports, sound quality that is superior to the current Marantz flagship model AV8801. Can we have a discussion comparing and contrasting the capabilities of each processor and why you would choose one over the other relative to your system, preferences and needs?

[AudioHTIT]

Here are some thoughts, though it didn't go too far. You mentioned the most obvious differences (3A's).

emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/676887/thread

[mgbpuff]

I'm thinking of the Marantz AV 7702 because of Atmos and possibly Auro 3D. The XMC-1 presently is not in this category and I doubt it ever will be. I'm looking to do 7.2.4 minimum. A more capable unit (more channels) would be interesting if affordable, but the XMC-1 is no longer interesting to me and Emotiva is being coy in saying they are interested in Atmos (apparently signed on to Atmos)but with no announced project. I already have the speakers for a 7.2.4 and perhaps might add another for the Auro 3D VOG speaker. Emo doesn't seem to want to commit in this category - fine, I'll look elsewhere for now and keep my 40% discount in a drawer in case Emo ever decides to do a really nice Atmos pre-pro.

[Deleted]

agreed...imho the xmc-1 is already outdated

[bootman]

Oct 31, 2014 7:29:08 GMT -5 AudioHTIT said:

Here are some thoughts, though it didn't go too far. You mentioned the most obvious differences (3A's).

emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/676887/thread

Search is a wonderful thing.

The reasons why one over the other are pretty clear in my eyes.
You want Atmos and the rest of the bells and whistles go with the 7702.
You don't and want to match the rest of your Emotiva gear and want Dirac (which by what I have also read beats x32) then go with the XMC.

It really comes down to that and not much more.

Once you start talking about SQ differences, anything anyone else says can only be taken with a grain of salt.
(unless you have the exact same gear, exact same room, exact same...well you get the idea. )

[bootman]

Oct 31, 2014 7:58:20 GMT -5 @bmoney said:

agreed...imho the xmc-1 is already outdated

Only with regards to Atmos.
And that is in its infancy.
Lets talk about the Atmos landscape in 6 months when the gen 2 gear comes out.
I'll bet there will be upgrades and I can pick up a gen 1 unit very cheap.

That is something that usually doesn't happen with units like the xmc.
(but you can take that either way good or bad)

Good to have choices.

[bootman]

Mod should merge the two threads.
Good info in both.

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2014 8:01:03 GMT -5 bootman said:

Oct 31, 2014 7:58:20 GMT -5 @bmoney said:

agreed...imho the xmc-1 is already outdated

Only with regards to Atmos.
And that is in its infancy.
Lets talk about the Atmos landscape in 6 months when the gen 2 gear comes out.
I'll bet there will be upgrades and I can pick up a gen 1 unit very cheap.

That is something that usually doesn't happen with units like the xmc.
(but you can take that either way good or bad)

Good to have choices.

true..

but in my opinoon...that is a HUGE aspect...no ATMOS is a major ommision..especially when shelling out 2k$

[bootman]

Oct 31, 2014 8:05:09 GMT -5 @bmoney said:

Oct 31, 2014 8:01:03 GMT -5 bootman said:

Only with regards to Atmos.
And that is in its infancy.
Lets talk about the Atmos landscape in 6 months when the gen 2 gear comes out.
I'll bet there will be upgrades and I can pick up a gen 1 unit very cheap.

That is something that usually doesn't happen with units like the xmc.
(but you can take that either way good or bad)

Good to have choices.

true..

but in my opinoon...that is a HUGE aspect...no ATMOS is a major ommision..especially when shelling out 2k$

Same thing can be said about all of the other gear currently available (at any price) without Atmos.
If Atmos is a must have feature, then there really is no point to the conversation.
The XMC doesn't have it.
But NOT having it should not be a negative if you are NOT interested in Atmos.
And I see that some will still point that out regardless of what an interested customer needs.
(not singling you out BMoney so please don't take it that way. )

Once Dirac is released and verified working in homes, then I can safely state this:

"If you are looking for a separate prepro for 7.2 with killer room correction, I can't think of one better than the XMC."

Now if the first thing out of your mouth is "ATMOS" then there are several AVRs that do that and have at them.

Nothing wrong with that, no?

[deewan]

I agree with bootman. If you want or think you need all the little gizmo's the Marantz features, then the 7702 is your unit. No reason to consider the XMC-1. If the 7702 sounds better than the 8801, then it could compare SQ wise with the XMC-1. I've had the 8801 and the XMC in my room at the same time. While not being able to do a quick switch and compare, my overall feeling was I preferred the XMC (levels and speaker distances updated) over the 8801 (levels, speakers distances and X32 run). SQ wise I think they were about the same. Slight edge to the XMC even without room correction (should be noted I've never loved what Audyssey does to the sound and normally have it turned off). I felt the XMC was a little more dynamic and seemed to be quicker to dynamic changes. I used my SPL meter to make sure both were playing the same SPL levels. My demo scene was the beginning of Jack Ryan Shadow recruit. If you know the movie scene, it's when the helicopter is shot down. The Marantz sounded great. No complaints. But the XMC seemed to be faster on the dynamic sound change at the point of the explosion than the Marantz 8801. It startled me a bit. It wasn't louder, it just seemed to happen faster. Same deal on music, the XMC seemed softer in quiet passages and seemed a bit more quick to respond to loud passages. I confirmed with the SPL meter that neither were playing louder or softer than the other. Could all be in my head, but those were my feelings between the 8801 and XMC. So I kept the XMC knwoing that my AppleTV gave me Airplay, I have no desire to add additional speakers since my room is 7.2 and only 13x19, and I don't care for Audyssey (I'll see what happens with Dirac).

[fbczar]

Oct 31, 2014 8:27:47 GMT -5 deewan said:

I agree with bootman. If you want or think you need all the little gizmo's the Marantz features, then the 7702 is your unit. No reason to consider the XMC-1. If the 7702 sounds better than the 8801, then it could compare SQ wise with the XMC-1. I've had the 8801 and the XMC in my room at the same time. While not being able to do a quick switch and compare, my overall feeling was I preferred the XMC (levels and speaker distances updated) over the 8801 (levels, speakers distances and X32 run). SQ wise I think they were about the same. Slight edge to the XMC even without room correction (should be noted I've never loved what Audyssey does to the sound and normally have it turned off). I felt the XMC was a little more dynamic and seemed to be quicker to dynamic changes. I used my SPL meter to make sure both were playing the same SPL levels. My demo scene was the beginning of Jack Ryan Shadow recruit. If you know the movie scene, it's when the helicopter is shot down. The Marantz sounded great. No complaints. But the XMC seemed to be faster on the dynamic sound change at the point of the explosion than the Marantz 8801. It startled me a bit. It wasn't louder, it just seemed to happen faster. Same deal on music, the XMC seemed softer in quiet passages and seemed a bit more quick to respond to loud passages. I confirmed with the SPL meter that neither were playing louder or softer than the other. Could all be in my head, but those were my feelings between the 8801 and XMC. So I kept the XMC knwoing that my AppleTV gave me Airplay, I have no desire to add additional speakers since my room is 7.2 and only 13x19, and I don't care for Audyssey (I'll see what happens with Dirac).

Great post deewan. Comparisons, scientific or not, are what makes a forum like this valuable when selecting equipment. While ATMOS is a big draw, basic sound quality is even more important to me. I have no direct experience with Audyssey XT32. My experience with Audyssey XT has not been positive. If the AV7702 used Dirac I would probably already have one on order. Based on my conversations with people I trust the AV7702 is much improved relative to music and is better than the AV8801 in that regard. Based on your experience it would seem the XMC-1 and the AV7702 are probably equals in basic sound quality. Therefore, the choice could be made based on Dirac vs Audyssey XT32. I have a pair of Kreisel DXD12012 subwoofers I want to optimize. If Audyssey XT32 could do the job the AV7702 wins because of ATMOS and the bells and whistles, but my experience with Audyssey XT makes me hesitate. Can any of you with XT32 experience comment?

[deewan]

Oct 31, 2014 8:05:09 GMT -5 @bmoney said:

but in my opinoon...that is a HUGE aspect...no ATMOS is a major ommision..especially when shelling out 2k$

For anyone not needing, not interested, or unable to add speakers on their ceiling, the lack of a ATMOS or Auro 3D does not make the XMC outdated.

[yeeeha17]

But it is outdated compare to what is out there right now on the market. For a $2k processor that have been 5 years delay still doesn't have the latest technologies is mind boggling.

[moovtune]

In my experience with Audyssey, first with XT and now with XT32, you have to "bend the setup rules" some to help it give you the sound you're looking for. It took several passes and experiments for me to be entirely happy with the results - but I have it on all the time. Occasionally I'll switch back to "direct" mode to check out if it's better, but always come by to having Audyssey on. I didn't like what it did initially until I played around with it a bit.

[fbczar]

Deewan, I just re-read your comments and noticed you were comparing the XMC-1, without room correction, to the 8801 with XT32. Did you compare both the XMC-1 and the AV8801 without room EQ running on the AV8801? For everyone else, since both units have features the other does not, like ATMOS, and Airplay for the Marantz and an Asynchronous USB port and parametric equalization on the XMC-1. Lets compare what the can both do and also talk about Dirac vs XT32. Thanks

[deewan]

Oct 31, 2014 8:44:20 GMT -5 fbczar said:

If Audyssey XT32 could do the job the AV7702 wins because of ATMOS and the bells and whistles, but my experience with Audyssey XT makes me hesitate. Can any of you with XT32 experience comment?

Perhaps I will pull a 7702 down into my room and try to compare to the XMC-1 if there is some desire. I never compare gear or any sort until it's in the same room with the same components. I'm a fan of Marantz. I've owned several AVR's and one processor. They have a few finer touches over Emotiva.

If comparing Marantz to Emotiva, the Marantz gets the nod for latest and greatest features, easy to view and understand menus and GUI, best retail offering without spending stupid money. Where Marantz fails for me is Audyssey and build quality. Build quality for the Marantz is good when compared to other major brands, but falls a bit behind when compared to top dollar offerings or ID companies like Emotiva. I know Audyssey is the name everyone recognizes and it does have it's benefits, but overall I just don't feel it works as good as it could. I wish Marantz would go the way of Emotiva or Anthem and develop their own in house room processing. With the resources they have on hand, they should be able to improve on Audyssey. However, this may cause some Audyssey faithful to jump ship.

The XMC-1 has really impressed me. Forget all the release delays and junk, the build quality is simply amazing and with it being done in house here in the US with tight quality controls, kudo's to Emotiva. The quality components Emo uses in the XMC also trumps Marantz. Those are the trade-offs you deal with. More attention to detail and quality but not having the latest and greatest toys (ATMOS), I recommend Emotiva. For a product that is flexible and is impacted by market trends, Marantz is a great option.

People have different tastes and needs. And that is why both Emotiva and Marantz exist. They both fill a spot in the market for people with different needs and desires. To know if you should buy Emotiva or Marantz, you simply need to find which market you fall into and there is no right or wrong answer. It's all personal taste.

[deewan]

Oct 31, 2014 9:13:04 GMT -5 fbczar said:

Deewan, I just re-read your comments and noticed you were comparing the XMC-1, without room correction, to the 8801 with XT32. Did you compare both the XMC-1 and the AV8801 without room EQ running on the AV8801? For everyone else, since both units have features the other does not, like ATMOS, and Airplay for the Marantz and an Asynchronous USB port and parametric equalization on the XMC-1. Lets compare what the can both do and also talk about Dirac vs XT32. Thanks

Sorry, I should have noted that I also did compare the 8801 without Audyssey turned off to the XMC. Basically the same results. The XMC still seemed quicker than the 8801. Both units head to head without ARC, I would pick the XMC. If the XMC didn't have a PEQ (I don't have setup yet) or the future Dirac release, I MAY give the nod to the 8801 with Audyssey. But I feel if I would invest time into the PEQ or have Dirac once it is released, the XMC would leapfrog the 8801. These are just guesses. Who knows, Dirac could be a waste and I may forget how to use a PEQ.

Speaking directly about the 8801 and Audyssey, there was a difference and XT32 is the best offering of Audyssey I've heard so far. Bass was cleaned up a fair amount which helps with mids (dialog for the most part). But the highs still seemed a bit tame as I've always felt Audyssey does. If a user would never use the PEQ and IF Dirac doesn't work as well at XT32, any user with a room that needs EQ'ing the 8801 (or 7702) would be my recommendation. If someone knows how to use REW, PEQ, or Dirac works as well or better than XT32, XMC gets a clear win for me. Again, I don't need nor do I demand the latest and greatest features.

Just curious, for those saying the lack of Atmos on a $2 processor from Emotiva is not acceptable, what are your thoughts on processors from Krell, Theta and McIntosh not offering ATMOS and costing much more?

[cawgijoe]

Oct 31, 2014 9:08:06 GMT -5 yeeeha17 said:

But it is outdated compare to what is out there right now on the market. For a $2k processor that have been 5 years delay still doesn't have the latest technologies is mind boggling.

My mind is not boggled since I have no need or desire for ATMOS.

I am not going to retrofit my family room for ceiling speakers. Too difficult and expensive. I am not going to try and add modules to my current speakers. Modules to me are a band-aid.

If I were building a new home or finishing a basement for example where I had easy access to the studs prior to the drywall going up, I might consider it.

Even if I were interested in ATMOS, being fairly conservative, I may want to wait awhile to see what improvements would come along as the technology matured.

For those who must have ATMOS now, then the XMC-1 is probably not for you.

[fbczar]

Oct 31, 2014 9:15:18 GMT -5 deewan said:

Oct 31, 2014 8:44:20 GMT -5 fbczar said:

If Audyssey XT32 could do the job the AV7702 wins because of ATMOS and the bells and whistles, but my experience with Audyssey XT makes me hesitate. Can any of you with XT32 experience comment?

Perhaps I will pull a 7702 down into my room and try to compare to the XMC-1 if there is some desire. I never compare gear or any sort until it's in the same room with the same components. I'm a fan of Marantz. I've owned several AVR's and one processor. They have a few finer touches over Emotiva.

If comparing Marantz to Emotiva, the Marantz gets the nod for latest and greatest features, easy to view and understand menus and GUI, best retail offering without spending stupid money. Where Marantz fails for me is Audyssey and build quality. Build quality for the Marantz is good when compared to other major brands, but falls a bit behind when compared to top dollar offerings or ID companies like Emotiva. I know Audyssey is the name everyone recognizes and it does have it's benefits, but overall I just don't feel it works as good as it could. I wish Marantz would go the way of Emotiva or Anthem and develop their own in house room processing. With the resources they have on hand, they should be able to improve on Audyssey. However, this may cause some Audyssey faithful to jump ship.

The XMC-1 has really impressed me. Forget all the release delays and junk, the build quality is simply amazing and with it being done in house here in the US with tight quality controls, kudo's to Emotiva. The quality components Emo uses in the XMC also trumps Marantz. Those are the trade-offs you deal with. More attention to detail and quality but not having the latest and greatest toys (ATMOS), I recommend Emotiva. For a product that is flexible and is impacted by market trends, Marantz is a great option.

People have different tastes and needs. And that is why both Emotiva and Marantz exist. They both fill a spot in the market for people with different needs and desires. To know if you should buy Emotiva or Marantz, you simply need to find which market you fall into and there is no right or wrong answer. It's all personal taste.

I would really be interested in a sound quality comparison between the XMC-1 and AV7702, both music and multichannel,  without room correction in the equation. The features could be important, especially ATMOS, but sound quality has always been the overriding concern for me. I need to decide pretty quickly so anything you can add would be greatly appreciated.

[djoel]

This is just me perhaps, but I'm going give the Nippon manufactures a break and go with the Emo pre/amp for no other than 5 year warranty which has become to important to me in this point of my life.
Also I like the sports car approach here, I don't need Airplay, radio screaming etc, I can get that else where. I'm good with 5.1 or even . 2, heck if I could pull off 7.2 would be gravy. So what I'm saying th XMC-1 would be just fine, but that is once Dirac is in affect as SQ is above all what I'm looking for.


Djoel