Une particulièrement intéressante analyse "en profondeur" quant aux différences entre un 8801 et un 8802(A), faite par une personne ayant rencontré l'équipe D&M ayant conçu le 8802(A) :
sur AVS, SteveH a écrit:Originally Posted by Blackdevil77 a écrit:
Did anybody go to the Marantz AV8802a from an Integra DHC-80.3? If so, did you notice an improvement in sound quality? How do they compare for 2 channel music listening? I did a search but could only find people comparing the 8802a to the 80.1, not the 80.3.
I just looked in my "sold" page on Audiogon. I took in several, 80.1's and 80.3's on trade for 8802A's. Even more 80.1's on 8801's. Also some 80.6's for a 8802. As you probably figured out, I sold a lot of 8802A's and I take in ton of trades so I hear the feedback. Like nearly every passionate buyer, I'm sure they would be happy to share their impressions. You can talk with them if you like.
I've heard one 80.3 comparisons myself for sure and possibly two (it was either an 80.1 or 80.3). Plus the Onkyo part number equivalent. I do sell Onkyo too. Here is my opinion. Integra uses exceptional parts. Well, minus the video board problems which could happen to any preamp processor vendor. IMHO, the "artist" (in this case the engineers) are in control of what something sounds like. In the 8802A's case, I've met the engineer in Japan that is constantly trying to best the SQ each generation. On the 8801 to the 8802A platform, for the most part, they didn't spend anymore money on the bill of material for the tweaks that made a rather large subjective SQ difference. Rather, the "artist" honed his craft to another level. Allow me to give some examples: they moved the switching frequency outside of the audio spectrum. Cost $0. They changed to a current feedback operational amplifier which plummeted the slew rate (making the microdynamics more obvious). Cost $0. They simplified the output section getting rid of several chip IC OPamps (KISS Principle) resulting in more transparency. Cost savings $?. The beefed up the power supply to get more dynamics. Cost $?. They employed new Murata Erie impedance matching 3 terminal caps to reduce jitter even more. Cost minimal. Of course, R&D and non recurring costs were expensive, but the tweaks done by the artist made audio improvements. Don't forget that there is the art of laying out the signal path in which some designers get, and some don't. Putting it another way, you cannot just put in a bunch of great parts and hope for the best. Because the guy who is the better artist (a.k.a. engineer) is going to win the SQ game. IMO, that's Marantz's core competency.
This ^^ paragraph comes from the benefit of Marantz's audiophile heritage. I'm convinced that is why my ears hear a nice bump in performance. The 8801 (which I liked a lot) used a bunch of great parts yet there was more to go by their audiophile engineers that specifically address audio performance on the 8802A (which I LOVE). AND, everything you hear with an improvement has to be measured. All too often, designers chase the wrong measured specs. Even the ones that they post may have zero bearing on what our ears appreciate. I'll go so far to suggest some designers are chasing the wrong measurements that result in over engineering. Simply put, I think they have better artist/engineers at D&M that is showcased when you listen to their premium products.
Back to your original question comparing the 80.3 to the 8802A. I'd describe it as easier to hear the resolution of the movie or music and increased "dynamics" (magnitude of the plucking of the guitar strings or in a movie, dropping a book on the counter). Especially at low listening levels.
Hugo