Hi All --

My long awaited Axioms are shipping soon, and it's time to order a receiver.

The speaker arrangement will be 9.2, with m80 & vp180 for the LCR, 4 X qs8's for surround and rear surround, and a pair of m2's for front height. A pair of ep500's will handle the low bass. The walls of the theater slope up at 45 degree angles into the ceiling (over garage bonus room). The dimensions are 20' long, by 16' wide at the base (tapering to 8' wide at the ceiling) and 8'-9' in height (stadium tiers). The surrounds and front heights will all be ceiling suspended (with a ~ 1' drop down) from the 8'wide central flat portion of the ceiling.

I've come to the conclusion the best fit will be an older refurb model that is higher end rather than a newer model that is lower end. I can do without the vector surround formats (Atmos and DTS:X) and HDCP 2.2 for this cycle, although those features do seem to be appearing in even the entry models for next year. It feels like it might still take a couple of years for the new approach to object based surround information to really stabilize, and I have no hi-res video plans in the near term (4K projector pricing will be prohibitive for a while still). The 9.2 upmixers like Neo:X and PLIIZ seem sufficient for this cycle, and are all that will work with most existing soundtracks anyway.

The two contenders are the Denon AVR-4520ci and the Marantz SR7008. These are sister companies, as most know. The feature set is quite similar. Both will power 9 channels and have dual sub outs. Both have Audyssey XT32 + the subwoofer module (the merits of which are debated in another thread, but there is no doubt that many experienced theater builders find the benefits to be quite substantial). The Denon has 32 bit D/A converters (probably inaudible over the Marantz 24 bit), and the Marantz claims to have some upgrades to analog circuitry (who knows). The Denon is officially rated to power 4 Ohm speakers, and is supposed to have a larger power supply, while the Marantz is not officially cleared below 6 Ohms. JDSmoothie at AVS says that both will power 4 Ohm speakers, but that the Denon will be less likely to protest at reference levels. (The receiver is at the back of the room, with cabling run up the walls, across in the ceiling, and back down the walls for a total run of ~ 40', using 12 gauge in-wall wire from Monoprice -- this seems to be more or less compatible with professional recommendations for max lengths.) I like the look of the Marantz a bit better, although the Denon is also attractive and sleek. Ideally, when budgets allow, perhaps on the next upgrade cycle, I would like to do a Marantz pre/pro with outboard amps for the LCR (balanced cables to all speaker locations are already run, along with speaker cable, and also power for local monoblocks, e.g. the Outlaw 2200 modules). At that point the current receiver will be downgraded to a function as a 6 channel amplifier, and both have external analog inputs to facilitate this use case.

If I were going on features, it seems to be a wash. On looks, and future matching with a Marantz pre/pro, the SR7008 is the winner. If there is a concern about driving the 4Ohm LCR's for now, the Denon seems to be favored. If I were not at all worried about the amplifier section, I would go Marantz. Both receivers were top of the line models for the respective companies at the time that they were released. The Denon originally sold for $2500, and the Marantz $2000. Both can now be found as refurbs with a 1 year warranty at Accessories4Less.com for $750.

Ordering this evening, or as soon as I can make a final decision. I don't think that there is a bad decision, but I'm flip flopping. Any thoughts to tip this teeter totter over one way or the other??

Thanks! DSQ

I have a mid sized Denon AVR from about 3 years ago for my 5.2 system. It has worked flawlessly for my medium size HT.

With your 9.x system you need all of the power that you can get, it seems that the Denon has a bit more horsepower to be able to drive all those speakers & especially the 4 Ohm LCRs...

TAM

I can tell you that a Pioneer even though it is supposed to do 4ohm runs out of steam very quickly.

I have the Marantz AV7005 pre/pro and it only does 7.2, but I find that plenty for me.

I'd go for the Denon

Thanks Both -- Keep the thoughts coming if you have them ...

I have the Denon 4520 2X M80, 1X VP180, 2X QS8, 1X VP150, and 1X EP500. I repurposed the VP150 to act as my rear channel.

I've got zero complaints. No issues with HDCP, switching between Oppo, Toshiba HDX2, Scientific Atlanta DVR and FiOS DVRs. Oh, and Xbox One, PS3, Nintendo Wii U. All work flawlessly.

Enjoy!

hansang

DSQ, you may have ordered already, and either choice should easily drive your Axioms with no problem to beyond safe(to your hearing)listening levels. It can be noted, however, that the 4520 certainly doesn't have an "official" 4 ohm rating. That can only be had in conformity with the FTC amplifier regulation procedures, which among other factors would require it to be driven at full rated power into a 4 ohm load for at least five continuous minutes(an unrealistically severe burden outside the test lab). It carries 8 and 6 ohm ratings.

The difference in the maximum power ratings(150 vs 125 watts)is trivial and amounts to only a 0.79dB difference in maximum sound level.

You're wise to consider an A4L refurb and either one would have all the key features, including the in my view essential Audyssey XT32. If as you say you'd go with the Marantz if you had no amplifier worries, then do so, because there're no solid grounds for any such concern. Enjoy.

Hi Hansang & JohnK --

Thanks both very much for the input. Holding off still until my mind is settled. Its worth another day, and I appreciate the input!

The Marantz was pulling away in the voting, but the Denon (who was winning the comments) is making a horse race of it in the polls as well. One of the votes for the Marantz doesn't count though -- I had to vote to see the results! I guess I should just go with my own vote, but I need a more reliable source!

JohnK -- I'm particularly pleased to read your suggestion that either receiver would drive the speaker package readily. Also, very glad to hear a "second" on the A4L refurb route. I'm realizing that if I put the order onto a Visa Signature card then the warranty will be extended to a second year, which is reassuring (apparently not all cards will extend a refurb unit warranty, and there are other very interesting and subtle differences in coverage between providers). I'm starting to lean this way (toward the Marantz), just for the looks and branding more than anything else (which is really quite silly, but they seem close in other regards, so there you have it).

Thanks also very much for the nice clarifications on the 4 Ohm and max power ratings. I should revise, perhaps, to instead say that the Denon manual states that it is "compatible" with 4-16 Ohm loads, whereas the Marantz states similar for 6 Ohms and up only. I'm with you on the comment that 125 to 150 is not substantive logarithmically, and I appreciate the emphasis. The thing that's getting me a bit hung up is this this post at AVS from one of the resident experts (to be clear, I say that seriously, not sarcastically) who says:



Looking at the actual power draw, there is again not much difference (710 vs 780), which would give what, maybe 60-70 real Watts per channel at the most all driven, leaving some overhead for the processors? Again, not much practical difference in those stats, but I suspect that there are some realities of the design distinctions that just don't always translate into the commonly provided standard specs that guys like JD are nonetheless privy to.

By the way, that quote was from an older thread, but he was generous with personal advice when solicited as well (I don't anticipate that there would be any objection to sharing the comment) and said:



Straightforward, insightful, and appreciated, as are the comments of the members here. I'll stop agonizing and pull the trigger on one or the other shortly (I hope).

Cheers - DSQ

Note that the 710,780 numbers aren't "actual power draw" at full rated power. This would be the case only when explicitly stated(rarely so)to be at "full power" or similar language. Otherwise this is at an average power output which is typically 1/8th of full power. Class AB amplifiers are about 50% efficient at full power but about 20% efficient at 1/8th power. This equates in this case to about 150 total watts of all-channel 1/8th power output, which requires the 710/780 watt input numbers at about 20% efficiency.

DSQ I voted Marantz, but I would agree with John that the differences would be trivial in terms of power output/SPL. The Denon does tank in much heavier, suggesting a meatier transformer and perhaps a power supply with more grunt. With high efficiency speakers this issue may be of little concern. I have found inefficient bookshelf designs are best when "squint listening" for differences between amplifiers.

The great thing about your train of thought for future upgrades is the addition of seperate amplifiers. This makes the choice of an AVR more about software/GUI, remote, input switching lag, network connectivity etc. Unfortunately, these traits are glossed over in reviews so the best resource is to get feedback from users. This means having to wait for responses when you're eager to pull the trigger on new gear. Agonizing!

I'm not sure about either model you are considering, but I have found the best features offered in the models I have played with was a seperate sub trim level for stereo listening vs multichannel (not global), bypass video scaling/processing option, and channel (especially sub) quick trim adjustments by remote. Not having to leave your media to use the full screen setup GUI to tweak the sub/center channel trim is very useful.

The ability to remote toggle between direct vs eq'd settings is also very useful for room tuning and initial setup.

JohnK -- More very useful information on the power ratings that I was not aware of -- THANKS. Very good point on the A/B efficiency -- I wasn't considering that properly.

Serenity -- Very thoughtful, THANKS. I agree that the six pound difference is going *somewhere*.

If you are going to bring in speaker power requirements into perspective, then you need to look at what cross over point you are planning to run the speakers at.

Set them at 100hz you will need significantly less power of the receiver than if you try to run them at 40-50hz.

But I have also questioned why a pre amp costs the amount that it does. There must be other parts savings inside the units that bring the cost of a receiver down other than supply and demand quantity adjustments.

I'd pick the 'heavier' one, ha!

TAM

Yep, very relevant point about the crossover. Probably 80 Hz, but might like to toy around a bit. You must be right about the costs of a pre. It is a "premium" product, with a different, smaller market base, as you noted. But there must certainly be a real parts premium as well, and also vitally an engineering and design cost component too. Diminishing returns, as usual. The tech changes so fast that one expects to upgrade processors more frequently than the comparative stability of amps and speakers, the latter justifiably taking the lions share of budgeting. For this generation, a receiver, and an older model at that, is the cost-viable path, even though separates really speak to my sensibilities on division of function.



Hard to argue with that!

I have a Yamaha CX-A5000 Pre-Pro that I bought last year(very impressive). The unit itself cost more than Yamaha's top of the line AVR. There are some extra features along with a balanced power supply and outputs, yet does it sound better than the AVR? Other than having separate power amps to plug in to with more power, honestly, I am not really sure. At 30 lbs. it is heavier than a lot of AVRs yet, I suppose because so few companies actually manufacture them anymore, I guess they figure they are sold to audiophiles who insist on separates and are willing to pay extra.

This was the first separate that Yamaha has introduced in years but I am told it did very well since along with the their newly introduced line of AVRs, they are going to introduce a successor in the fall with all the latest features(HDMI 2.2, DTS-X, Dolby Atmos etc. etc.).

casey:

I agree with you observation of 'honestly, I am not really sure'.

I found out decades ago that I was unable to differentiate between decent electronic components, cables, wires or power cords. Over the years, nothing has been able to change my stance on that.

Speakers yes, but all of the other stuff no. But that is just cynical old me...

TAM

I have an opportunity to do an objective measurements based test once my HT is finished. Good speakers with good AVR vs high end 2ch amp. Will there be audible differences in my room? I will guess yes. The plots will tell the story.

In an untreated room the differences are negligible in most cases. When you can hear the recording's acoustic space (ie RT60 and early/late decay ratios are in check) a couple DB difference becomes audible. At HTS they did an amp evaluation. There were differences. I'm too lazy/busy to wade through all the pages and pages of the results thread.

Actually, there is a little bit of a story as to why I bought this particular Pre-pro at the time. I have always been somewhat of a Yamaha fan, however, I had the rare opportunity of comparing the one I eventually purchased to the latest incarnation then of a $12,000 "Anthem D2 Statement" unit. Have you ever wondered why when you walk in to a mid-high end retail electronics store the so-called "high-end"(high priced) equipment is generally set-up in a dedicated room all by itself? Normally, a comparison like this would never occur(or even be allowed), but, since I had a long time friend who managed the store, with all other things being equal in the set-up(same amps, speakers, source equipment material, etc.) after some substantial listening time, if there was any meaningful audible difference between the two, I certainly couldn't hear it.

I could never spend $12,000 on a piece of equipment anyway, but ultimately at $2500, the Yamaha was more than able to hold its own against something that was almost 5 times the cost.

Hi All --

Order is placed. Decisions with two good choices are tough. Went with the Marantz.

Thanks so much to those who contributed thoughts &/or a vote on both sides (or the middle). Learned several things, had a nice discussion, & it helped me think through the decision.

Now the fun part!

Cheers - DSQ

PS -- Enjoyed the discussion on separates vs. receivers as well.

Casey - thanks for the thoughts & it seems like you picked up a great sounding unit.

Serenity - will look forward to reading your thoughts on this question after your tests.

TAM - cynical or not, the opinion is reasonable and balanced and experience-based, as usual.

It does seem from prior posts that you do still place a tangible value on having large dynamic reserves of clean power. This seems pretty non-controversial, despite common assertions (any or all of which you may simultaneously agree with) that i) amplifiers will generally sound similar when operating inside their limits, ii) many real uses (esp. with efficient speakers) employ much less power than most people generally guess, and iii) appreciable volume increases require huge (not just incremental) gains in power, due to our logarithmic hearing response (as John emphasized). So, although more power is a very typical (and maybe one of the biggest) real world benefits of separates, I'll distinguish it (as did Casey) from the "separate" question of intrinsic signal quality.

There's no doubt that more sophisticated analog circuits are being employed in certain high end separates (an interesting, if somewhat obscure, comparative parts breakdown example is available here ). But how audible is the resulting difference in a typical setup? Likewise, I'm "not really sure". I don't discount it, but rather have no firsthand experience to base an opinion on, and reliable people say different things. Balanced outputs, as are very common on separates, are an elegant solution to cabling noise, and there is real physics & engineering to justify the usage, especially for long runs ... but extent and contextual scope of the audible benefit is again outside my experience. If nothing else, the division of essentially reducible functions always seems favorable to me just on the grounds of basic principle, and there is certainly no intrinsic link expected between the rates at which digital signal processing feature sets and power amplifiers become either technologically obsolete or worn out.

Regardless, and setting aside all of those hypotheticals, I am looking forward quite a bit at the moment to the reality of a new receiver, which I very much suspect will sound really great!

DSQ - I just saw your PM about 5 minutes ago. My apologies for not seeing it sooner. That being said, you ordered the receiver for which I would have voted. The Marantz 7008 I just got is actually our second unit. It's a great receiver.

The user interface is so easy that one need not look at the menu, and sound quality is first rate.

Quick question. Does Marantz allow end user firmware upgrades these days?

That was a major PIA for me when I had the 8001.

hsb

On the same vein as casey01's post, I have taken the liberty of quoting a poster (sisserman) from AVS that I thought applied to our discussion:

This is an interesting post. Bias is a real killer, especially when you WANT something to be true.

Here is a good example. I purchased an Ayre DSD DAC, think I was 2-3 grand range... it wasn't cheap. I compared it to my "budget" AudioLab Mdac (500 bucks on AG).

I initially posted a review of how wonderful this new DAC was... open, detailed..... blah blah. I used a McIntosh MHA100 headphone amp and Sennheiser HD 800 cans, so no way am I'm missing detail or resolution (well not much).

When the excitement cleared I did a blind AB test.... couldn't tell the two DACs apart.... it was almost impossible. I had a fellow audiophile come over for beers and cigars.... he couldn't tell either.... Moved the DACs to the theater and played them through the VR 33 towers.... still couldn't tell a difference.

I think you get to a certain level of quality and it's difference are slight, especially digital. Now this is my personal experience. I know there will be replies telling me my hearing sucks, my wife tells me all the time.... I actually hear pretty well, just selectively.

I sold the Ayre!!! Blasphemy I know. Still worry I missed something.. maybe I should have kept it... That's how powerful bias is.

I gave his post a 'Like'...

TAM

Fill your boots. There are measurable and audible differences in this test. I really do think that special circumstances and special rooms come into play. But if you're a 1%'er and employ an acoustical approach in addition to quality amplification, you are not wasting your time.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/h...ion-thread.html

If I have to try that hard to hear the difference then I am not interested. I get lots of pleasure from my music even when played on less than audiophile quality equipment . I am not really into dick measuring contest's either, don't need to drive a big diesel to know my self worth.

Craig -- Thanks & no worries. I know you raved about the SR7008 into your m100s, which was encouraging. Of course, that's two channels, not 9, but still. I'll be interested to hear if you feel that the m100s open up in a new way with outboard amplification, which I believe is part of your planned testing. At some point I'll want to do something like the Outlaw 2200 monoblocks on the LCR, but I get the impression this will be a great start.

Hansang -- the receiver will be networked, and it appears that firmware updates are offered automatically in this context. Is there more to your question?

TAM -- great story. Here's a couple more quotes for you. Take them to apply to my search for a receiver if nothing else!




Side question: Any chance of some insight into your user name? I've been wondering for a while. Used to run sleds in the Yukon? Used to manage a research facility? Used to work at a kennel with chauffeur valet service?

Serenity -- Thanks for the link. Haven't digested it yet, but looks interesting. Interesting takeaway here in post 40 from Sonnie:


Seems like a reasonable zeroth order approximation to the answer. There are real reasons for wanting dynamic headroom, and substantial power reserves, but within the regime of clean power, and when peaks are not being clipped, there will be many more similarities than differences. This is probably where I'm at. And, it is in keeping with my intended upgrade path: Modestly priced monoblocks that offer very substantive improvements in power capacity, and the ability to run hot into low impedance loads while keeping the THD distortion down. And they're balanced (at least on the inputs) to boot.

That opinion is not taking into account tube amps, etc., which are *supposed* to color the sound to some degree, and therefore seem to fall into the regime of personal preferences with regards to desirability of the particular sonic impact. BTW, in my guitar rack, there is a Mesa-Boogie tube preamp feeding a Marshall tube power amp. There is nothing in the world that sounds like a high end tube amp for guitar, other than the real thing. The tone churns and chugs, and glistens -- its alive. But, for electric guitar, the amp is *part of the instrument*, not intended as just a passive mechanism for adjusting the volume level.

Socket -- was that supposed to be a crack at my Avatar?

I have a Yaqin Integrated Tube Amp for my M2 + 2 X EP400 'Audio Only, SACD System' that doesn't impart any distortion that I can discern at normal listening levels - 85 to 90 DB at my MPL:



Last year I bought a whole compliment of new tubes for it to use when the OEM tubes finally give out. I used them for a month until their warranty was up & then put them into storage. According to the fanatics on the various 'Tube Forums', I should have heard a dramatic difference in changing out even one tube let alone the whole bunch; however, there was no difference that I could tell. That exercise reaffirmed to me that I'm not able to discern any appreciable difference in sound except for speakers. That amp also replaced a SS Sony basic 2CH Receiver & again, except for some initial placebo euphoria, no significant difference to me as well.

As for my 'exlabdriver' user name. I'm a retired RCAF Pilot who flew the mighty Boeing 'Labrador' Helicopter in the Search & Rescue role for over 3 decades. Here is a pic of yours truly training over a crash response boat locally in the waters off of Vancouver Island (where I reside now). I'm safely in the cockpit:



And another one of yours truly again in action off the north end of Vancouver Island over cruise ship heading for Alaska:



Seems so long ago, ha!

TAM

TAM -- Very interesting. Looks like a beautiful amp. I knew you had a tube amp in your music setup. I am intrigued that you report it also sounds identical (after the honeymoon) to the solid state amp. With a tube guitar amp, the whole point is clipping (intentionally), but they do so with harmonically pleasing overtones. My impression with the tube amps in stereo setups had been that they would likewise actively impart some discernible sonic character onto the music -- this effect might then either be deemed pleasing or extraneous, according to taste of the listener, but it wouldn't generally really be a neutral amplification. However, your experience seems to be, again, that it is a subtle distinction when kept away from clipping. With the guitar amps, the distinction from SS is textural, and not subtle at all, but they really are clipping in the extreme, and on purpose.

Thanks so much for sharing the background of your name & the pics. Terribly impressed. I'll bet you have some stories to tell!

Cheers -
DSQ

I believe that keeping my tube amp within reasonable limits volume wise, distortion is kept at bay. What really makes my 35 W/Ch system shine is of course the 2 X 500 W/Ch that the EP400s provide for a total of 1070 Watts. Quite respectable & more than adequate for my listening space. My tube amp doesn't have to work very hard to make decent SPLs so it sounds very clean.

With guitar tube amps, driving them into distortion with the various controls is what makes electric guitars so special. That's why I like electric blues so much.

I used to have lots of stories but I've forgotten them due to old age, ha!!!

TAM

I skimmed the entire thread and am thoroughly dissapointed. I dont think the whole story is being told with the test. The results are being witheld for some reason. Sonnie usually spearheads these writeups and he bailed very early on in the thread. Other members in the test group have hinted they had "preference" for certain amps, but will not say which.

I may have been skimming too quickly, but that thread was a whole lot of nothing going on in the end....

I found exactly the same thing.

'Inconclusive' is the way that I see it...

TAM

Exlabdriver,
Very nice!! Nothing more to my question. I went from Marantz 8001, to 8002, then replaced it with Denon 3208, followed by 4520.

The 8001 and 8002 could not be upgraded w/o taking it into an authorized reseller. Just a few years back, constant FW upgrades were needed to deal with bitstreaming and various bug fixes.

BTW, I rode in Huey's and Blackhawks in the Army, but never got to fly one. So now, I spend my time flying the Huey on computers: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/huey/

Love that game! that's yet another expensive hobby. By the time I buy the collective, cyclic and the rudder, it's going to set me back a few thousand dollars. Crazy!

PS: Awesome pics!

hansang

Yup, some of these virtual cockpits in people's basements can get pretty complex & expensive.

I used to be a big Flight Sim fan at one time & actually built a software Labrador cockpit for it. I would actually practice my Instrument Rating Test routes on it before ever getting into the actual airplane so I knew what to expect, ha!

If you want to experience expensive, rent or lease a helicopter for a few hours - the larger it is the more $$$$...

TAM

Serenity:

Thanks for 'prodding' the testers over at HTS to try to come up with something definitive!

In the end, it seems that there are such minute differences in the way that amps sound that it is hardly worth the huge effort it takes to undertake such an exercise. Even then, they often weren't really sure of what they heard or perceived to have heard.

The pragmatic side of me makes me look elsewhere for differences & so far with me it is only with speakers...

TAM

Quick update -- Couldn't wait any more to try the Marantz out, and I wanted to have it ready to go for when the speakers arrive -- currently in Houston, which is the nearest Fedex distribution/sort center.

I brought our Mirage FRX-one bookshelves up from the living room to try things out in my office. These are respectable little boxes, and have served us very well for what must be almost 15 years now. Speaker wire was connected, as well as a pair of RCA cables for the ep500s when they arrive. The network was linked in, and I put an old 13" tv nearby to try and do the on-screen setup. (This turns out not to work so well, as the GUI is apparently HMDI only). The firmware update was fully automated (after manual request to initiate) and went cleanly. The absolutely coolest thing is that I can turn the receiver on from my computer via iTunes and stream lossless rips off of CDs from the iTunes controls.

Everything sounds pretty good for the time being. I'm looking forward to comparing against the m80s when they get here. There is certainly room for improvement. I might even chip a few thoughts into the bookshelves vs. towers discussion, with and without addition of the subs, as that will be a natural thing to compare. These little Mirage units have a surprising amount of bass alone though, I should say. Maybe not in the deepest registers, but a decent rendering of a plucked upright acoustic. Clarity and separation could be improved, maybe. It will be interesting to get a better sense of what they are missing by contrast with (what is expected to be) a substantial set of upgrades. The office room is upstairs, with an open railing into the full kitchen, living, dining, breakfast areas. This is a radically different acoustic space than the enclosed ~20x16x8 theater area where things will end up. Excited ...