Seems like everyone here is a big fan and very knowledgable on Rotel, Denon, HK and Yamaha, how about Marantz? I've always been under the impression that they are high end units and have just discovered they have some very reasonably priced models. Any one have experience with them?
Their feature set didn't tend to compare to similarly priced models from H/K, Denon, etc. Perhaps this has improved. Some say that they have better sound. I have my doubts about this.
I've owned a Marantz SR5200 for several years now, and with the exception of one problem that was apparently isolated to this particular model (and fixed with no hassle under the company's three year warranty), it's been worry free.
The upside to Marantz stuff is that it looks fabulous and it's built like a friggin' tank. The downside is that Marantz has been very slow to adopt some of the flexibility offered by other companies that has been standard for a while. As an example, it took them quite a while to come around to offering flexible crossover points rather than just the fixed 100hz that I've got on my SR5200.
The sound quality is excellent and I'm sure it's the equal of Denon or HK, but I'm not sure about Marantz' power claims. Mine is supposedly good for 90wpc, but I sincerely doubt that's with all channels driven. Still, it's more than enough power to fill my room, and the SR5200 (SR5500 is the equivalent now, I believe) really is only about halfway up the food chain.
One of the things you'll hear about Marantz is that they've traditionally focused on the sound rather than the bells and whistles. This may or may not be true. I love my receiver, but when the time comes to replace it I might look to Denon for a few more features.
and the SR5200 (SR5500 is the equivalent now, I believe) really is only about halfway up the food chain.
Thank you for your input, so the above comment means they are considered a "lesser" component than Denon or HK?
In reply to:
they are considered a "lesser" component than Denon or HK?
No, no, no. I certainly don't believe so, anyway. What I meant is that the 5500 is in the middle of
Marantz's range. If you wanted the equivalent of, say, Denon's 3805, take a look at the SR8400.
I think they used to be priced a bit higher than competing receivers for what seemed like the same features, but nowadays they seem quite competitive. Everything I have heard is good...
I used to own a big Marantz power amp which I still miss. Marantz is owned by Denon these days, isn't it ?
I also have a 5200 (factory refurb) which has given me nothing but pure enjoyment for the past 3 years. I'd agree that in the past, Marantz seemed to be a little behind in adding bells and whistles, when compared to other manufacturers, but looking at their current offerings, they seem to have caught up. And they've always been known for performing exceptionally in both home theater and stereo applications.
As for power, Sound and Vision mag tested the 5400 (last years version of the 5500) which was rated at 90watts x 6 channels. Its output, measured with 5 channels driven until clipping (tested at 1 KHz into 8 Ohms / Clipping point = 0.3% THD + Noise (APR '01 - pg.44)) was 103 watts per channel, so it actually outputted higher than claimed. So you should rest easy there. Also keep in mind, I don't think Marantz design their receivers to push 4 Ohms, to if you have 4 Ohm speakers, you might want to look elsewhere.
I don't think Marantz is owned by Denon, rather the electronics company that owns Denon recently bought Marantz, so they now have the same parent company.
In reply to:
so it actually outputted higher than claimed
Cool! And that reminds me, heat hasn't been an issue at all. I was a little concerned about driving the 6ohm VP150, but it doesn't skip a beat. When I talked about the lack of a competitive feature set, I didn't mean silly stuff like the umpteen zillion surround presets you'll find on Yamaha receivers, or even the auto-setup (which Marantz apparently
does offer now). My observation since I've been on this board is that Denon and H/K just seem to offer enormous flexibility in terms of personalizing and fine-tuning setup options. I don't know that they're really all that great (or even usable), but it's enough to make me a little envious.
mreed, if you're seriously considering a Marantz receiver I don't think you'll be disappointed at all. It's handsome gear that's made well and sounds great. Plus, it's a little different -- I think I can probably count the number of Marantz owners on this board with one hand and have fingers left over.
Boy I sure do appreciate everyone's input. Sound and power are more important to me than bells and whistles but I'm not seeing any phono inputs on these midpriced Marantz receivers. I am correct in assuming that it must actually be labled phono?
You are correct. However, I don't know if I've seen phono inputs on any multichannel reciever in awhile! Pity, that... You can also get an external phono preamp fairly cheaply, unless you want to go esoteric.
You're not going to get a decent phono section on any receiver. try the sumiko pro-ject phono box.
Too true. I was scratching my head for a while trying to plug the turntable into my new HK630...
Well now how about that? Looks like denon is the only one that includes phono jack. So I guess its either buy Denon or spend more money. So, Riffman, are you saying that I wont be happy with the quality of the sound from the onboard phono jack? And am I better off buying the external anyway?
Mike
Sound an Vision has a new round up of budget receivers, and the #'s don't work out near so well for Marantz. Keep in mind that this unit is really cheap ($430.00 US). It is the SR4500, and the tale of the tape is:
Rated at 80 watts by 7.
Actual measurements:
One channel 118 watts
Two channel 98 watts
Five channel 76 watts
Seven channel 64 watts
Shane D
Denons have phono inputs ? Holy &%^$*%^!!
Yep, it's true. I just looked in the 2805 manual. Geez, now what do I do ?
The manual is just chock full of useful advice, like "don't plug a hair dryer into the switched AC outlet on the back of the receiver".
You found information in a Denon manual? You're a genious!
As for the phono inputs, I'd try them before saying they're no good. No sense in spending extra money if you're satisfied with what the basics get you.
Mike, the features present in a receiver should be the deciding factor, and if you need a phono input that probably should decide it for you. Unless some other receiver without a phono input has some other features that outweigh the phono input there's no good reason to consider buying a separate phono-pre-amp, since these are trivial items from a technological standpoint and all perform their function without audible flaws.
I am the owner of an SR8300 - very happy with the sound and performance.
Sean
Onkyo puts a phono input in at the level of their 702 model. That is the TX-SR702. The lower models 602, 502 etc don't have the phono input.
I believe some Yamaha models also have phono inputs.
"So, Riffman, are you saying that I wont be happy with the quality of the sound from the onboard phono jack? And am I better off buying the external anyway? "
Like others have side, why don't you try the phono input on your new receiver first and see how you like it.
some Yammies and Denons do have phono inputs, i currently use an older model RX-V730 Yamaha as a pro and it does have phono inputs. Some of the newer Yammie models include it in the feature set. I believe all current Denon models above the 2105 have phone inputs as well.
Well, shows what I know...
