marantz a/v receivers

Hi guys,
is Marantz a recommended a/v receiver ? or is it just used for music listening ? Curious to know as it has had not many posts as compared to Denon or Onkyo avrs. How do it compare (both Audio and Video) to Denon ?

Thanks

Hi,

According to me the entry level AVR's from Marantz is certainly not suited for movies as it lacks the drive required for An AVR to do justice in Movie mode !!

As you said these are most apt for some very casual movie and some semi critical music sessions !!

Offcourse there are many who contradict my statements ! but I always have said this and will stick to it untill I don't encounter one entry level AVR from Marantz which proves me wrong !!

Regards.

I am very happy with the capabilities of the Marantz SR4001 for movies as well as for music.

I agree with soundsgr8. I own a SR5001. It lacks the punch for the movies. And, the reason why I have it up for sale. But, it is awesome for music.

I have felt that music is the acid test for receivers. If a receiver is indeed good or music, then it would be good for movies as well. But the reverse may not work out true.

It is only a question of identifying the right components to pair with the receiver to derive maximum benefit, I feel.

I agree with Vortex. I'm always confused when reviewers describe Marantz as 'highly musical but lacking punch and scale'. If crash,boom, bang is what movies are supposed to be, then so-called audiophiles should never own an AVR. Marantz players and amplifiers have always been known for their midrange and overall smooth sound. It's only with the advent of movies that the general public seems to want more noise from their components, rather than more musicality. As a result, Marantz always comes behind Denon, Onkyo and even Yamaha for movies.
I remember listening to old Marantz CD players while growing up (not so long ago) and reading reviews through magazines in the British Council library (there was no Indian HiFi magazine then). The Marantz line was always in the top two spots and only superceded by components easily costing twice or thrice as much. In a nutshell, if music is most important, then a Marantz amp will serve your movie needs...albeit it won't blow away your eardrums while watching them.

-Jinx.

Vortex, I could agree with you to a certain extent.
But, I guess in the end it boils down to personal taste of an individual> Music or movies.
Marantz is one of the best receivers for music...ever. But, I can't say the same about movies. Period.

As you say, Sumit, I guess it is about personal preference.

I have seen people choose a rumbling, loose subwoofer which produces more noise over a much tighter sub just because the former would be good for movies. In a way they are right. It will make itself heard more. But then a good sub should be felt at least as much as it is heard. Again, this is not to fault the choice of the other person. Just to show how choices are driven by needs.

As far as Marantz goes, I guess if we do pair this with a good set of speakers and a powerful subwoofer, there is no reason why movies will not sound good on this. I have noticed that the volume levels on a Marantz need to be pushed that much harder to achieve the same amount of sound as on a Yamaha. But that can be done with no sweat.

And in any case, I have found out that it is not humanly possible to increase the volume above 75% and still retain the capability of hearing. So, definitely no complaints on the power front.

Jinx...Crash,boom,bang etc is not all what movies are supposed to be. There is much more. You install a right receiver and you shall understand that. What fun is watching a movies without the effects that the director intended the audience to hear? At the same time what fun it is to listen to music without the clarity that the composer intened you hear?

Basically, we want best of both worlds- musc and movies. There are few players out there in the entry level category who can justify them both. Denon and Onkyo cant beat Marantz to music. Whereas they are better in movies compared to Marantz.

And, you mentioned about earlier marantz equipments and how everybody use to rave about them. Well, most of the earlier equipment had KI signature on it. KI as in Ken Ishiwata. You can say that Ken made Marantz what it is today. Today KI signature is missing from most of the entry level stuff- not sure about the premium range though.

In the end I like to conclude that it is a personal choice.

Hmm… pretty darn imposing statement. A good AVR ideally should do exactly what it is supposed to do – receive audio/video signals, amplify them and route it as required. If one can’t achieve the best of both worlds in any AVR, then they should look out for component based systems; sky is the limit. These are some really accomplished machines out there from companies like Lexicon, that can satisfy both school of thoughts – but it comes at a price.

IMHO, if one is considering an AVR, I would take it by default that he/she is looking for an HT as the primary need. Alternatively, if HiFi is ones priority, I would suggest them to go for the best CDP/AMP/SPKR combo they can afford. Later, just add the receiver of your choice and use the Pre-outs to add the Amp to the proposed HT!