marantz a/v receivers

[maniac_2004]

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

 

[soundsgreat]

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.

 

[thevortex]

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

 

[Sumit]

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.

 

[thevortex]

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.

 

[ajinkya]

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 The Marantz line was always in the top two spots and only superceded by components easily costing twice or thrice as much.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.

 

[Sumit]

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.

 

[thevortex]

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.

 

[Sumit]

If crash,boom, bang is what movies are supposed to be, then so-called audiophiles should never own an AVR.
-Jinx.

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.

 

[unleash_me]

If crash,boom, bang is what movies are supposed to be, then so-called audiophiles should never own an AVR.

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!

 

[thevortex]

OK I have been hearing this 'better in movies' concept from many people now. I would love to know what is being construed as 'better'. What are the parameters on which, say a Denon or a Yamaha amp, outperforms the Marantz.

And when you compare entry level models we probably should compare the Denon 1908 and the Yamaha RXV463 with the Marantz SR4001/2 and the Denon 1708 and Yamaha RXV363 with the Marantz SR3001/2.

When I talk about Marantz being a whole different level in music, I refer to the palpable warmth in the music, a richness, the fullness of soundstage and the lack of any jangling or harshness regardless of the treble content in the program. Now, this to some extent also depends on the speakers we match the receiver with.

Now - how exactly is one amplifier deemed to be better for movies than another amp? Is it a test of loudness/volume per se? Or is the parameter something else? Could you maybe cite a particular scene from a movie which was not rendered satisfactorily by one amp where it was addressed by another amp - even on the same speaker combination?

I am very curious about this and would like to know more.

 

[thevortex]

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!

Fair points, Unleash_me.

 

[ajinkya]

Unleash_me,
I stand by that statement, 'imposing' or not
I base it on my experience with people around me who buy equipment for music vrs those that want to hear 'The Matrix- HD' in all it's floor-shaking glory. And the latter always seem to prefer loud, hard-hitting amps, even if musicality is lost somewhere.
Actually, your suggestion about avr preouts and dedicated stereo amp is exactly what I was thinking of going in for, once I finalise on the system components. There are issues (level-matching, sub out) with that approach as well, which I'll probably ask in detail in a separate thread. Hopefully you and others in this forum can shed some light.

Sumit,
I have a decent budget avr (denon 1507) but that is not comparable to the previous marantz I had. You're right about the KI stamp...but I am sure there are other talented engineers at Marantz today to carry fwd his legacy. The Marantz sound is still as distinct as it was before. Finally, as you say, it's an individual choice. But then, so is every choice we make in music... and life ;-)

Vortex,
You put it very succintly. I am equally curious to know how movie scenes are rated from a sound point of view.

 

[pnredkar]

Hi,

A little late in this discussion. But here is my take.

I somewhat agree with music is the acid test to check the main speakers. But what most of us do is check music in two channel and forget the check the other channels that are required for movies.

I feel that one of the important factor for a good movie experience is the clarity of the center channel. Some of the AVRs use different components for two channel reproduction and multi-channel reproduction. Therein may lie the first difference. The characteristics of a good center channel speaker are slightly different from that of a good front speakers. If you are using a center speaker which cannot do justice to dialog, your movie experience takes a dip. This may turn out to be a crucial factor.

As far as the booms and bangs are considered the AVR has lesser impact as most rely on a powered subwoofer. It is the quality of the sub that defines this factor.

So if you are keen on your movie experience, do take care to check the capabilities of the center channel of your system (receiver and speaker included).

This is my take on this matter. Feel free to disagree.

BTW, I feel that my CA 540R V3 is good for both

Regards,
Prasad Redkar.

 

[thevortex]

I agree one hundred percent with Prasad here. If you want earth shaking qualities then get a powerful sub. If you want crystal clear dialog then get a good center channel. Although this is oversimplifying it a bit, it is generally right on principles.

 

[maniac_2004]

OK I have been hearing this 'better in movies' concept from many people now. I would love to know what is being construed as 'better'. What are the parameters on which, say a Denon or a Yamaha amp, outperforms the Marantz.

And when you compare entry level models we probably should compare the Denon 1908 and the Yamaha RXV463 with the Marantz SR4001/2 and the Denon 1708 and Yamaha RXV363 with the Marantz SR3001/2.

When I talk about Marantz being a whole different level in music, I refer to the palpable warmth in the music, a richness, the fullness of soundstage and the lack of any jangling or harshness regardless of the treble content in the program. Now, this to some extent also depends on the speakers we match the receiver with.

Now - how exactly is one amplifier deemed to be better for movies than another amp? Is it a test of loudness/volume per se? Or is the parameter something else? Could you maybe cite a particular scene from a movie which was not rendered satisfactorily by one amp where it was addressed by another amp - even on the same speaker combination?

I am very curious about this and would like to know more.

Are there specific scenes where a sub / receiver / spkr will be tested to its max ? eg a thunder scene . This imo will be generic or am i wrong here ? Has this been covered in some other thread ?

The sub/receiver/spkr combo will then be the one where this "generic" scene sounds the best.

 

[thevortex]

Are there specific scenes where a sub / receiver / spkr will be tested to its max ? eg a thunder scene . This imo will be generic or am i wrong here ? Has this been covered in some other thread ?

The sub/receiver/spkr combo will then be the one where this "generic" scene sounds the best.

Yes, I would like to see some examples here. Of what appears to be missing in Marantz which is available in spades in brands such as Yamaha or Onkyo or Denon.

 

[Sumit]

Yes, I would like to see some examples here. Of what appears to be missing in Marantz which is available in spades in brands such as Yamaha or Onkyo or Denon.

Vortex/Ajinkya> Guys, I am trying to arrange a Denon receiver of similar wattage as my marantz. I shall use same setup for both. I shall try to give conclusive evidence as soon as I get my hands on a Denon. Further, I own a SPL meter. It shall tell me exact sound measurement in db.

 

[Sumit]

Hi,
BTW, I feel that my CA 540R V3 is good for both
Regards,
Prasad Redkar.

Hi PNREDKAR!!
I would like to know more about your CA 540.
What kind of equipment have you connected to it? What is the size of your room?
I have not met many people who own a CA receiver. I am quite eager to know about its capabilities for movies/music.

 

[thevortex]

Vortex/Ajinkya> Guys, I am trying to arrange a Denon receiver of similar wattage as my marantz. I shall use same setup for both. I shall try to give conclusive evidence as soon as I get my hands on a Denon. Further, I own a SPL meter. It shall tell me exact sound measurement in db.

That would be great, Sumit. I would love to know about this for sure. Even more than the numbers in your SPL meter, I would also be interested in hearing your take on the performance.

For, sometimes, effects could be louder on one combination but then clarity is more important than loudness and that is something a meter cannot check.