marantz vs nad

[amateur]

hi all,

I am t hinking of buying a stereo amp, but I am puzzled when I compare nad and marantz

NAD doesn't have source direct option whereas Marantz has that option.

should this be an important factor ?

only high end of NAD as sub out option not sure if Marantz has..

in a stereo setup, nad and marantz both has the settings for bass/treble , in such a case ,why would an external sub would be needed -

pls correct me on the ways to approach and pick a stereo amp.

 

[afj]

i think its important to first know and quantify what you want from an amp and your setup. this will help you in identifying the features that you want. also audition the amp and speaker package before you decide.

 

[ashishkesarwani]

only high end of NAD as sub out option not sure if Marantz has..

NAD C326BEE as well as its Pre i.e NAD 165 has Sub out, Marantz doesn't have it.

 

[amateur]

Ok, the need is very simple - good , clean stereo music is the requirement - I was suggested to go for a separate stereo amp for the same. Not sure if Denon, Cambridge Audio's etc stereo amp also to be considered - Since NAD are pioneers in such amps, was more inclined towards NAD.. and then happen to see Marantz - hence wsa wondering which one is better...

 

[murali_n]

Hi amateur,

Give details of :

Room size
Musical preference
Source
Floorstanders/ Bookshelf speaker preference.

N.Murali

 

[amateur]

Hi amateur,

Give details of :

Room size
Musical preference
Source
Floorstanders/ Bookshelf speaker preference.

N.Murali

room size: 15x10
musical preference: Tamil (ilayaraja,arrehman), Hindi songs , english - rock
source: DVD player - sony
speakers: bookshelf - can't go for floorstanders for my size - it will be too overwhelming.

thanks.

 

[amateur]

also saw an ad of sonodyne that's costing 11K

 

[soundofmusic]

There are lot of options available for you now a days. You can look for NAD 315 and 326 decent ones with decent pricing. NAD are suppose to be on a warmer side and may tame few speakers which are slightly brighter. NAD's pair well with PSB, Mission, Q acoustics, Tannoy, MA etc. Same does apply to the Marantz. But the Marantz sound is different, its a lush and its magical midrange is its advantage over the NAD. Where as the NAD sounds more neutral then the Marantz. Listen to both and take a call. Both are good amps.
Marantz are priced much cheaper then the NAD.:licklips:

 

[vivek.saikia]

As already mentioned by Soundofmusic, the NAD (New Acoustic Dimension) sound is much mellow,i.e., It will not create sparkles in your music. It will always sound very controlled (so British), without (or never) being too bright. The plus side is that you will never get listening fatigue at any volume level (I can tell you ear fatigue is real bad thing;can keep you away from your music for months).
On the other side, the Marantz may sound a bit bright but with all the "detail" in your music. Downside - fatigue can creep in for bad/bright recordings.
IMHO, I feel the NAD sound resembles that of a TT (warm, mellow) and the Marantz sound resembles that of a CD (sizzling bright).
But finally it all boils down to personal listening preferences.

 

[magma]

But the Marantz sound is different, its a lush and its magical midrange is its advantage over the NAD. Where as the NAD sounds more neutral then the Marantz.

this is not a correct blanket statement
especially if youre are talking of midrange
if you are using the word LUSH to define the mids the NAD in my opinion has a lusher fuller midrange (the defineition of lush is richer and fuller - it almost defines a perfect amp since it defines two differnt qualities at the same time - lets the nad is more fuller than richer)
the marnatz is more detailed

NAD is in no way neutral
it has its typical flavour and hence has its fan following
marantz would be more neutral edging to the analytical style
its a jap amp and its got more to do with detail than emotion

As already mentioned by Soundofmusic, the NAD (New Acoustic Dimension) sound is much mellow,i.e., It will not create sparkles in your music. It will always sound very controlled (so British), without (or never) being too bright. The plus side is that you will never get listening fatigue at any volume level (I can tell you ear fatigue is real bad thing;can keep you away from your music for months).
On the other side, the Marantz may sound a bit bright but with all the "detail" in your music. Downside - fatigue can creep in for bad/bright recordings.
IMHO, I feel the NAD sound resembles that of a TT (warm, mellow) and the Marantz sound resembles that of a CD (sizzling bright).
But finally it all boils down to personal listening preferences.

now this opinion is almost bang on! (INMO)

 

[murali_n]

also saw an ad of sonodyne that's costing 11K

Hi amateur,

I had a brief listening session with the Sonodyne 208 amp last saturday at Vipul-Tech. It was sounding a bit laid back with Wharfdale 9.5. Hence a bright speaker like Monitor Audio is recommended, and the Bass was tight and adequate.

You can consider the new M-Series Monitor Audio Floorstanders for the same (price around 25k) .I heard them paired with Marantz 6003 amp and they sounded very good. For Bookshelves there are a lot of options like Q-Acouctics, PSB, EPOS, Mordaunt Short etc. Marantz amps will give a lot of details, if paired properly and with a good source (again say a Marantz CDP).

I welcome you to my place if you want to experience the Marantz magic.

Pl PM me for details.

N.Murali

 

[soundofmusic]

I was using a Marantz PM7001 and the Midrange was something magic when I compared to the NAD C352 which I owned for a short time. Between the two amps the Marantz was way better in all the departments including details, emotion etc etc. I could not get the music right from the NAD, it was like some one putting 2 or 3 rugs in front of the speakers and listening to music. The Marantz PM 7001 was more transparent ( detailed??) and without any fatigue. The speakers which i was using was a Mission and CDP was Marantz SA 7001. Out of the Latest generation NAD amplifier C320Bee is the one which attracted me a lot.

regards

 

[murali_n]

Hi SoM,

I think you will change your opinion if you listen to NAD paired with the new PSB Image range of speakers.

N.Murali

 

[soundofmusic]

Hi SoM,

I think you will change your opinion if you listen to NAD paired with the new PSB Image range of speakers.

N.Murali

Hi Sir,
I have heard the NAD 355 , but not with PSB. Alternatively I have heard PSB Image T5 , I dont know why, I did not like the sound, It was paired with a Rotel Integrated amplifier.
And Murali sir, I am a great fan of NAD and have few equipments of NAD like 218THX power amplifier, Nad 1000 pre , Nad C 162 Pre and Nad CD 542 ( giving lot of problem lately). Recently sold my Nad 208 power amplifier.

 

[ravi_d]

hi all,

I am t hinking of buying a stereo amp, but I am puzzled when I compare nad and marantz

NAD doesn't have source direct option whereas Marantz has that option.

should this be an important factor ?

only high end of NAD as sub out option not sure if Marantz has..

in a stereo setup, nad and marantz both has the settings for bass/treble , in such a case ,why would an external sub would be needed -

pls correct me on the ways to approach and pick a stereo amp.

@amateur
Marantz PM5XXX and PM6XXX series don't have pre out or sub-out's.

The 'tone defeat' on NAD amps does the same thing as 'source direct/ direct on' on other amps. It bi-passes the tone control.

When this feature is on your bass and treble control will not work.

Also don't choose your set-up/speakers keeping a sub woofer in mind. Not all subs suit a stereo set-up well.

 

[Dr.Bass]

Between NAD and Marantz I would any day choose a Marantz. As people have commented, it has midrange which which punches way above its weight. It is not about lush or anything, it just has a very right sounding midrange. Yes it also has sparkle in the highs and a fuller bass all of which adds up to make it sound rich. NAD on the other hand sounds dry in the midrange to me. Dry is NOT neutral. It somehow lacks excitement to my ears.

 

[soundofmusic]

. It somehow lacks excitement to my ears.

Spot on Dr.Bass. I too feel the excitement is totally lost and feel sleepy after a certain time.:indifferent14: No offence for NAD users, just my thought on NAD.
But I listen to my melody collection through my NAD 218 and the it sounds fantastic.

 

[ravi_d]

Between NAD and Marantz I would any day choose a Marantz. As people have commented, it has midrange which which punches way above its weight. It is not about lush or anything, it just has a very right sounding midrange. Yes it also has sparkle in the highs and a fuller bass all of which adds up to make it sound rich. NAD on the other hand sounds dry in the midrange to me. Dry is NOT neutral. It somehow lacks excitement to my ears.

Can the dryness in midrange with NAD be overcome by changing the source? May be using a Marantz cd player?

 

[Dr.Bass]

Can the dryness in midrange with NAD be overcome by changing the source? May be using a Marantz cd player?

1. I never like that approach, it is a clear hit and miss. The day you change your amp, your CDP will be left redundant.

2. Very difficult to have a player which will exactly fill in the deficiencies of the NAD amplifier.

3. Marantz CD players are smooth but they are not colored to be able to compensate anything.

4. In CDP domain, NAD and Marantz are equally good IMO. NAD CDPs have a midrange tone which is really good while Marantz is overall nice with no particular area outstanding. Marantz is a more reliable player though because of its build quality.

The other day I was listening to a Marantz CD6003 paired with a PM7001 (I think it was a 7001, I dont remember, it was 7000 something) driving a pair of Monitor Audio Gold Signature 20 and the Marantz duo sounded great. The speakers cost about 110k but these entry level electronics never sounded out of place. Clean, dynamic and rich.

 

[balajeem]

For QAcoustics 2020 pair of bookshelf, what do you feel will be good - Marantz or NAD - it seems there are more marantz lovers and though I need to audition, I feel from the experience of people, Marantz will do good justice it seems.