AVs sold out but not Marantz, what is the catch?

SnowJim

Member
Hi,

I have problems with my current setup and need a new AV but there is a big starvation on AVs both in stores and second-hand market.

My current setup looks like this :

Yamaha RX-A3030
Monitor Audio RX8 surround speakers (2 front, 1 center, 2 surround)
Velodyne spl-1200
Nvidia Shield Pro
LG OLED65C8

Even if there is a big starvation on AV I have notice that there quite many Marantz receivers, for example Marantz SR5015 and Marantz NR1711, what is the catch? Why is they not sold out like everything else? Is they known to be more expansive? Do they miss something important?

From what I understand they have fixed the HDMI 2.1 problem and all receivers that are sold now will be fully working.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
It is basically the result of the premium price associated with the Marantz models. For example, the SR5015 is basically a Denon AVR=X2700 yet the Marantz sells for nearly £900 compared to the under £700 price being asked for the Denon.

The Matantz models are tuned differently though and most people regard them as the better sounding option, especially relative to musical sources.

You'd also need to take the form factor of the NR1711 into consiferation. THis is a slimline model whose onboard amplification is compromised due to its reduced size. It is ordinarilly an AVR people buy for a second room as opposed to their main home theatre setup. Its price is also rather high when you actually start comparing it to similarly priced AV receivers.
 
Last edited:

SnowJim

Member
Okay, sounds like it might not be a bad choice then. Compared the SR5015 and the X2700 back and the Marantz got some extra ports for example : +1 Sub pre out, DC out, RS-232C, Flasher, Remote Control In\out, Coax Digital In Sat and DVD.

But yes, they seems to be built with about the same hardware.
 

N1ck

Active Member
Some people disregard audiosciencereviews.com but if you go by their scientific, measured approach then Denons are regarded as the better option. The ‘tuning’ of the Marantz is usually just ruining a perfectly good Denon. Denons are regarded to have a more accurate, natural, clear and honest presentation.

For example:
“Like clockwork, the performance of Marantz SR7015 tracks other Marantz AVRs we have tested. They take the excellent platform used in Denon sister products, and modify them to produce objectively worse performance by good bit. Distortion is sharply increased and extremely slow DAC filtering causes lots of ultrasonic noise, making any intention of playing "high-res" audio moot. Company feels subjectively the modifications improve the sound of the unit. With no controlled listening test demonstrating that, and measurements showing the opposite, I don't think the changes are wise or merited.

Needless to say, I can't recommend the Marantz SR7015. I highly suggest you stick with the Denon counterparts instead.”

 

dante01

Distinguished Member
Some people don't buy audio equipment based upon measurements and purchase them based upon how they actually sound to them.

Even Sound United suggest that the Marantz models suit the portrayal of music better than the Denon models. Both have different signature sounds and Marantz purposely tune the Marantz models in alignment with their own ideals. These ideals eminate from their hifi heritage.

The Denon AV receivers on the other hand are more clinical in the way they portray audio. This is fine for cinema and movie soundtracks, but may not be so appealing while listening to music sources. Again, Sound United are quite open to this and say it themselves.

You cannot make decisions on audio equipment based solely on specifications and measurements and you have to actually listen to them!
 
Last edited:

HeadBanger

Well-known Member
Measurements will tell you (amongst other things such as maximum power output) how high fidelity something is. There are audiophiles who believe otherwise and think that their ears are a much better judge. It seems that low power, distortion and poorly implemented DACs sound much better to them probably because they sound ‘different’.

If you care how well designed and engineered something is then start by looking at the measurements. It’s amazing how poor some products actually are but hyped by manufacturers, reviewers and forum followers.

HB
 

Nutty667

Active Member
Distortion is sharply increased and extremely slow DAC filtering causes lots of ultrasonic noise,
You can't hear ultrasonic noise, because it's ultrasonic.
Also the idea that distortion always means sounds worse is pure nonsense. Distortion is often added to tracks to add warmth. It's why soo many people love the sound of vinyl which has audible levels of noise.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
Measurements will tell you (amongst other things such as maximum power output) how high fidelity something is. There are audiophiles who believe otherwise and think that their ears are a much better judge. It seems that low power, distortion and poorly implemented DACs sound much better to them probably because they sound ‘different’.

If you care how well designed and engineered something is then start by looking at the measurements. It’s amazing how poor some products actually are but hyped by manufacturers, reviewers and forum followers.

HB


I don't think they believe that their ears are better measuring tools, I think they know what actually sounds more pleasing to them.

I guess the ultimate test would be blind testing. That is testing done by people who've no idea as to what device they are listening to and haven't a clue as to what the associated spec sheet or measurements associated with that device are. You obviously also need to poke their eyes out first with a blunt pencil :lesson:

As said, even Sound United are of the opinion that the Marantz AV receivers portray music sources better than their Denon AV receivers.
 

HeadBanger

Well-known Member
I think that the term ‘High Fidelity’ is increasingly lost on the Audiophiles as they will argue whatever suits.

Poor DAC design and ultrasonics = doesn’t matter you can’t hear it.
CDs are poor as frequency is limited to 22KHz (ultrasonics are missing)
Don’t add or use tone controls as they degrade the sound (add distortion)
My ‘audiophile’ amp has lots of distortion but that’s OK as it sounds so ‘nice’

Why would Sound United say otherwise? Their Marantz products are sold at a premium!

Blind test all you like I am simply stating that good measurements are good indicator of something well designed and well engineered and is therefore a very good place to start.

HB
 

SeanBrothers

Active Member
Alsoplus, the Marantz has an unusual porthole for the display. Something to keep in mind. Some people like the aesthetic; some do not.
 

rccarguy2

Distinguished Member
Some people don't buy audio equipment based upon measurements and purchase them based upon how they actually sound to them.

Even Sound United duggest that the Marantz models suit music better than the Denon models. Both have different signature sounds and Marantz purposely tune the Marantz models in alignment with their own ideals. These ideals eminate from their hifi heritage.

The Denon AV receivers on the other hand are more clinical in the way they portray audio. This is fine for cinema and movie soundtracks, but not so appealing while listening to music sources. Again, Sound United are quite open to this and say it themselves.

You cannot make decisions on audio equipment based on specifications and measurements and you have to actually listen to them!

By that same logic video calibration and audio room equalisation is stupid, don't use measuring equipment just fiddle with settings until you like it.

Rew, umik1 and minidsp? Piffle, just set twiddle phase randomly, and set filters where you guess from listening to the multiple subs where they should be

Marantz test worse by than denon.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
By that same logic video calibration and audio room equalisation is stupid, don't use measuring equipment just fiddle with settings until you like it.

Rew, umik1 and minidsp? Piffle, just set twiddle phase randomly, and set filters where you guess from listening to the multiple subs where they should be

Marantz test worse by than denon.


No, it isn't the same. People don't have preference regarding what they see and a bad picture looks bad to whoever sees it. People do however have personal preferences as to what they hear. This can even change depending upon where you live in the world due to how you've been acclimatised to certain frequency ranges in association with languages, dialects and local portrayals of music.

Some of the Japanese brands specifically tune their products diiferently for the western marketplace. Yamaha have done this for years.
 
Last edited:

SeanBrothers

Active Member
Some of the Japanese brands specifically tune their peoducts diiferently for the western marketplace. Yamaha have done this for years.
Fascinating!

I wonder now, does that affect media, such as a CD release in Japan? Is it mixed differently than the North American/European releases?
 

rccarguy2

Distinguished Member
No, it isn't the same. People don't have preference regarding what they see and a bad picture looks bad to whoever sees it. People do however have personal preferences as to what they hear. This can even change depending upon where you live in the world due to how you've been acclimatised to certain frequency ranges in association with languages, dialects and local portrayals of music.

I like it in vivid, sharpness to max, picture mode zoomed in as much as possible. treble to max bass to minimum. Boost in each peq +12. All speakers set to small 300hz. Guitar distortion eq set to max distortion. Subwoofer to off. And subwoofers switched off. All speakers connected to one amplifier channel.

those settings are what I like. Tube amps also.

To hell with science.

Subjectively am I wrong? Nope. And you're wrong following Dolby guidelines just do whatever you want.

Have you had your eyes calibrated?
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
I should also say this, many people ignore recommendations as to how they "should" set their TVs up and do fiddle with all the settings until they get sometghing they do like the look of. This is regardless of whether or not those settings comply with the industry recognised standards :)

I'd not use peoples' TV settings as an example as to no one having preferences and everyone having the same point of view.

Wrong or right, that is the fact of the matter.
 

HeadBanger

Well-known Member
The only fact there is that doing so means that you are not watching a picture as faithful as possible to the original / how the director intended.

If a TV was reviewed on here and it measured poorly (poor peak brightness, poor greyscale and colour accuracy i.e. high DEs) and someone then argued that it didn’t matter as measurements are meaningless and looks fabulous to them, they’d be put straight very quickly.

Some of the HiFi community on the other hand have not embraced measurements yet and continue to argue that they just don’t matter.

HB
 

rccarguy2

Distinguished Member
The only fact there is that doing so means that you are not watching a picture as faithful as possible to the original / how the director intended.

If a TV was reviewed on here and it measured poorly (poor peak brightness, poor greyscale and colour accuracy i.e. high DEs) and someone then argued that it didn’t matter as measurements are meaningless and looks fabulous to them, they’d be put straight very quickly.

Some of the HiFi community on the other hand have not embraced measurements yet and continue to argue that they just don’t matter.

HB

Some speakers measure terribly I recall b&w model 80x really boosted high frequency

Also by same logic who cares about sub testing outside, with waterfall, Distortion, plate power, frequency response, group delay figures? It's all stupid, just listen to it. Funny how people pick and choose science.

For example when I go to doctor after breaking bones I say,.I need ivermectin.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
The only fact there is that doing so means that you are not watching a picture as faithful as possible to the original / how the director intended.

If a TV was reviewed on here and it measured poorly (poor peak brightness, poor greyscale and colour accuracy i.e. high DEs) and someone then argued that it didn’t matter as measurements are meaningless and looks fabulous to them, they’d be put straight very quickly.

Some of the HiFi community on the other hand have not embraced measurements yet and continue to argue that they just don’t matter.

HB


That isn't the point I was maling. The point is that the assumption was that everyone was abiding by the recognised standards and actually configuring their TVs accordingly. Whether you dispute thios as being a fact or not I can say that it is more than likely that the vast majority of TV owners aren't doing this and are setting their TV's picture to suit theor own personal preferences.

Besides which, none of the AV receiver manufacturers abide by any set of standards as far as the signature sound of their equipment is concerned or is it being inferred that all AV receivers and amplifiers sound the same regardless of who made them. The same goes for speakers, are they all the same too?

People have preferences and this is more so the case when it comes to sound, especially when listening to music.

It makes no odds how fabulous the test results are if the signature sound of that device isn't to someone's liking. They aren't going to buy it based upon what it says on a piece of paper or because someone who hasn't actually listened to it says it pass a test.

Like it or lump itt, this is how the hifi world operates and it does so because it has responded to what people actually want.

Yes, quality in terms of components used is important, but the way it actually sounds will always win out. Do you think Ken Ishiwata sat tuning the devices he worked on by loonking at measurements?
 
Last edited:

rccarguy2

Distinguished Member
That isn't the point I was maling. The point is that the assumption was that everyone was abiding by the recognised standards and actually configuring their TVs accordingly. Whether you dispute thios as being a fact or not I can say that it is more than likely that the vast majority of TV owners aren't doing this and are setting their TV's picture to suit theor own personal preferences.

If you ignore a badly engineered and measured piece of audio or video gear then whatever you do, it'll never be accurate.

Ie in a TV that has red push
In a speaker that has exgarrated high end b&w 80x
In amp that has high frequency roll off is marantz
In a AV pre that has crappy room eq which makes it sound worse ie tonewinner
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
If you ignore a badly engineered and measured piece of audio or video gear then whatever you do, it'll never be accurate.

Ie in a TV that has red push
In a speaker that has exgarrated high end b&w 80x
In amp that has high frequency roll off is marantz
In a AV pre that has crappy room eq which makes it sound worse ie tonewinner


If you didn't know about some of the measurements then would it still bother you as much?

Do these devices actually sound bad? The ones that do more often than not get called out by reviewers anyway.

Next you'll be telling me that everyone loves/hates marmite. Is there a test for that?
 

rccarguy2

Distinguished Member
If you didn't know about some of the measurements then would it still bother you as much?

Do these devices actually sound bad? The ones that do more often than not get called out by reviewers anyway.

Next you'll be telling me that everyone loves/hates marmite. Is there a test for that?

You need to differentiate between subjective and objective.

Also the problem with reviewers is that Subjective, an opinion..and that review could be biased

Has youthman ever said that product is flawed (either build, stability, poor sound quality, low quality parts, bench test results)

Has what hifi ever given one star review to product that is their biggest advertiser?

I'd rather have a good product that has low noise, low Distortion, high channel seperation, good pre out voltage,quality parts, low jitter, low digital noise and interference, wide frequency response, good power output with all channels driven full range, ability for 2ohm load etc etc then the opposite in of that.

With objective results opinions don't come into it, it's the cold hard details.

Also everyone knows Vegemite is better than marmite.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
There's no point in having perfect test results if people prefer the way another proiduct sounds.

People tend to prefer the Marantz signature sound when compared to that associated with Denon, more so relative to music than movies.
 
Last edited:

HeadBanger

Well-known Member
Dante, there’s no point arguing with you. People also prefer a vivid setting on their TVs ‘cos to them it looks ‘nice’.

All I have said is that if something measures well it is a good indicator that it has been well designed and well engineered. Start there. Conversely, if it measures poorly then it is a good indicator that it has been designed poorly and poorly engineered.

If you wish to think otherwise and believe the BS that something has been deliberately designed badly to sound ‘nicer’ or ‘specially tuned’ and that measurements are pointless so be it.

I really couldn’t care less.:thumbsup:

HB
 

Mr Wolf

Well-known Member
People tend to prefer the Marantx signature sound when compared to that associated with Denon, more so relative to music than movies.
"Marantz is better than Denon for music" has be parroted on this forum for years yet I've never seen any actual evidence in support of this assertion. Do you actually have any or can we call you Polly?

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if it were proved to be true as I genuinely believe that many people prefer the subjective "warmth" that a small amount of distortion brings to music, especially if they've become accustomed to it as I said back here.

Denon AVC-X4700H AV Receiver Review & Comments

So it might just be that Denons actually perform too accurately on music for some people's tastes.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 901590

Guest
Indeed, Monsieur Wolf, it was one thing that I was touching on here:


No one really seemed interested in commenting on this.

Day by day, I get a real temptation to splash some cash that I haven't got and buy a Denon AVR-X1700.

For £550, it has Audyssey XT with app control, 3 of the latest HDMI connections, does Dolby Laboratories' and Digital Theatre Systems latest formats and on paper has more than enough power to drive my speakers at my typical listening levels. It even has a sleeker, nicer looking form (151mm high).

Oh, and costs approximately £2.50 less a month to run than current AVR. (That delta will only go up too).

But, does it sound rubbish or what? That's what I'd like to know.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Panasonic LZ2000, LZ1500 & LZ980 Hands-on Launch Event | No QD-OLED for 2022, new 77-inch for LZ2000
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Triangle announces new wireless Borea Active bookshelf speakers
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Cleer Audio announces Arc earbuds
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
iFi Audio launches new Go bar portable DAC/headphone amp
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Sony adds LinkBuds S to its earphone series
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
T+A announces Solitaire T headphones
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom