These are poor generalizations by both groups. It depends on what price point you are at and what you are comparing it to and is reflective of perceptions based on different price points in both lines. I think every statement you make is true depending on your perspective.

When you begin digging into the technical specs, there are a lot of overlapping parts used in both lines, especially at the high end. The very high end of both companies (Denon AVR-4520 vs Marantz SR7008) will sound similar. The primary deviations are in video processing where the Denon actually wins out.

At the low end, the differences become much more obvious. The Marantz line compromises very little from an audio quality perspective to hit a price point and by extension, never gets really inexpensive. Marantz has some low power units that are modestly priced, but nothing you would define as inexpensive. The NR1403 is a 5 channel, 50w receiver.

The Denon line is allowed to compromise greatly. Take the Denon AVR-1913 at $349 and is a 7 channel 90w reciever. Marantz has nothing to compete at that price point relatively speaking. The Denon is a touch brighter than anything in Marantz's line. It is no where near a bright as an Onkyo, Pioneer, Sony, Yamaha, etc... but bright relative to Marantz. When you consider the price point and the quality of sound relative to competition, it is an amazing value but not in the same class as anything from Marantz. Compared to any Marantz unit, there is a big loss in detail and overall sound quality. This really becomes apparent with sound tracks.

So effectively, if you are looking at the low end, Denon can truly be called bright relative to Marantz while at the high end that is untrue. Alternatively, you could say that at the high end, there is virtually no difference in accuracy and quality while at the low end, it would be untrue.

Either way, D&M makes great products for the money and depending on your price point and what your wants/needs are should dictate a choice.

I am assuming you are thinking about 5.1 or 7.1 sound. One of the most important factors is which Audyssey version the device is running. The x4000 and the SR7008 are the only units that offer MultEQ® XT32 which is the latest and greatest. If you can afford it, to me that is a must.

The SR7008 is a better sounding unit. No question. How much better is debatable and will depend on your speakers and other source equipment. It incorporates some of D&Ms best technology and has 9 channels fully powered. That being said, the x4000 is a great receiver, will sound fabulous and is $700 cheaper brand new.

Here is an example and how I would grand the Denon vs Marantz equipment ignoring budget but considering how a Blu-Ray can improve system quality:

Marantz SR7008 and Oppo BDP 105 = $3200 A+
Denon x4000 and Oppo BDP 105 = $2500 A
Marantz SR7008 and Oppo BDP 103 = $2500 A-
Denon x4000 and Oppo BDP 103 = $1800 B+

I think most here would agree that the SR7008 with an Oppo BDP105 would be your best choice but its $3200. If you only have $2500 to spend, it's a harder choice. Better DVD player vs better receiver? As I typed up the list I was convinced and now I am all ready wavering as to which is better. It is all about trade offs.

One final note: D&M had been criticized previously for not incorporating that latest version of Audyssey into there units. They seem to have taken this to heart and the major point of differentiation above is the MultEQ® XT32 vs MultEQ® XT. If you have the budget, this will make the biggest difference.

bwspot wrote:

bierfeldt wrote:

I am assuming you are thinking about 5.1 or 7.1 sound. One of the most important factors is which Audyssey version the device is running. The x4000 and the SR7008 are the only units that offer MultEQ® XT32 which is the latest and greatest. If you can afford it, to me that is a must.

The SR7008 is a better sounding unit. No question. How much better is debatable and will depend on your speakers and other source equipment. It incorporates some of D&Ms best technology and has 9 channels fully powered. That being said, the x4000 is a great receiver, will sound fabulous and is $700 cheaper brand new.

Here is an example and how I would grand the Denon vs Marantz equipment ignoring budget but considering how a Blu-Ray can improve system quality:

Marantz SR7008 and Oppo BDP 105 = $3200 A+
Denon x4000 and Oppo BDP 105 = $2500 A
Marantz SR7008 and Oppo BDP 103 = $2500 A-
Denon x4000 and Oppo BDP 103 = $1800 B+

I think most here would agree that the SR7008 with an Oppo BDP105 would be your best choice but its $3200. If you only have $2500 to spend, it's a harder choice. Better DVD player vs better receiver? As I typed up the list I was convinced and now I am all ready wavering as to which is better. It is all about trade offs.

One final note: D&M had been criticized previously for not incorporating that latest version of Audyssey into there units. They seem to have taken this to heart and the major point of differentiation above is the MultEQ® XT32 vs MultEQ® XT. If you have the budget, this will make the biggest difference.

What are your thoughts about lower level receivers i mentioned.
Currently I am only listening to stereo sound with no sub.
Is Audyssey worth anything if I listen to two speakers only?

Audyssey is only for 5.1 or 7.1 applications; there is no use for it in a 2-channel system.

If you want a very good-sounding system for 2.1, I recommend the Music Hall 15.3 integrated amplifier, which in my opinion will sound better than any of the Marantz units mentioned, and it only costs $549. It has a preamp output which can be used to connect to a subwoofer.

NHT makes excellent subwoofers. I use the NHT B12D, which is $800.

The OPPO 103 is a good $500 unit, but it is not at all in the same sound quality class as the BDP-105, which is IMO state-of -the art, and competes with units that cost 5 times as much. It is a steal for only $1200.

If you are listening to 2 channel sound, a receiver is a waste. You are paying for tons of features that you don't need like Audyssey and 5 channels of extraneous power amp. That is unless you can't live without HDMI switching. Then you are stuck with and AVR.

You will get much better sound and value from an integrated amp. If you want the networking capabilities, get an integrated and a network player or you might consider a Marantz M-CR510 which is a integrated amp with networking capabilities for $599. There are a few other units like that.

It supports 320kbps AAC as it is airplay enabled.

The Music Hall 15.3 amplifier has 5 inputs, which can be connected to the analog audio out of any device that has one. For a device that has only digital audio out, you can buy an inexpensive DAC converter for only $20 or so at Amazon.

The video out of each device can be connected to the TV with HDMI or video cables. Just mute the TV sound.

I agree with the above that generalizations are bad, but in any case I'm going to make one.

I personally prefer a the sound of the Marantz to the Denon when I was looking at HT Receivers 3 years ago. The Marantz seemed to be a bit warmer and a little more detailed when listening to music, but i want to point out that while I found a difference, it was settle.

We also did it as close to a blind test as possible in the store I was at so I never knew what was playing. Should point out that the same company owns both Denon and Marantz so there are way more similarities than differences.

Personally though I will always go Marantz over Denon.

I will confirm that even at the high end of either's lineup, neither will they beat a well-designed stereo amp. I bought my current Simaudio setup a few years after the marantz and it was the first time I heard what my speakers could do. Not really a fair shootout considering the 10x price point but can say the marantz did a nice job and I still love it for home theater.

If you think about it, when you by an AVR, you are paying for 7 to 9 channels of amplification, Video processors and HDMI switches, DAC chips, a tuner, etc... Lots of stuff. All that stuff being crammed into a little space creates distortion. Additionally, to hit a price point, they are likely compromising on the components they are using in the box.

In an integrated, you have a switch between analog inputs, maybe a DAC, maybe a phono stage and probably a motor for volume control. That's it. Simple and clean minimizing the amount of things that can create interference.

A $550 of $650 integrated from Marantz or Music Hall will outperform a $1000 of $1300 receiver from Denon or Marantz for 2.1 audio. You may get less in absolute power/wattage but you will get much better quality sound IMO. Pair that with a network player and you get most of the functionality of an AVR but with better quality sound.

FYI, I would NOT get a Pioneer integrated. Music Hall is far superior, Marantz is also strong. NAD produces excellent units as does Cambridge.

I like the Cambridge Audio NP30 network player/tuner.

Based on feature set, the Denon dnp720ae. However it is not the best sounding. The Cambridge NP30 and NAD network tuner both sound better but the feature sets aren't great. No Airplay, etc... The Pioneer Elite NP-50 might be the way to go. It gets a 5 star rating from WhatHifi and is a recommended component from them. It is not perfect, but might be the best option. Stinks that the Marantz NA7004 was discontinued. That was the best option.

What speakers do you plan on using with this receiver. The sound profile of the speakers along with their efficiency should play a factor in receiver choice. For instance, if you were driving Klipsch speakers which tend to be bright, I would get a Marantz or NAD to help offset the brightness of the speakers. On the other hand, if you have warmer speakers like Wharfedales, I would get a Denon since it is pretty neutral. Additionally, the Denon is more powerful and if your speakers are inefficient, you might need the incremental power to get to theatre levels.

Ultimately, Marantz is warm, Denon is neutral. They are both discrete as opposed to chip amps. Both have great feature sets and are simple to use. I own both Denon and Marantz equipment in different applications and have nothing but good things to say about both product lines.

I have not heard the 220s yet. They are supposed to be better than 10.2s which is saying a lot. That being said, Wharfedales tend to be warm. Combined with Marantz might be too warm. I would likely get a Denon to pair with Wharfedales. Additionally, those are relatively inefficient speakers and you may prefer the higher power output of the Denon.

You will be surprised at how musical the Denon is. It helps that they are made by the same company.

Best bet, buy the Denon from a place with a liberal return policy like Crutchfield or BestBuy. If you don't like it, return it and get the Marantz.

My appologies. I think the Marantz would be a less than optimal pairing with the Wharfedales. I think the Denon will be sweet with those Wharfedales and sound way more musical than you think it's going to. That being said, good sound is a matter of personal taste and once you get the Denon, you might not like it. I doubt that, but if you have anxiety, you could help remove that anxiety by buying from a place you could return it to.

I have the AVR X1100W playing thru Polk Rtia5 speakers. On good source material (Eric Clapton "Slowhand" on SACD) it sounds awesome,smooth, transparent,undistorted. On crappy source material( some redbook CD's) it sounds harsh, bright and shitty. I'm guessing that its revealing the shortcomings of the recording. It's being fed by a Marantz UD 7007 digital player. I have switched back forth between the two DAC's and they sound identical.

Useful comments. I need help. I am looking at an offer for a Marantz SR 5009 receiver, but can't decide if it wouldn't be better to go with a Denon AVR-X1200W, or a Sony STR-DN1060. I am only interested in a 5 speaker set up, listen mostly to classical music and jazz, and have an average sized room. Not interested in loudness but good sound. Should I really worry about HDCP 2.2 at this stage? (which the Marantz doesn't have, can't afford upgrade on that one). Lost in the jungle of technology. Bought my last receiver 30 years ago, but have a 4K TV now.
Any advice welcome.

If you went 4K, you should buy an HDCP 2.2 compliant receiver. If you don't, you will need to send your 4K signal to the tv directly and run an audio signal separately to the receiver. Basically, if you send a video signal through a non compliant receiver, even with 4K pass through, it will not be 4K. If you plan on using it for home theatre at all, you need HDCP 2.2. See this article from Crutchfield. I found several others and they all seem equally annoyed about HDCP 2.2.

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-QIDMKuoxe2J/learn/what-you-need-to-know-about-hdcp-2-2.html

Incidentally, I would avoid the Sony receiver. I personally don't like the way Sony receivers sound. They tend to have muddy bass and bright highs. I would go with a Denon if you can't afford a Marantz.

Hi!

I need some advice. Namely, I must replace my old Onkyo with some new receivers. Because new Onkyo TX-NR646 have not upscaling I looking for:
- DENON AVR-X2200W
- YAMAHA RX-A750
- PIONEER VSX-930
Maybe I add. more money (but this exceeds my budget), and my dilemma go on:
- MARANTZ SR 5010
- YAMAHA RX-A850
I have many music concerts on DVD and music have priority over video.
My loudspeakers complet is: mission m53 (front), mission m51 (rear), mission m5c (center) and mission 53as (woofer).
Please, some advice!

Are the new models from Marantz and Denon better than what I have?

Colorado guy wrote:

Are the new models from Marantz and Denon better than what I have?

I doubt it, if by "better" you mean the sound quality.

I would get the Cambridge Audio CXR120 if I wanted superior sound quality, or one of the NAD receivers.

Lots of "Marantz Compromises Sound The Least" compared to all others "box-store" brands.

I confess I'm looking at entry level Atmos/DTS:X models (Marantz would be a 1606 I believel) and get the feeling that stuff weighing 20# will... sound like something weighing 20#'s. But would NOT mind getting recon older, more expensive unit for same price (wanting to spend nothing, but $200-350 is about my limit unless some crazy deal, like 70% off display unit.)

The 430 is buggy but may be fixable. Don't need HDMI switching, TV OK for that, but if I want to extract Immersive Sound, I guess I have to get a receiver. But if my 430 worked, I wouldn't be posting.

MrCreosote wrote:

Lots of "Marantz Compromises Sound The Least" compared to all others "box-store" brands.

I confess I'm looking at entry level Atmos/DTS:X models (Marantz would be a 1606 I believel) and get the feeling that stuff weighing 20# will... sound like something weighing 20#'s. But would NOT mind getting recon older, more expensive unit for same price (wanting to spend nothing, but $200-350 is about my limit unless some crazy deal, like 70% off display unit.)

The 430 is buggy but may be fixable. Don't need HDMI switching, TV OK for that, but if I want to extract Immersive Sound, I guess I have to get a receiver. But if my 430 worked, I wouldn't be posting.

I'd be VERY leery - if not suspicious - of an Atmos-capable AVR in that price range. You may want to look at sister site Sound and Vision to see if they have any AVR reviews within your budget:
http://www.soundandvision.com/category/av-receiver-reviews

You could also try Audiogon for previously-owned, but even still, your budget may limit your options.

Good luck!

mtymous1 wrote:

MrCreosote wrote:

Lots of "Marantz Compromises Sound The Least" compared to all others "box-store" brands.

I confess I'm looking at entry level Atmos/DTS:X models (Marantz would be a 1606 I believel) and get the feeling that stuff weighing 20# will... sound like something weighing 20#'s. But would NOT mind getting recon older, more expensive unit for same price (wanting to spend nothing, but $200-350 is about my limit unless some crazy deal, like 70% off display unit.)

The 430 is buggy but may be fixable. Don't need HDMI switching, TV OK for that, but if I want to extract Immersive Sound, I guess I have to get a receiver. But if my 430 worked, I wouldn't be posting.

I'd be VERY leery - if not suspicious - of an Atmos-capable AVR in that price range. You may want to look at sister site Sound and Vision to see if they have any AVR reviews within your budget:
http://www.soundandvision.com/category/av-receiver-reviews

You could also try Audiogon for previously-owned, but even still, your budget may limit your options.

Good luck!

There is one alternative...

Look in to the Emotiva TA-100, and then if you still have a hankerin' for multi-channel, you can later add Emotiva's XMC-1 pre/pro.

Check out the Harman-Kardon receivers on Amazon.

The AVR-1610 is only $250.

I trhink they sound better than most receivers you can get for under $500.

Check out Accessories4less. They sell refurbished gear from Denon and a few other brands. The Denon AVR-X1300 which has Atmos and is currently $319.

They also sell Pioneer, Yamaha and Onkyo and Marantz. My preference of these brands in order is Marantz, Denon Pioneer, Onkyo and Yamaha. I don't see any Marantz units that are Atmos enabled in your price range. Denon makes great receivers for the money.

Some people out here despise these brands but I find Pioneer and Onkyo to be acceptable. They sound pretty good after you run the room correction software. If you don't run room correction or listen in 2 channel audio I am far less impressed. I prefer Denon, but those other brands are acceptable for multi-channel. I personally don't like Yamaha.

If you must get an av receiver you should consider looking into older models or used Arcam or NAD or Cambridge or Rotel receivers instead. They can be had pretty cheap these days but they won't have the current features eg hdcp 2.2 for 4k pass through or dolby atmos etc but they sound better than the Denon or the Marantz or the Yamaha or the Pioneer or the Onkyo/Integra or the Sony. But if you're only doing stereo I would get a dedicated stereo integrated amplifier as it will sound better than av receivers for listening to 2ch music. But if you must get an av receiver I would highly recommend the Arcam or the NAD or the Cambridge or the Rotel receivers but these these receivers lack features and bells & whistles found in those Japanese mass produced av receivers eg Denon Marantz Yamaha Onkyo/Integra Pioneer Sony.

Earlier, I wrote:

Look in to the Emotiva TA-100, and then if you still have a hankerin' for multi-channel, you can later add Emotiva's XMC-1 pre/pro.

Sister site S&V just reported that Emotiva Offers $100 Discount on New Surround Processor
www.soundandvision.com/ content/emotiva-offers-100-discount-new-surround-processor.

whats actually going on is that people hear what they expect to hear. The audiophile community thinks Marantz sounds warm and Denon sounds bright. So that is what they hear. blindfold them all and none of them could tell the difference. A long time ago Julian Hirsch conducted an experiment in which a group of audiophiles were told they were listening to twenty thousand dollars worth of high end equipment.(twenty grand was really big bucks back in those days). After listening extensively they all waxed euphoric over the exquisite sound quality. Then Hirsch revealed to them that they had actually been listening to a 400 dollar Pioneer reciever which he had hidden from view. They thought they were listening to an Audio Research power amp. They were furious. Nothing is more subjective and influenced by the power of suggestion than high end audio. This is what makes it fun. A ten thousand dollar amp MUST sound a little bit better than a nine thousand dollar amp. TAS has built a dynasty on this kind of stuff. And so, to a lesser extent, has Stereophile.

In my younger days I built amps and speakers. Needed a way to make extra money and enjoyed working with my hands. I would invite potential customers in to my shop to let them explain what liked and expected and soon learned most people did not like true HIFi but knew what they liked. Started custom tuning speakers to what customers liked rather than accurate sound and could not build enough of them. Used 3 different amps to see what happened and only one person ever thought they could actually tell the difference but after changing amps a few times it was not the case.To be fair these were tube amps.

Hi everyone,

I have been reading with great interest this conversation.
Several years ago I purchased a set of supposedly very good speakers, namely the Mission 773e.

Here are the specs:
System type : Vented 2-way tower
Tweeter : 25mm [1"] fabric dome
Woofers : 2 x 130mm [5"] aerogel cone
Frequency response : 50Hz - 20kHz +/- 3dB
Usable bass response : -6dB at 43Hz
Volume : 15 litres
Sensitivity : 85dB / 1W / 1m
Impedance : 8 ohms nominal
Recommended power : 25 - 125 watts
Dimensions[H x W x D]: 850 x 172 x 267mm

I purchased them in this 5.1 set:
https://picclick.co.uk/Mission-Surround-Sound-Speakers-773-77c-77ds-and-223225021846.html#&gid=1&pid=1

At that time I was trying to find a compromise between listen to music and movie watching. I was fascinated by the Yamaha DSP environments technology so I ended up getting a Yamaha RX-V1200RDS.
I have been happy in terms of performance, however it never gave me that ohhh factor I was hoping to get with such an investment.
Now, I'm finally looking into upgrading my AV Receiver and since the 773 are still in great conditions I was hoping by choosing the right receiver to finally get that experience I am desperately looking for.
I understand that can happen more easily with Marantz or Denon. After long hours of reading I selected based on my budget the following 2 options:

Marantz NR1609: I selected this because it is a Marantz and hopefully will provide enough power for my living room, which is just about 6m x 4m.
DENON X4400H: This would definitely provide enough power but is the sound quality up to the Marantz?

What do you think/suggest? Will the NR1609 provide enough power for my speakers? Being a cheaper model than the DENON will the sound quality still be better/warmer as many suggests or this applied only to the bigger Marantz models?
As a side note I am not a big fan of the tiny round Marantz display.

I just need to know whether my budget is enough for what I am looking for.

Thank you so much in advance!

- Mat

I'm looking for a new receiver to go with my SACD multi-channel Player (currently both are from Marantz). I play a great many SACD Multi Channel Discs and am angry with lazy computer geeks who only play SACD "FILES" of 2 channel sound & care not at all about the channels they're not equipped to hear. Can you suggest a reasonably priced Receiver/SACD Player combo for those who listen to ALL of the great multi-channel recorded sound.

Why is it that Stereophile prints and features so many SACD Players without informing its readers whether the players in question are fully equipped & capable of delivering the full recorded multi-channel sound, or only a two channel mix-down? This does a grave disservice to those of us wanting to hear the "real deal."

Christopher Mankiewicz wrote:

I'm looking for a new receiver to go with my SACD multi-channel Player (currently both are from Marantz).

Most AVRs will do this.

Quote:

I play a great many SACD Multi Channel Discs and am angry with lazy computer geeks who only play SACD "FILES" of 2 channel sound & care not at all about the channels they're not equipped to hear.

Some of us also play multichannel files

Quote:

Can you suggest a reasonably priced Receiver/SACD Player combo for those who listen to ALL of the great multi-channel recorded sound.

I thought you had a player.

Christopher Mankiewicz wrote:

Why is it that Stereophile prints and features so many SACD Players without informing its readers whether the players in question are fully equipped & capable of delivering the full recorded multi-channel sound, or only a two channel mix-down?

Look for players with HDMI output.

Quote:

This does a grave disservice to those of us wanting to hear the "real deal."

Most Stereophile writers are interested in stereo. Try sampling some of the products in my column although I do admit that I have less interest in discs and disc-players of late.