UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (15) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: RocketsMomma Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 10537  
Subject: Why not Marantz? Date: 10/9/2012 11:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I pretty much only see Yamaha and sometimes Onkyo talked about here.

Is there a reason for this? Is there anything wrong with Marantz for instance?

accessoriesforless for instance has one left on this one for $249. Sure it's refurbished but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. And I know one of you guys just bought something from them and seemed pretty happy.

http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/MARSR4003/...

Then of course there is Denon which actually wouldn't work for my current DVD player since it has no component inputs.

Just curious.

RM
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9664 of 10537
Subject: Re: Why not Marantz? Date: 10/9/2012 1:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I can't really speak for Marantz. No experience.

Yamaha and Onkyo get most of the attention because they are generally the best bang for the buck. They both make really good stuff, and they don't charge boutique prices for it.

We may be seriously into this stuff, but we do have spouses and need to watch the budget too. :-)

I have the RX-V1900. Beautiful unit. But probably a lot more than you want/need. In my case I am planning to use the second zone eventually.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RocketsMomma Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9665 of 10537
Subject: Re: Why not Marantz? Date: 10/9/2012 1:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And what about Pioneer? Newegg seems to be having a sale on them. A long, long time ago I owned a Pioneer stereo receiver. I think my dad gave it to me for Christmas when I was still living at home. For the life of me I have no idea whatever happened to it Though I remember when we went to Tweeter, etc and we bought our Onkyos.

RM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFTwitty Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9666 of 10537
Subject: Re: Why not Marantz? Date: 10/9/2012 1:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The Marantz brand isn't the same company we used to know and love, but still appears to be high-end. It's part of a Japanese electronics firm now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marantz

Richard

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9667 of 10537
Subject: Re: Why not Marantz? Date: 10/9/2012 2:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
IMO, Pioneer is not a match for either Yamaha or Onkyo.

Back in my poor student days I had Pioneer stuff. It was fine. Beat the heck out of what I had as a teen (some combined unit with a turntable and a pair of speakers). Yamaha is a whole 'nother world by comparison, though. Again, IMO.

I would say Pioneer is near the top of the low-end. Yamaha is the top of the mid-range, or perhaps the bottom of the high-end. Most "high-end" audiophile stuff is ungodly expensive, and probably brands you've never heard of (you won't find them at Best Buy or Costco). We're talking $5000 for a cassette player. I saw one at a local store over 20 years ago. Today it's probably more.

Pioneer will serve the purpose. But comparing it to Yamaha is like comparing a Geo Metro to an Audi A6. It's really no comparison. IMO.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MichaelRead Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Winner! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9668 of 10537
Subject: Re: Why not Marantz? Date: 10/9/2012 2:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I pretty much only see Yamaha and sometimes Onkyo talked about here.

Is there a reason for this? Is there anything wrong with Marantz for instance?

accessoriesforless for instance has one left on this one for $249. Sure it's refurbished but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. And I know one of you guys just bought something from them and seemed pretty happy.

RM


We’re now into a different aspect of deciding an amp: tonality. Nothing wrong with Marantz or Pioneer (I have a Pioneer BD-09 Blu-ray player) but at the amplified signal stage Yamaha and Onkyo (except in models below a certain price range where some corners are cut) have a better basic sound floor.

It’s not a matter of sheer amp power but how that power affects the entire tonal spectrum. To me Yamaha does that better. We can talk about player jitter affecting sound and, yes, you do pay more for a player that has it solved but if the amp doesn’t have ‘tonality’ the effort is somewhat irrelevant.

It’s more than being subjective. Some reviewers of amps get into words more suitable in describing a fine wine since the amp – no matter how good or bad – adds a flavor to the signal. In practice, the sound is easier to listen to and less tiring in a better constructed amp.

The Marantz you linked to may be good (the specs are interesting) or not. Don’t know since I haven’t heard Marantz for years .The company has changed hands and while the new builders may have made a good unit I would like to have an A-B comparison with a comparable Yamaha.

This may sound as if I have a bias and, in some ways, I have. I have bought Yamaha for several decades and. to me, Yamaha amps have that tonality I like.

MichaelR

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: RocketsMomma Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9670 of 10537
Subject: Re: Why not Marantz? Date: 10/9/2012 7:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Thanks for the info. I had one of those combined turntable/radio unit with speakers too. Then dad gave me the Pioneer.

Can anyone tell me the difference between Yamaha's RX and HTR lines? Seem pretty similar to me and I'm not finding anything obvious from searching. Third party reviewers seem to think they're about equivalent assuming you can figure out which HTR matches up with which RX-v. I'm looking at a Yamaha HTR-5063.

I'm hoping I'll come to a decision by the end of the week. I need to stop expanding the search though.

RM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RocketsMomma Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9671 of 10537
Subject: Re: Why not Marantz? Date: 10/9/2012 7:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I have bought Yamaha for several decades and. to me, Yamaha amps have that tonality I like.

well we like the same kind of movies so at least I know you think they sound good on a Yamaha. I don't think I've ever heard a Marantz or if I did it was back in the late 70s at a stereo store. I'm not sure I quite understand how an amp makes a difference in tonal quality though. I grew up thinking speakers were the thing. And as you've read my last 20 years have been spent with the Sony AVR and the Onkyo stereo.

I'm still hoping that one of the units I'm looking at on Amazon will fit the bill. Just have to keep weighing the specs and deciding what is more important.

RM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9672 of 10537
Subject: Re: Why not Marantz? Date: 10/9/2012 8:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I've never really looked at the HTR, but here are a few opinions:

http://forums.audiworld.com/archive/index.php/t-2652285.html...

HTR = "consumer" channel, stuff sold in Best Buy and Fry's and the like. Used to be the "RV" line.

RXV = "dealer" channel, stuff sold in A/V specialty stores that can offer a higher level of customer service and support than the big box places.


Or another offers this:
HTR - for those who don't read the manual
RXV: for those who want to get the best out of their system and are willing to get to know the gear.


I found an old Yamaha FAQ (quoted by someone else...the link to the FAQ was dead). I think the above summarizes this pretty well, and much more succinctly:

There are many similarities between these two product lines. The RX-V line and the HTR line are produced in the same Yamaha factory using the same high quality parts throughout. The RX-V and equivalent HTR models have the same warranty periods, the same manufacturer's suggested retail price, the same features, and the same remote control units.

There is a cosmetic difference found on the front panels of these two lines. The RX-V line maintains the traditional white colored lettering normally found on most Yamaha components, while the HTR line provides a slightly different approach. Yamaha has created a new look by using gold colored lettering in selected areas on the HTR receiver series. However, both the RX-V line and the HTR line feature the same high quality metal front panel construction.

The amplifiers in the HTR and RX-V units are identical but rated differently to comply with the accepted measurement standards of their respective channels of distribution. Both ratings are FTC approved and are designed to handle the dynamics of today's audio and video sources. The RX-V line has the power amplifiers rated from 20-20000 Hz. The HTR line has the power amplifiers rated at 1000 Hz. Both lines can reproduce the full frequency response of 20-20000 Hz.

The RX-V line is typically sold through Yamaha authorized audio/video specialty retailers, and is not available for mail order sales.

The HTR line is sold through mass merchants, catalog retailers, and department stores. You may also purchase the HTR line through the mail.

All transactions must be done through the authorized Yamaha dealer network. Any purchase made from an unauthorized dealer/retailer voids the Yamaha manufacturer's warranty.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: MichaelRead Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Winner! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9673 of 10537
Subject: Re: Why not Marantz? Date: 10/9/2012 8:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Can anyone tell me the difference between Yamaha's RX and HTR lines? Seem pretty similar to me and I'm not finding anything obvious from searching. Third party reviewers seem to think they're about equivalent assuming you can figure out which HTR matches up with which RX-v. I'm looking at a Yamaha HTR-5063.

RM


The Yamaha line up is the RX-V (and RX-Z) series (more features, higher price) and that includes the new Aventage RX-A series (some features from the high end RX-V and RX-Z) series and costing slightly less) and the HTR (Home Theater Receiver) at the low end as to price and features. You’ll note on Yamaha’s web site many of the models are now discontinued as the company more centers on the Aventage line.

My view is Yamaha may drop the RX-Z (too expensive) and HTR series (too few features) in favor of Aventage. Already Yamaha has discontinued its flagship RX-Z11 ($5,500) and has not announced a replacement other than the RX-A3020 (11.2) at $2,200.

I'm hoping I'll come to a decision by the end of the week. I need to stop expanding the search though.

Research is half the fun. It took me a good six months deciding on the RX-Z11. Read all the review, talked with people, visited stores, had a ball.

Chatting with you has been (is) fun.

MichaelR

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RocketsMomma Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9675 of 10537
Subject: Re: Why not Marantz? Date: 10/9/2012 9:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Chatting with you has been (is) fun.

MichaelR


Yeah, I'm having a blast, too. And once I buy my AVR I won't disappear because there's still setting it up and tweaking it. It's a lot more involved than the Sony's test tones and decibel selection.

Then there's the possibility of a blu-ray player in my future. I think DH feels that continuing my upgrades is not stopping here. In the words of agent Smith "it is inevitable." Of course he doesn't realize the one I'm looking at now (still the RX-v571) is a 7.1 system. So hey, I could be buying more speakers maybe next year, or the year after, who knows?

Now I've even thinking how to re-arrange our living room to get us closer to the TV. We are farther than optimum for a 42" screen (DH thinks the optimum seating recommendations are another marketing ploy). I'm not sure it's possible though without throwing out the sofa and I think my dogs would rebel.

Then there's finding a solution to the ancient VCR. DVR would be nice but so far everything I've read is not promising. But let's not get into that now.

So it looks like you guys are stuck with me.

Thanks to you and 1poorguy for continuing my education.

RM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MichaelRead Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Winner! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9678 of 10537
Subject: Re: Why not Marantz? Date: 10/9/2012 11:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Chatting with you has been (is) fun.

MichaelR


Yeah, I'm having a blast, too. And once I buy my AVR I won't disappear because there's still setting it up and tweaking it. It's a lot more involved than the Sony's test tones and decibel selection.

RM


Selecting and buying home theater stuff is, what, a few months? Tweaking is, well I don’t know, I’ve only had a home theater for twenty years. One day I am going to build the perfect home theater and attach a house to it. Meanwhile: “Elly, I think we need some concrete blocks to raise the subs up a foot or two.” Or, “Elly, I realize it’s been more than a week but I think I am getting the bass where I like it.” And on.

Then there's the possibility of a Blu-ray player in my future. I think DH feels that continuing my upgrades is not stopping here. In the words of agent Smith "it is inevitable." Of course he doesn't realize the one I'm looking at now (still the RX-v571) is a 7.1 system. So hey, I could be buying more speakers maybe next year, or the year after, who knows?

A Blu-ray player will set you back about slightly less than $100 (LG 620 for example) but with your system I’d go for the extra speakers first since the amp is setup for it and the extra speakers will be used in normal viewing of stuff coming through the satellite feed.

Now I've even thinking how to re-arrange our living room to get us closer to the TV. We are farther than optimum for a 42" screen (DH thinks the optimum seating recommendations are another marketing ploy). I'm not sure it's possible though without throwing out the sofa and I think my dogs would rebel.

Think the entire length of the sofa as a sweet spot. That’s a good start.

MichaelR

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: RocketsMomma Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9680 of 10537
Subject: Re: Why not Marantz? Date: 10/10/2012 12:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Think the entire length of the sofa as a sweet spot. That’s a good start. 

For the heck of it, here's the rough outline of my Living room. It's one of those "great rooms" with cathedral 
ceiling, kitchen and dining room off to the left about the same width but longer (stairs behind stereo wall to 
basement and loft). Huge pine beams span the entire space and all the walls and ceiling are pine boards. 
The realtor called it a "lodge".


      (stairwell)
 ___Stereo/TV wall____door
K|                        |
I|                        |FRONT DOOR
T|                        |
C|S                       |
H|O                       |W
E|F                       |I
N|A                       |N
&|                        |D
D|                        |O
R|                        |W
M|                        |
--------DH-----Me----------
         window


DH and I sit against a wall with another window behind us, there is no wall behind the sofa. I just 
measured and thereis ~16.5 feet between our eyes and the front of the TV. According to various charts, 
anywhere from about 6ft to 17.5 feet is good enough though Crutchfield says 9 feet is their farthest limit. 


I suppose I could move our seats closer, it's a recliner for DH and a glider/rocker with foot stool for me. 
But then we'd have to run extension cords to the table lamp and our laptops (or drill another hole in 
the floor and stick in a floor outlet, it's what we've done for the sofa tables just without the outlet, 
there's a fat cord coming up under the sofa from the basement) and what would we do with the weird little 
space behind us? Maybe I'll try it just for grins and see >what DH (let's call him Hal, he needs a name) 
thinks when he comes home tonight. ;-) First I need to put the Swedish meatballs together.


RM


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9682 of 10537
Subject: Re: Why not Marantz? Date: 10/10/2012 1:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
IMO, you definitely want to pull the seats away from the wall. Your rear surround speakers will work better if they are actually behind you. Even just a few feet. Also, for a smaller TV (40", I believe you said), I think 16' is too far. I'd be more like 8-10'. Our TV is a 60" (as I recall). We sit about 10' from it. Maybe a little more. (I should probably measure everything out...I already know I was off a bit when we were discussing placement last week because my sub is about 4' from the corner, not 1').

If you have the option to install a floor outlet at the new seat location, then you're golden. Go for it.

The YPAO of the Yamaha should also help with your room anomalies (rooms in the real world are seldom acoustically perfect). Nice heavy draperies over the windows might be a good thing, too.

Not sure about that "weird little space" when you pull the chairs out. Without seeing the place it's hard to say much. I know I would move the A/V wall if I could, but I don't know if you can. (I would put it against the bottom wall, basically flipping the room top/bottom. Then when you pull the chairs away from the top wall you create a faux corridor behind the chairs that would line up with the front door. Of course the window on the bottom wall could be a pain then. Like I said, I'd have to see it. Stand in the room and SEE it.)

1poorguy

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: RocketsMomma Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9688 of 10537
Subject: Re: Why not Marantz? Date: 10/10/2012 8:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Technically we could move the TV and the cabinet holding the equipment onto that bottom wall, it would definitely obscure the window. But it leaves the problem of where to put the matching cabinet that has the stereo/hifi equipment. Obviously, it couldn't stay where it is if that became a walkway behind the chairs. So for now I think we're stuck with the current configuration.

However, I did move the chairs and their end table forward about 2 feet. I also switched my chair with Hal's since mine is narrower and allows more room between it and the corner of the sofa end table. So now our eyes are about 14.5 feet away instead of 16.5. (It's a 42" TV).

I don't know how Hal will like it but so far I like it. Into that weird little space I put the giant dog bed that was laying in front of the TV behind my chair and a small table behind Hal's which now holds the printer that was on the floor behind us.

If flipping was possible it would be nice in that we'd be able to see the fireplace again which is on that back window wall.

RM

PS Hal is home, "seems fine".

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (15) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement