AV Receiver?

[Poultrygeist]

I'm looking to upgrade to an AV HDMI receiver. I'm not up on the current brands of choice but I can get a great deal on the Marantz SR6006 or a 5006. I'm speaker poor so matching is not much of an issue.

How would these Marantz AVR's stack up against the competition in their price range or is there something else I should consider?

[SlumpBuster]

Depends on the deal. I'm not sure I'd spend $1200 on an AVR anymore. Rather I'd put the money into quality amps and use AVRs in the $300 to 600 price range as pre/pros. I've seen two very nice systems set up that way, one with Jamo in one and Dynaudio in the other powered by separates and an approx. $400 AVR. It's also how I have mine set up now, so when I get a new AVR I'm not paying for stuff I don't need. If you can get that Marantz into that price range (or even $800), it would be a very good deal.

My current $1000 AVR is non-hdmi and was obsolete about a year after I bought it. I won't make that same mistake again.

[pixelthis]

A FRIEND bought one of the cheaper ONKYOS for 350
bucks, and its great, even has a universal remote that actually is functional. I HAVE the higher line version...Integra, but have heard that they moved the whole line upscale.
I PAID 1200 for a 7.4 Integra that was obsolete almost immediately
(still served for four years or so) and while trying to replace it
listened to MARANTZ, was, as the BRITS say, a "nice piece of kit",
but the place where I got credit did not have that brand. IT IS
something I have always liked, but you have these brands you like,
and it never seems to fall together to buy one. I HAD credit line,
and a good (understatement) experience with Integra, and a
1,000 one on sale, so it was not in the cards to get a MARANTZ.:1:

[pixelthis]

I might add that INTEGRA is a great preamp, so its a cheap
way to get into separates territory. That doesn't matter much for HT,
but a separate amp for the left/rights is very nice.:1:

[BadAssJazz]

I've not heard any bad reviews yet on the Marantz receivers. All seem to be more than capable performers.

Having said that, how exactly do you define speaker poor? If that means what I think it means, I would likely look for a low to mid-tier receiver in the $500 - $700 range and save the rest to upgrade the speakers. In my opinion that would deliver a marked improvement over pairing a $1K+ AVR with underwhelming speakers. Reminds me of the kids back in high school who bought $8,000 rims for a $2,000 Yugo. You're never going to get even close to maximum performance, and hence enjoyment, for your dollar.

[recoveryone]

Wide open question at best, not knowing the details of your budget, current gear in use and so on leaves a lot of room to wonder and pull down the wish list everyone has in the back pocket of our minds. I will just offer my own setup as a reference point of price:

Main system total out new $3k todays value around $1500

Bedroom system new $1k todays value around $400

Those prices include speakers and TV along with the AV gear. So take Jazz advice and make sure you don't over spend on the AVR and be disappointed with the sound, due to the speakers.

[Poultrygeist]

"Speaker poor" means one has been made poor by excessive speaker purchases and builds. Will probably try my Zu's as mains but have other comparable DIY options. I need to go with a very good receiver as I don't have space for separates.

I am fortunate to be able to buy many HT products at or near cost.

[Worf101]

"Speaker poor" means one has been made poor by excessive speaker purchases and builds. Will probably try my Zu's as mains but have other comparable DIY options. I need to go with a very good receiver as I don't have space for separates.

I am fortunate to be able to buy many HT products at or near cost.

Just a couple of basic questionsl:

Size of room?

Number of speakers you intend to use? 5.1 7.1 or more.

Do you need extra zones (remote locations)?

How many HDMI inputs do you need?

Will it be single use or perform "double duty" HT and Music?

Budget?

With these answers folks will be able to help you...

Worf

[Poultrygeist]

Sorry I should have been more clear and just asked how the Marantz ( SR5006/6006 ) stacks up against the competition? Or is there something else in their price range or less I should consider?

[pixelthis]

THERE is no such think as "speaker poor". SPEAKERS
are the most expensive part of a system(or should be)
and tend to last a long time.
WITH the wires I have about 2500-2800 in mine, including a
1200 dollar sub, and that is cheap. Would like to upgrade as my speakers are eight-nine years old, but would keep the sub, which I LOVE, but to justify an upgrade I would need to spend five to eight grand to improve over what I have.
WILL probably upgrade the way I did last time, a set of
mains, then center, surrounds last, or put current speakers into use for that.
YOU can spend a lot on speakers true, but they are almost always worth it, because you can upgrade the system to match them,
they are the most important component in your system.:1:

[BadAssJazz]

Sorry I should have been more clear and just asked how the Marantz ( SR5006/6006 ) stacks up against the competition? Or is there something else in their price range or less I should consider?

Gotcha.

When it comes to any of the $1200 receivers made by Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Onkyo, Onkyo Integra, Pioneer Elite, and...I'm forgetting a brand here or there... you'll find that all are equally solid receivers, the primary differences being in the buyer's feature requirements (e.g., preference for 2 HDMI outs as opposed to 1).

You won't really notice a tremendous leap in performance until you've stepped up to one of the $2000 (or more) receivers made by NAD, Rotel, BK, or the $4000 or more receivers made by the likes of Arcam, Anthem, etc. Of course at those pricepoints many here and elsewhere will plead with you to consider a pre/pro + amp separates build over a receiver.

You should be fine with any of the Marantz units, especially if you're getting a great price on one. I recommend popping over to AVSForum for feedback from actual owners of those specific models.

[harley .guy07]

In the price range you are looking at I have talked to people that say that the Marantz is good but I would also give the new Aventage line from Yamaha a listen, I have nothing but great things from their new line I know If I were ready to replace my AVR for theater use i would look real close at the Aventage line.

[GMichael]

I'm looking to upgrade to an AV HDMI receiver. I'm not up on the current brands of choice but I can get a great deal on the Marantz SR6006 or a 5006. I'm speaker poor so matching is not much of an issue.

How would these Marantz AVR's stack up against the competition in their price range or is there something else I should consider?
Marantz is one of the many good choices for AVR's. If that's the brand that you can get the best deals on, I see no reason not to take advantage of that.

[pixelthis]

Gotcha.

When it comes to any of the $1200 receivers made by Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Onkyo, Onkyo Integra, Pioneer Elite, and...I'm forgetting a brand here or there... you'll find that all are equally solid receivers, the primary differences being in the buyer's feature requirements (e.g., preference for 2 HDMI outs as opposed to 1).

You won't really notice a tremendous leap in performance until you've stepped up to one of the $2000 (or more) receivers made by NAD, Rotel, BK, or the $4000 or more receivers made by the likes of Arcam, Anthem, etc. Of course at those pricepoints many here and elsewhere will plead with you to consider a pre/pro + amp separates build over a receiver.

You should be fine with any of the Marantz units, especially if you're getting a great price on one. I recommend popping over to AVSForum for feedback from actual owners of those specific models.

VERY ASTUTE observation, mainly that receiver q tends to increase greatly around 1,000,1,200 bucks. ITS like a completely
different product in that range.
GO UP ANOTHER GRAND and you start getting separate power supplies, etc.:1:

[Poultrygeist]

I ordered the Marantz SR6006 which is so new there's limited information from users. I did read in one review that the SR7005 ( older model ) replaced a Krell 7.1 in one system and the owner said he could detect no difference in sound quality between the two.

[bfalls]

I see from the specs the receiver is HDMI 1.4a compatible. This should help future-proof your purchase---somewhat. It should cover audio and video resolution changes. It should also work as a communication hub for other HDMI 1.4 components.

I understand Slumpbuster's situation. I purchased a Lexicon CP1+ Dolby Pro-Logic processor for almost $1500. AC3 (Dolby Digital) came out and except for the processor's excellent DSP features, it was left in the dust. Who wants four channel derived surround when AC3 provided 5.1 discrete channels? I still have the unit for music. It's worth more to me than it would be to anyone else.

If Blu-ray has shown us anything anything, it's definitely shown us the value of network updates. I would hope all $1000+ receivers would be firmware upgradeable. The Marantz is also a very nice looking receiver. It reminds me of Monster hardware. Industrial Chic.

[BadAssJazz]

I ordered the Marantz SR6006 which is so new there's limited information from users. I did read in one review that the SR7005 ( older model ) replaced a Krell 7.1 in one system and the owner said he could detect no difference in sound quality between the two.

Let us know how it turns out. I'm finished with all of my upgrades for the year (the speakers were the last of it), but that doesn't mean that I can't live vicariously through you. Keep us posted.

[kelsci]

In the case of Bfalls on his Lexicon CP-1 plus, it certainly would be viable to use for music. These processors were tremendous in their day.

Poultrygeist; Make a throrough check of that Marantz 6006 when it comes in. Make sure the Audessey setup sets it self up correctly. Once hooked up, make sure the sound quality of your movies are dynamic and dramatic.

This is the reason why I made the above statement. My brother recently went through a number of receivers. He tried the Onkyo 608 but the front speakers were coming out of the rear and vica versa and he did have it hooked up right. The store checked out the receiver and found it all screwed up.

He then tried a Denon 897(I hope I got this stock number right) The bass response over the sub seemed not to time correctly with the satellites. He also did not like the bass response.

He tried a Marantz 5005. He objected that the onscreen programing would not overlay over a tv or dvd signal; you had to shut those down to see the onsceen menu. The audio quality was great though.

He went thru 3 6005s. Either the Audessey did not work properly or the sound of one unit was flat as a pancake.

He almost settled on an Onkyo 808. Considering the build quality of this unit you would think you would be in surround sound heaven. Its sound and surround processing stunk.

He then ordered a Denon 3311. The unit has very good sound and excellent dynamics reminding me of a Lexicon CP-1. Bass response was very good over his sub(an Omni S-12). The Audessey worked properly. He kept this unit.

[Johnny B. Galt]

I'm late to this discussion.... I subscribe to Home Theater magazine and their latest issue is their annual AVR buying guide. Lots of info, product reviews, and terms defined. I'm planning on buying an Onkyo 609 but my budget is entry-level at $500. You might be interested in their mid-range price top picks. I was a little surprised that a lot of the magazine is on their website. Here's what they've got on their website: http://www.hometheater.com/av-receivers-buyers-guide Also, at their main page they've got "Receivers versus Separates" and "Marantz AV7005 vs. Integra DHC-40.2"

[Poultrygeist]

I've been living with the Marantz SR6006 for a few days now. It has that lovely old school Marantz warmth that's so endearing. I've not been able to play DTS HD music vids for extended periods due to dropouts. There's a handshake issue between the BRP and the Marantz due my out dated HDMI cables. My new 1.4 cables are on the way

What I'm really enjoying about the Marantz is it's fidelity in two channel. The HQ internet radio stations sound amazing. It's DAC is top notch and is equal to or better than my Audio GD. The Marantz is currently driving Athena F2 mains, ASC-1 center, ASB-1 surrounds, with a Sunfire sub. The power with these efficient speakers is comparable to my Panasonic XR55 class D AVR. The Marantz is sonically superior but it offers no more dynamics than the class D. I plan to try the Zu's with the Marantz when I have the time.

The styling of this beast of a receiver is interestingly retro. But the small port hole makes little sense as you can't read the graphics without standing close by. It's loaded with more features than I care to learn about right now but I love the "pure mode" which offers unadulterated sound in two channel. It's also has a phono stage which is getting rare in AVR's.

The Audessey set up was a piece of cake and I'm not having issues with the onscreen overlay over Sat/DVD. The 5.1 sound from Directv HD is excellent. I'll give some updates as I spend more time with this charmer.

[kelsci]

Hi Poultry; It sounds like you got a good one. My only concerned is your mentioning of "dynamics", Once you get your new cables, put on any dvd disc that you know in the past had "dynamics" on their sound track and see how it plays on your receiver. Direct tv does have good Dolby Digital 5.1. If this model has the high def fm tuner, give that a whirl. That was something that really sounded good on the 6005. The radio section was outstanding in selectivity and sensitivity. I agree that Marantz does give a type of sound like you describe and I heard that on the 5005 model which my brother should have never returned for I still felt it had a more "pleasing" sound than his Denon but perhaps not as dramatic in dynamics but still way above good. Check to see that your surround processing is pleasing on the 6006 as well; you should be surrounded in surround sound if it is working properly.

[Poultrygeist]

To compare the dynamics of the Marantz to the Class D is a good thing as the Panny has it in spades. I haven't listened to HD radio yet as I haven't run the coax from the attic mounted TV antenna. Internet radio can fool me into thinking I'm listening to a CD, it's that good! The sound processing is startling as I'm hearing voices and sounds coming from unexpected places. Never got this with the Panny with it's less distinct surrounds. Can't wait to experience "Master and Commander" with the new cables.

[pixelthis]

I've been living with the Marantz SR6006 for a few days now. It has that lovely old school Marantz warmth that's so endearing. I've not been able to play DTS HD music vids for extended periods due to dropouts. There's a handshake issue between the BRP and the Marantz due my out dated HDMI cables. My new 1.4 cables are on the way

What I'm really enjoying about the Marantz is it's fidelity in two channel. The HQ internet radio stations sound amazing. It's DAC is top notch and is equal to or better than my Audio GD. The Marantz is currently driving Athena F2 mains, ASC-1 center, ASB-1 surrounds, with a Sunfire sub. The power with these efficient speakers is comparable to my Panasonic XR55 class D AVR. The Marantz is sonically superior but it offers no more dynamics than the class D. I plan to try the Zu's with the Marantz when I have the time.

The styling of this beast of a receiver is interestingly retro. But the small port hole makes little sense as you can't read the graphics without standing close by. It's loaded with more features than I care to learn about right now but I love the "pure mode" which offers unadulterated sound in two channel. It's also has a phono stage which is getting rare in AVR's.

The Audessey set up was a piece of cake and I'm not having issues with the onscreen overlay over Sat/DVD. The 5.1 sound from Directv HD is excellent. I'll give some updates as I spend more time with this charmer.


THATS HD not "hq" radio.
DOES the new toy have "rds" also? THE HD radio does have CD sound, very good to listen to. Nice to hear about the phono stage, maybe they are making a comeback.
CONGRATS on your new "toy", MARANTZ is an outstanding
line of products.:1:

[Poultrygeist]

To me HQ internet radio means high quality internet radio while HD radio is OTA ( over-the-air )

[pixelthis]

To me HQ internet radio means high quality internet radio while HD radio is OTA ( over-the-air )

OOPS, I MISREAD YOU OR SOMETHING.
Some of the net music is quite good, but only for casual
listening, most uses a miserly bitrate.:1: