NAD vs. Marantz

[sound is essential]

Which receiver do you guys consider better for music reproduction? I've listened to Marantz but not NAD. I I've read many positive reviews about NAD but the only NAD dealer near me is in the process of construction so they don't really have a sound demo room. I would have to special order and if not satisfied they would allow me to return it. I'm just curious about the comparison between these two. Do they sound about the same for music reproduction or would you give the edge to one over the other? 2 channel is much more important to me than home theater and I'm not satisfied with the 2 channel sound of my Denon. Please let me know if any of you have experience comparing Marantz and NAD.

[sound is essential]

Which receiver do you guys consider better for music reproduction? I've listened to Marantz but not NAD. I I've read many positive reviews about NAD but the only NAD dealer near me is in the process of construction so they don't really have a sound demo room. I would have to special order and if not satisfied they would allow me to return it. I'm just curious about the comparison between these two. Do they sound about the same for music reproduction or would you give the edge to one over the other? 2 channel is much more important to me than home theater and I'm not satisfied with the 2 channel sound of my Denon. Please let me know if any of you have experience comparing Marantz and NAD.

I forgot to mention that I did like the musical sound of Marantz.

[RoyY51]

Which receiver do you guys consider better for music reproduction? I've listened to Marantz but not NAD. I I've read many positive reviews about NAD but the only NAD dealer near me is in the process of construction so they don't really have a sound demo room. I would have to special order and if not satisfied they would allow me to return it. I'm just curious about the comparison between these two. Do they sound about the same for music reproduction or would you give the edge to one over the other? 2 channel is much more important to me than home theater and I'm not satisfied with the 2 channel sound of my Denon. Please let me know if any of you have experience comparing Marantz and NAD.

I've recently had the opportunity to compare the NAD T762 to the older Marantz SR780. I decided to upgrade to the NAD, in part to experience all the new formats that have burst upon the scene in the last few years ( the Marantz only has Dolby 5.1 ), and also because of the glowing reviews touting the NAD's superior musicality. I expected the NAD to blow away my 6 year old Marantz, but, unfortunately, it didn't happen.

While the NAD does have (marginally) superior soundstaging, imaging, and resolution of detail, it is missing the magical midrange and the taut, punchy bass of the Marantz. The SR780 makes my Monitor Audio B2's come alive: vocals are beautifully reproduced, with a relaxed warmth that makes me want to listen to to my favorite recordings, over and over again. Bass is well defined, with a "punch" that makes it totally unnecessary to engage my subwoofer.

The NAD, on the other hand, has a more clinical approach to the midrange frequencies. It is somewhat harsher, more "glassy" than the Marantz. The bass is a much bigger disappointment: it's flaccid, punchless, and requires that I use my subwoofer to balance out the mids and highs. Unfortunately, my subwoofer does not integrate with the B2's nearly as well as the B2's natural complement of speakers, so I am left with a musical reproduction that is not nearly as satisfying as what I hear through the Marantz.

Please understand that this evaluation is for these specific units. NAD may have overcome these problems on other models; Marantz may have caught lightning in a bottle on this unit, and sunk into sonic mediocrity since then. Or, it could be that the B2's and the 780 have some kind of complementary, once-in-a-blue-moon chemistry. I can only report on what I hear with these specific components.

I hope this helps!

[kexodusc]

You won't notice much real world difference in the sound quality ability if at all between two similarly priced NAD and Marantz units. You can expect the NAD to have more usuable power, which might be better for your needs, but probably at the expense of some bells and whistles.
Without knowing which 2 models you're looking at it's hard to compare.

If you are more concerned about 2 channel sound, why not buy a good, used NAD 3140 or 3020 Integrated amp, both of those are tough to beat for $100-$120 (ebay) and then get a Yamaha or Denon A/V receiver new or used for your home theatre needs?
Those old NAD integrated amps are built like tanks and have wonderful, rich round to them.

[Slosh]

My experience echos Roy's, only with integrated stereo amps. Besides NAD I also auditioned Rotel, Denon, and Arcam. And Yamaha and Sony ES but both these were quickly booted off the list (too forward in the mids for my tastes). I was all set to buy the Arcam Alpha 9 but the dealer had a Marantz connected to exactly the same kind of speakers. The only difference between the two set-ups were the CD players (both were the same brands as the amps). The Marantz sounded every bit as good to me (with a lesser CD player) for $360 less. This was in 1996, FWIW.

I also have a Marantz SR-5200 A/V receiver in my bedroom system. In this instance I was going to buy a Denon AVR-1801 and this dealer had the Marantz receiver connected to the same speaker system. The Denon didn't sound at all bad per se but kind of bland compared to the Marantz, which was only $30 more. So I've ended up buying two different Marantz amps when I intended to buy something else. Speaks volumes, no?

Since you like the Marantz sound also check out Pioneer Elite. You may be pleasantly surprised. I have no experience with standard series Pioneer amps however.

[sound is essential]

My experience echos Roy's, only with integrated stereo amps. Besides NAD I also auditioned Rotel, Denon, and Arcam. And Yamaha and Sony ES but both these were quickly booted off the list (too forward in the mids for my tastes). I was all set to buy the Arcam Alpha 9 but the dealer had a Marantz connected to exactly the same kind of speakers. The only difference between the two set-ups were the CD players (both were the same brands as the amps). The Marantz sounded every bit as good to me (with a lesser CD player) for $360 less. This was in 1996, FWIW.

I also have a Marantz SR-5200 A/V receiver in my bedroom system. In this instance I was going to buy a Denon AVR-1801 and this dealer had the Marantz receiver connected to the same speaker system. The Denon didn't sound at all bad per se but kind of bland compared to the Marantz, which was only $30 more. So I've ended up buying two different Marantz amps when I intended to buy something else. Speaks volumes, no?

Since you like the Marantz sound also check out Pioneer Elite. You may be pleasantly surprised. I have no experience with standard series Pioneer amps however.

Ok. I should have mentioned my other equipment. I have a small setup with B&W DM600S3 mains, B&W LCR60 center, B&W CCM20 in-ceiling rears, and a Polk PSW303 sub. I do also have a Rotel RB 980BX 2 channel amp that I purchased from ebay on the way. So it will be used to power the main speakers. But I need a musical receiver for a preamp.

[kexodusc]

You would be so much further ahead to buy a quality used integrated or pre-amp to use in your setup than use an a/v receiver as a preamp for music purposes...can't stress that enough.
Many here believe the pre-amp has more effect on audio quality than the amplifier. Ask RGA, or HiFiTommy about the importance of a good pre-amp that doesn't convert everything to digital first.

[sound is essential]

Ok. So what would be different about using a receiver as a preamp?

[kexodusc]

There are many reasons. You should search the amps/preamps forum for a comprehensive list of why, but the most common is simply the fact that a receiver has a ton of different little functions for which it is responsible. To package all of these inside one box is to invite compromise in some areas. Just like your Rotel power amp has more "real power" than a receiver with a higher rating, a good separate pre-amp does it's job better. You could ask this question in the amps/preamps forum and many more would answer for you.

That being said, there's nothing wrong with using a receiver as a pre-amp. I just read your post and get the impression you are very concerned about 2-channel stereo music quality. If this is you preference, build the strongest Stereo you can and compromise on the home theatre side of things...

[Slosh]

You would be so much further ahead to buy a quality used integrated or pre-amp to use in your setup than use an a/v receiver as a preamp for music purposes...can't stress that enough.
Many here believe the pre-amp has more effect on audio quality than the amplifier. Ask RGA, or HiFiTommy about the importance of a good pre-amp that doesn't convert everything to digital first.

The pre-amp section of my integrated (especially the phono-stage) is defintely cleaner and fuller than any receiver I own or have owned however, nearly every receiver these days comes with an analog bypass switch that levels the playing field in my experience. Even when someone is running small main speakers and a sub you could still use the sub's speaker level inputs/outputs and set up the receiver as large mains/no sub, thus would be able to listen to analog sources without A/D conversion taking place. On the digital side of the coin I've found my SR-5200's DACs to be better than any others I own (which include two different pre/pros and various CD and DVD-video players) except for my Pioneer Elite universal DVD player's, which I slightly prefer.

Adding an analog pre (along with another volume control) doesn't seem necessary to me.

Since there is a separate power amp on its way, why would another receiver be needed? I thought all Denons had at least front pre-outs. More features/formats?

[kexodusc]

This is true...I approach it a bit more black and white. If a person is looking for 2-ch stereo, then use the resources they have to best achieve that. I haven't heard a receiver ever outperform a similarly priced pre-amp or even an integrated at a pre-amp's job...but, then again, most pre-amps don't have the benefits of super mass production, all the 5.1 processing, DSP's etc, etc, so there's 2 ways to go. Receivers are a great value. I may have wrongly assumed that sound is essential already has an a/v receiver to go with the speakers setup he has.


My old SR-5000 is easily outperformed by my 20 year old NAD-3140 for 2-channel music, however. There's no substitute for higher quality components and better design in the pre-amp section. And to be honest, the analog bypass in most HT receivers these days isn't much to get excited over, though it does offer some improvement.

[sound is essential]

This is true...I approach it a bit more black and white. If a person is looking for 2-ch stereo, then use the resources they have to best achieve that. I haven't heard a receiver ever outperform a similarly priced pre-amp or even an integrated at a pre-amp's job...but, then again, most pre-amps don't have the benefits of super mass production, all the 5.1 processing, DSP's etc, etc, so there's 2 ways to go. Receivers are a great value. I may have wrongly assumed that sound is essential already has an a/v receiver to go with the speakers setup he has.


My old SR-5000 is easily outperformed by my 20 year old NAD-3140 for 2-channel music, however. There's no substitute for higher quality components and better design in the pre-amp section. And to be honest, the analog bypass in most HT receivers these days isn't much to get excited over, though it does offer some improvement.

I do have a Denon AVR1801 receiver. I'm just not happy with the sound for music. It sounds too bright and clinical and not very musical. I was considering a dedicated preamp or a different receiver because I want the sound to be more "musical" not just more powerful. Does that make sense?

[kexodusc]

Makes perfect sense...I'm just suggesting that if you had, say $600 to spend, you'd probably get more "musical" performance out of a dedicated separate pre-amp (higher quality) than a receiver at the same price. Now, on the flipside, there may be some receivers (Marantz is a good one) that have newer features that might justify you upgrading.
Generally though, differences between similarly priced receivers are minor.
I have my doubts that your Denon is causing the "brightness" you describe. Are you sure this isn't a characteristic of your speakers...it'd be good if you could try a few pieces of equipment in your home to get a better idea. Maybe the issue isn't your receiver?
Room acoustics can often contribute to a lively sound and "brightness".
Some points to consider...

[Slosh]

I do have a Denon AVR1801 receiver. I'm just not happy with the sound for music. It sounds too bright and clinical and not very musical. I was considering a dedicated preamp or a different receiver because I want the sound to be more "musical" not just more powerful. Does that make sense?

Try it with the Rotel amp before buying a stereo pre-amp. Live with it for a few weeks and then decide if you really want a better analog stereo pre. If you're still not happy another receiver certainly won't be an improvement.

[Slosh]

Makes perfect sense...I'm just suggesting that if you had, say $600 to spend, you'd probably get more "musical" performance out of a dedicated separate pre-amp (higher quality) than a receiver at the same price.

I'm assuming this is for a dual purpose system. I agree with what you say above if you're setting up a separate stereo system, but of course you would also need a separate room, speakers, and source components to go along with it.

[kexodusc]

And there's the real dilemna...if it's a dual purpose system, a different receiver is the only choice...and a significant improvement will cost quite a bit.