Denon, Yamaha or Marantz Receiver

[spricajder]

First I wanted to get some cheap DVD surround solution but in time I decided to invest in something better. I`m seraching for the match with B&W DM602 S3 speakers. I have in mind few receivers: Denon 1803, Yamaha RX-V440(RX-V540) and Marantz SR4300 (SR5300). What is the best solution for both stereo and surround? All salesman voted for Yamaha ( best value/performace/complain ratio). Please help!

[Mr.Magneplanar]

Well personaly I run a Marantz SR7200 and could not be more happier with it. The Marantz SR4300 is not beatable for its price in my opinion. The quality that goes into every Marantz Product is top notch. I had many Receivers Onkyo Integra, Denon, Bell, and 1 Yamaha. The Marantz made the best impression and i will enjoy it for years to come.

1 Vote for Marantz

[grampi]

I'll put in a vote for the Denon. Denon makes very good units at all price ranges.

[FAIELLO]

If you listen to Jazz or softer Pop music then you will be better off with the Marantz or Denon. If you like Rock music you will like the Yamaha. The Yamaha is a lot brighter than the other two. I personally like the warmth of the Marantz.

[woodman]

The advice you've received so far - while well-intentioned I'm sure, is NOT right. The salesmen who recommended Yamaha over the other two were quite correct. If you value reliability, this one's a no-brainer! Go read the thread below with the subject title of "Losses at Denon and Marantz" for more info on the subject.

This is a classic case of people having good luck with a certain brand and translating that into thinking that that brand will ALWAYS be as good as the one they bought years ago ... which is not always the case. The prime example of this is SONY, RCA and Zenith - three stalwarts in the TV biz, who now rely on their past reputation to sell their products today. You couldn't sell ME a TV set from any one of the three at any price today! Caveat emptor and all that jazz ...

[grampi]

So are you saying Yamaha is impervious to the current marketing trend of building everything cheaper? I'm not buying that.

[46minaudio]

If you listen to Jazz or softer Pop music then you will be better off with the Marantz or Denon. If you like Rock music you will like the Yamaha. The Yamaha is a lot brighter than the other two. I personally like the warmth of the Marantz.

Faiello when you compared the Yamaha receivers to Marantz and Denon did you level match to within .5dbs.were these test done single blind or double blind..I have read about Yamaha being bright.Not one were tested under these conditions..This is funny, most were compared in different rooms on different days,and get this you will love this one, some made this comment using different speakers...It does make one laugh...Ive said this before find the receiver with the features,and power your speakers require,and also look at what brands have the least amount of quality control problems..

[FAIELLO]

Faiello when you compared the Yamaha receivers to Marantz and Denon did you level match to within .5dbs.were these test done single blind or double blind..I have read about Yamaha being bright.Not one were tested under these conditions..This is funny, most were compared in different rooms on different days,and get this you will love this one, some made this comment using different speakers...It does make one laugh...Ive said this before find the receiver with the features,and power your speakers require,and also look at what brands have the least amount of quality control problems..

I was only able to compare the Denon in the same room, on the same day, with the same speakers to the Yamaha. The Marantz was located at a different merchant. I did play with the bass management a little but not being familiar with the equipment and not having the manual in front of me, I had to depend on the salesperson to help me. I when with the Marantz for three reasons, the good reviews I have seen here and at other fourms, I was able to hear it in the showroom with my speakers, and the price was very good and had more of the features that I was looking for than the others in this price range.

I compared the, Yamaha RXV2300, Denon 3803, and the Marantz SR7300

[JulietOreira]

cd Quark Express 6.0

[DaveHK]

Don't listen to ANYONE on here. No one will be able to tell you what to buy, all they can tell you is personal experience. Listen in the store to what you like best and take it home, if you don't like it, take it back and get something else. Asking that sort of question will only start a flame war and you won't get a straight answer. trust your ears and don't feel that you are locked into a purchase once you walk out the door. That is the best advice you will get on this topic.


Dave

"Common sense is all it takes"

[mrkiko]

I think that speakers like the DM602s are only avarage units. At this level all the recievers you mentioned will go well. If you're more for movies maybe Yamaha. If more for music Marantz. But if you care for the music, the DM602s are not enough. The SR5400 is a "different unit" if you hook up a pair of 703s. And the same SR5400 maybe again "another unit" if you drive a pair of N804s.

[bacchanal]

I listened to the Denon 1804 and Yamaha rx-v740 side by side in the same room, same speakers and everything, couldn't detect much difference at all. The Yamaha rx-vX40 models and beyond supposedly are not as bright as older Yamahas. I also listened Marantz although not in the same room. It was a little more musical sounding to me than both the yamaha and the denon (could have been the room though). I really liked the Marantz 7400...but it didn't really fit my needs. I ended up just getting the rx-v740 online because it sounded decent to me on my speakers (paradigm studio40s) and it will be a decent reciever for me to figure out which features I really want, and which ones I don't use. Eventually I see mysefl upgrading my system as a stereo unit that can be used for HT, but is primarily situated for music. I think when I can afford it I'll go with separate pre/pro and amp...but the yammie will more than suffice for the next year and a half or so while I live in an apartment where I don't have a dedicated listening room.
Honestly though, I really don't think you can go wrong with denon, yamaha, or marantz...not to mention HK, those are some nice recievers too. It all comes down to what works best with your system to your ears...and how much of that dsp bs and what not that you do or don't want to mess around with. people talk about preouts and all, but I don't hear of too many people running decent power amps off of a $500 mid-fi a/v reciever

[cam]

Alot of people go shopping for a certain sound that they think they can live with. When I went shopping I already knew the sound that I could not live with. I was using a Technics sadx 1050 which was their top model at that time. It did the job for awhile but then it became hard on the ears, I lived with it for 2 years and during those 2 years I went from watching my movies at almost reference levels to not even being able to stand it at medium volume, then to not even wanting to use the amp anymore. I had gone completely tired of that sort of sound. I was lucky enough to be able to hear the yamaha 740 with the denon 1803 side by side with energy speakers at A&B sound. I used some of my favorite cd's and dvd's and right away I found that the yammy had that same sound that I knew I just could not live with again. The denon was softer on my ears and as the volume increased it stayed just as soothing on my ears. When we cranked up the 740 I just wanted it to be turned down right away. I ended up buying the 1804 a month later. Reliability issues aside, find your budget and the sound you can live with. It was easy for me because I knew the sound I could not.

[RGA]

Look, until anyone can post me statistical provable facts that any of these is reliably superior to the others to such a degree it would make a notable difference that would interest me. Otherwise it doesn't mean a whole lot. What would matter more is the customer serivice. Looking inside the 4300 and it's competitors from Yamah and Denon the Marantz had the biggest power transformwer the heaviest unit and easily the most superior in build construction...now whether the thing will fall apart is another matter.

Now I admit Yamaha has a good rep for build no question - amongst receiver makers. But In Canada anyway Marantz has the longest warranty of any receiver sold in the country. 3 years intead of 1 or 2 the others offer.

In the price range the 4300 is the only one that allows for an upgrade of the power amp section - which at least for my needs would be a very valuable option without it would completely have it crossed from my list.

Marantz has had more issues from my personal knowledge of them in BC.

But hey people buy American cars for some reason - it sure has nothing to do with reliability.

[Woochifer]

Look, until anyone can post me statistical provable facts that any of these is reliably superior to the others to such a degree it would make a notable difference that would interest me. Otherwise it doesn't mean a whole lot.

The reliability issues noted on this board in the past have typically been with specific production runs. The reviews are a good source for flagging potential problems with certain models. A handful of failed units should be expected, but if you start seeing reviews detailing out one failed unit after another, that points more to a pattern than just typical random bad luck. Some manufacturers have had more bad production runs than others. Sony and h/k have had several problematic runs with very high failure rates over the past decade. Sony's problems with their DE and DB series models got to the point that my friend in AV sales quit demoing the Sonys and steered his customers to the Denons and Yamahas as much as possible. Two years ago, Marantz's x200 models had early production problems with the power supplies. Onkyo also had at least a couple of models with reliability problems in the mid-90s.

But hey people buy American cars for some reason - it sure has nothing to do with reliability.

Yeah, and people buy European cars for some reason as well, even though their reliability now ranks at the bottom.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...-reports_x.htm

[RGA]

Continued from last post - I love cars where the wheels fall off - wrap me up a focus....have a I driven a Ford lately? Thank heaven - if I want to risk my life I'd rather jump from planes.


Ford's Trouble Prone Focus Hit With Safety Recalls & Investigations

With 9 safety recalls to date and 6 defect investigations, the Ford Focus is proving to be an embarrassment to Ford Motor Company and its new President William Clay Ford, who are trying to stress quality in the wake of the Ford Explorer/Firestone ATX, Wilderness AT tire debacle.

Not since General Motors introduced its ill-fated X-car in 1980 (Buick Skylark, Chevrolet Citation, Oldsmobile Omega and Pontiac Phoenix) which had 13 recalls in its first two years has a manufacturer had so many recalls. Among the Focus recalls are 351,000 2000 models whose roof pillars can cause head injuries in crashes and 203,700 2000 models whose left rear wheel falls off.

The Focus' sinking reputation was further hammered hard by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's announcement of 6 major investigations from February to May 2002. Evening up the wheel problem, NHTSA launched a new investigation into wheels falling off the 2000 models, only this time it was both right and left rear wheels. Airbags that deployed inadvertently and that burned drivers were the subjects of two investigation in 2000-01 models. The 2000 model was hit with a investigation into engine compartment fires, which has now been upgraded to cover 2001-02 models as well. 2000-01 models are being investigated for engine stalling. 2000-2002 models are under investigation for collapse of the front suspension.

In November 1999, CAS wrote then Chairman William Clay Ford and warned him about Ford overall reputation for poor quality and covering up defects to avoid recalls. The Focus fiasco shows Mr. Ford has a long row to hoe before he can restore some of the luster to his great grandfather's company."

[dotcom]

Agree with woodman above. Yamaha smokes the competition - Sony Marantz Denon Onkyo & Pioneer. Check out the RX-V2400 rated at around 100 watts x 6.

[Ricardo ferreira]

Denon AVR1804 is the best for music and HT, nice receiver

[stratman672001]

I'd probably go with the Yamaha only because the Denon is maybe a touch better than the Marantz and that doesn't have even 1/2 the build quality of my '76 Marantz 2220B. I'd be willing to bet that NONE of them would hold up more than 20 minutes at half power on a serious bench test before blowing up.

[markw]

I can't think of ANY receiver that matches the build quality of a well constructed 30 year old receiver. You really don't want to compare a thirty year old stereo receiver to today's AV stuff.

I have both a Marantz 2270 (bought new in '72) and a Denon 2802 (bought new last March) and, so far no complaints about either.

Granted, the 2270 has been realigned twice and the power switch replaced once but that's about to be expected. Still chuggin' along on a pretty much daily basis.

The 2802 has been bringing smiles to all who have experienced it, in either two channel music mode or full blown 5.1 (don't have room for 6.1) mode. Now, will it last 30 years? Who knows? But I do know tghe technology has changed drastically, both in features and functionality, since the 2270 was built.


In any case, wacha doin' talkin' about AV systems? I thought this thread was about cars?

[Woochifer]

I can't think of ANY receiver that matches the build quality of a well constructed 30 year old receiver. You really don't want to compare a thirty year old stereo receiver to today's AV stuff.

I have both a Marantz 2270 (bought new in '72) and a Denon 2802 (bought new last March) and, so far no complaints about either.

Granted, the 2270 has been realigned twice and the power switch replaced once but that's about to be expected. Still chuggin' along on a pretty much daily basis.

The 2802 has been bringing smiles to all who have experienced it, in either two channel music mode or full blown 5.1 (don't have room for 6.1) mode. Now, will it last 30 years? Who knows? But I do know tghe technology has changed drastically, both in features and functionality, since the 2270 was built.


In any case, wacha doin' talkin' about AV systems? I thought this thread was about cars?

Veering even further off topic (or maybe back on topic), how easy is it to find parts for your 2270? I'm about to start refurbing my parents' old Marantz 2275 (from 1976) and have no idea on how much it will cost or whether the parts are even available. I've heard conflicting things about how easy it is to fix up vintage Marantzes. On that 2275, some of the indicator bulbs have gone out, and some of the switches periodically short out. I'm not sure if some simple cleaning will do the trick, or if replacement's in order.

On whether or not it's as well built as today's receivers, I'm not sure if you can really compare given that you had so many manual switches and controls on those vintage receivers whose functions are now consolidated into a single processor board. And a lot of those older switches are prone to shorting out. Whether or not the digital circuitry of today will last longer than those older analog controls, we'll see. Digital circuits just seem to fail without warning, while some analog components audibly age before failing. My parents' Marantz delivers 75 watts into only two channels, yet it weighs 10 lbs. more than my Yamaha AV receiver and it has a higher power consumption. Another thing with those older receivers is that the tuner components (with the manual dial, all those analog tuning gauges, and the analog circuitry) alone could weigh quite a bit. When the tuner on my friends' old Sansui receiver was shorting out and causing interference with the other components, he just ripped the tuner and all the supporting components out, like the dials and indicators. It opened up a LOT of room inside that receiver and those parts must have weighed at least 2-3 lbs. Nowadays, the tuner circuitry's about the size of a matchbook.

[topspeed]

Veering even further off topic (or maybe back on topic), how easy is it to find parts for your 2270? I'm about to start refurbing my parents' old Marantz 2275 (from 1976) and have no idea on how much it will cost or whether the parts are even available. I've heard conflicting things about how easy it is to fix up vintage Marantzes. On that 2275, some of the indicator bulbs have gone out, and some of the switches periodically short out. I'm not sure if some simple cleaning will do the trick, or if replacement's in order.

Each bulb is $4 bucks and you can clean the switches until you get to the point that I was at and have them rebuilt. After a thorough tune up, re-biasing or something of the amps, and a serious $120 bill, I am essentially enjoying an "as-new" 2230. There's a guy on e-bay that specializes in rebuilding vintage Marantz receivers so before you spend like I did, it may not be a bad idea to check 'em out, sentimental value notwithstanding. I will say that it is absolutely worth the money as these Marantz receivers are so amazingly powerful, clean, and very hip/retro looking in their brushed steel and cool blue glow. I can't get much past half with the VR1's before it's pretty well uncomfortable (I'll have to pull out the spl meter to see how loud that is ), and that's only 30 watts peak!

Have fun Wooch!

[Woochifer]

Each bulb is $4 bucks and you can clean the switches until you get to the point that I was at and have them rebuilt. After a thorough tune up, re-biasing or something of the amps, and a serious $120 bill, I am essentially enjoying an "as-new" 2230. There's a guy on e-bay that specializes in rebuilding vintage Marantz receivers so before you spend like I did, it may not be a bad idea to check 'em out, sentimental value notwithstanding. I will say that it is absolutely worth the money as these Marantz receivers are so amazingly powerful, clean, and very hip/retro looking in their brushed steel and cool blue glow. I can't get much past half with the VR1's before it's pretty well uncomfortable (I'll have to pull out the spl meter to see how loud that is ), and that's only 30 watts peak!

Have fun Wooch!

$120 is not a bad deal for restoring one of those things to near-new condition. I might have to look into that. There was a shop near my office that specialized in vintage audio restorations, but the owner retired a couple of years ago. I guess I'll need to hunt around.

Everything indeed does go through cycles. When my parents fired up that receiver for the first time, it was by far the most modern looking thing in our living room (at that time it was sitting on top of an old RCA console TV). We didn't even have components, it was just FM radio. Then when we added other components and the trend went decidedly towards black components, suddenly that Marantz looked dated. Now, it all looks cool again (and all the better because my parents never removed that 70s-look plywood paneling in their living room). Too bad my parents got rid of all those harvest gold and avocado colored appliances.

[markw]

Veering even further off topic (or maybe back on topic), how easy is it to find parts for your 2270? I'm about to start refurbing my parents' old Marantz 2275 (from 1976) and have no idea on how much it will cost or whether the parts are even available. I've heard conflicting things about how easy it is to fix up vintage Marantzes. On that 2275, some of the indicator bulbs have gone out, and some of the switches periodically short out. I'm not sure if some simple cleaning will do the trick, or if replacement's in order.

On whether or not it's as well built as today's receivers, I'm not sure if you can really compare given that you had so many manual switches and controls on those vintage receivers whose functions are now consolidated into a single processor board. And a lot of those older switches are prone to shorting out. Whether or not the digital circuitry of today will last longer than those older analog controls, we'll see. Digital circuits just seem to fail without warning, while some analog components audibly age before failing. My parents' Marantz delivers 75 watts into only two channels, yet it weighs 10 lbs. more than my Yamaha AV receiver and it has a higher power consumption. Another thing with those older receivers is that the tuner components (with the manual dial, all those analog tuning gauges, and the analog circuitry) alone could weigh quite a bit. When the tuner on my friends' old Sansui receiver was shorting out and causing interference with the other components, he just ripped the tuner and all the supporting components out, like the dials and indicators. It opened up a LOT of room inside that receiver and those parts must have weighed at least 2-3 lbs. Nowadays, the tuner circuitry's about the size of a matchbook.

Up until a year ago I had a tech do almost all my work for me. He did warranty work for me and other companies for the major brands (Marantz, Scott, Fisher, H/K, etc...) in the 60's when I sold this stuff. Unfortuantely he was forced to retire this year and now I'm in pretty much the same boat you are.

The best place for this info (both sources and technique) is on the vintage page of http://www.audiokarma.org. Shain is the resident Marantz guru.

Yeah, the physical components are prone to wear but the fact that they lasted this long says a lot about 'em. I still say t hat the tuners in these old boat anchors are far, far superior to practically anything sold today. But, when you figure in ther cost back then and factor in inflation, they would cost a heckuva lot more in today's dollars.

[Woochifer]

Up until a year ago I had a tech do almost all my work for me. He did warranty work for me and other companies for the major brands (Marantz, Scott, Fisher, H/K, etc...) in the 60's when I sold this stuff. Unfortuantely he was forced to retire this year and now I'm in pretty much the same boat you are.

The best place for this info (both sources and technique) is on the vintage page of http://www.audiokarma.org. Shain is the resident Marantz guru.

Yeah, the physical components are prone to wear but the fact that they lasted this long says a lot about 'em. I still say t hat the tuners in these old boat anchors are far, far superior to practically anything sold today. But, when you figure in ther cost back then and factor in inflation, they would cost a heckuva lot more in today's dollars.

Thanx for the link, I'll check it out.

Actually, I never thought that the switches on the Marantzes were all that durable. Started getting static on the volume control within the first five years, and one of the tape monitors began shorting out before that. Others switches have followed suit.

Can't deny though the sound quality on those units is superb, and aside from those switches, the overall build quality is very rugged. And the tuners on those vintage Marantzes are indeed better than anything I've used since then. The 2275 that my parents bought listed for $600 in 1976 (bought on closeout for about $350). Taking inflation into account, that would be nearly $2,000 today!