Marantz AV7702 vs Yamaha CX-A5000

jaygax

hello everybody, been a long time.

my Yamaha RX-A1000 got an HDMI board failure last month from a power surge. about time for upgrade too. it's either the Marantz AV7702 or the Yamaha CX-A5000. they're getting cheap since new models are already out.

My amplifiers are emotiva XPA5 and the old adcom GFA555ii(soon to be upgraded with an emotiva XPA7).

I have RTi line of speakers.

if anybody could help me decide which is better. I'm looking for that warmth sound. I've been told here by a member before that Marantz is a better mix with the RTi line and Yamaha is also on the bright side. but the CX-A5000 is their top of the line processor if that makes a difference.

chime in if you've been using these processors. thank you.

it's 70% movies and 30% music.

Willow

If you are using external amps the receiver should not be adding brightness or warmth. This would come from your external amps. This is how I understand it

tonyb

Actually the receiver or processor imparts some of it's own sound signature also, as well as the amp, cables, and of course source.

If your looking for more warmth, the Emo amps paired with the RTI's isn't the answer. Parasound would be more your cup of tea, or B&k. That said, Yamaha's upper end stuff is fairly good and way better than their lower-mid priced offerings. The Marantz has a touch of warmth also but just this side of neutral, not overly warm.

jaygax

tonyb wrote: »

Actually the receiver or processor imparts some of it's own sound signature also, as well as the amp, cables, and of course source.

If your looking for more warmth, the Emo amps paired with the RTI's isn't the answer. Parasound would be more your cup of tea, or B&k. That said, Yamaha's upper end stuff is fairly good and way better than their lower-mid priced offerings. The Marantz has a touch of warmth also but just this side of neutral, not overly warm.

I don't have a choice for the speakers and amps anymore since I already have them. I'm leaning more for the Marantz then. a couple hundred dollars cheaper than the Yamaha too.

thanks for the info tonyb.

Willow

I was partially right. Makes sense. As the Avr has to process some of the sound before spitting it out the preouts.

FWIW, OP. I'm running the RXA1010 with a Rotel amp and it is nice. I do find on older or poor recordings the highs can be distracting on music. For quality recordings it's not bad, not amazing but not bad.

ken brydson

jaygax wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

Actually the receiver or processor imparts some of it's own sound signature also, as well as the amp, cables, and of course source.

If your looking for more warmth, the Emo amps paired with the RTI's isn't the answer. Parasound would be more your cup of tea, or B&k. That said, Yamaha's upper end stuff is fairly good and way better than their lower-mid priced offerings. The Marantz has a touch of warmth also but just this side of neutral, not overly warm.

I don't have a choice for the speakers and amps anymore since I already have them. I'm leaning more for the Marantz then. a couple hundred dollars cheaper than the Yamaha too.

thanks for the info tonyb.

I agree with Tony but at 70%HT I think you'll be fine.

jaygax

another add on query. does using XLR balanced cables really make a difference? im still using RCA right now.

jaygax

Willow wrote: »

I was partially right. Makes sense. As the Avr has to process some of the sound before spitting it out the preouts.

FWIW, OP. I'm running the RXA1010 with a Rotel amp and it is nice. I do find on older or poor recordings the highs can be distracting on music. For quality recordings it's not bad, not amazing but not bad.

before, I was running my RXA1000 with the Adcom powering a pair of SDA2A speakers. that was awesome for 2 channel stereo. I miss my SDA2a. I gave them away.

jaygax

ken brydson wrote: »

jaygax wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

Actually the receiver or processor imparts some of it's own sound signature also, as well as the amp, cables, and of course source.

If your looking for more warmth, the Emo amps paired with the RTI's isn't the answer. Parasound would be more your cup of tea, or B&k. That said, Yamaha's upper end stuff is fairly good and way better than their lower-mid priced offerings. The Marantz has a touch of warmth also but just this side of neutral, not overly warm.

I don't have a choice for the speakers and amps anymore since I already have them. I'm leaning more for the Marantz then. a couple hundred dollars cheaper than the Yamaha too.

thanks for the info tonyb.

I agree with Tony but at 70%HT I think you'll be fine.

thanks ken.

tonyb

Jay,
If the pieces are truly balanced, the advantage of using balanced cables are a lower noise floor. Since your mostly HT in use, I wouldn't make that switch unless you start listening to music more on that system. That's where the benefits will mostly be had.

rpf65

The Yamaha supports HDMI 2.0, not sure the Marantz supports that format. If Marantz doesn't support the 2.0 format, I would lean towards Yamaha. Neither supports HDCP 2.2 if streaming could be a future concern.

slbenz

rpf65 wrote: »

The Yamaha supports HDMI 2.0, not sure the Marantz supports that format. If Marantz doesn't support the 2.0 format, I would lean towards Yamaha. Neither supports HDCP 2.2 if streaming could be a future concern.

I own a Marantz AV7702 and it supports HDMI 2.0. Sound is far superior in two or multi-channel vs. my Pioneer Elite AVR that I used as a preamp. And to answer the question if going from unbalanced RCA cables to balanced XLR cables make a difference. I would say yes that going balanced helps to lower the noise floor and gives more with music, a better life-like presentation.