Marantz v/s Pioneer

simphiwes

Does anyone know anything about these amps: Marantz SR5400 and the Pioneer VSX 915, these are decent-ish amps in my opinion but i am not sure which is the better of the two, they both have the option for adding a power amp all 7chnls and the Pioneer can be bi-amped, adding to it you have that microphone set up that the marantz doent have and the Pioneer is rated at 110wpc whereas the Marantz is rated at 95w/ch. i am going to use either one if these amps to power my third system using either the Polk Rti8(great speackers) or the B&W 603 S3. Any one know anything. if anyone thinks i am comparing apples and tomatoes please be clear as to how i am doing this. Please have a look at the specs below for the Pioneer and the Marantz:
www.pioneerelectronics.com
www.marantz.com
Pioneer: VSX915
Power
Power Amplifier Design Thermal Compensation Transistor
Surround Power 770 Watts Total System Power - 110 watts x 7 (1 kHz, 1.0% THD @ 8 Ohms)
Stereo Power 240 Watts Total System Power - 120 watts x 2 (20 Hz -20 kHz, .7% THD @ 8 Ohms)
Digital Decoding & Processing
Digital Engine Double-Precision 48-Bit Motorola
Dolby(R) Digital 5.1
Dolby Digital EX
DTS(R) 5.1
DTS-ES Discrete 6.1
DTS 96/24
DTS Neo:6
Pro-Logic II
WMA9 Pro
Advanced Surround Modes 9
5 / 6 / 7 Channel Stereo 7 Channel
Virtual Surround Back
Mid-night Listening
Dialogue Enhancement
Loudness
MCACC Auto w/Microphone
Speaker Configuration
Speaker Size
Speaker Level
Speaker Distance
Acoustic Equalization 5-Band EQ
Analog to Digital Conversion 96kHz/24-Bit
Digital Analog Conversion (DAC) 192kHz/24-Bit
Connectivity
Audio (Tuner Included) / Video Input 4 Audio / 4 Audio Video
Audio/Video Output 1 Audio / 1 Audio Video / 1 Video
Digital Inputs 5
Optical In 3 (includes 1 Front Input)
Coaxial In 2
Multi-Channel Input 5.1
Audio Preamp Output All (7.1)
Composite Video Input 4
Composite Video Output 2 (including Monitor Output)
S-Video Input 4
S-Video Output 2 (including Monitor Output)
Component Video Input 3
Component Video Output 1
Headphone Output Yes
Front A/V Inputs Yes
Banana Speaker Terminal Large
SR Control SR+
Speaker A/B B Speaker or Bi-Amp
Construction
Direct Construction Yes
Conveniences
Video Conversion Composite Video to S-Video
FL Dimmer Yes
Sleep Timer Yes
Remote Type LCD Learning
Dimensions
Dimensions (inches) 16-9/16 x 6-1/4 x 15-7/8 (WxHxD)
Dimensions (mm) 420 x 158 x 402.5 (WxHxD)
Weight 22 lbs. 4 oz.


Marantz: SR5400

FEATURES
MULTI CHANNEL/SURROUND
Number of Channels
THX
DTS (ES, Discrete 6.1/ Matrix 6,1, Neo-6)
Dolby Digital EX
Dolby Pro Logic IIx
Circle Surround II
SOUND ENHANCEMENTS
HDCD Decoder
Current Feedback Topology
Discrete Amplification
Power Transformer
D/A Conversion
Digital Signal Processing
Video Off
Source Direct
Chassis
Variable X-over
Display Off
Video Up-conversion
M.R.A.C (Marantz Room Acoustic Calibration)
XM-Ready
Dual AM/FM tuner
Bass management
Lip-sync (digital audio delay)
Software Upgradable (RS232)
IN/OUTPUTS
VIDEO
HDMI In
Component In
S-Video In
Composite In
HDMI Out
Component Out
S-Video Out
Composite Out
AUDIO
Analog L&R In
Analog L&R Out
Digital Optical In
Digital Coaxial In
Digital Optical Out
Digital Coaxial Out
IEEE1394 connection
OTHER
Pre-Amplifier Out
Main Amplifier In
Multi-Channel In
Multi-Room Audio Out
Multi-Room Video Out
Multi-Room Speaker Out
Speaker A/B
DAvED Transmitter
External control (RS232C)
DC Triggers
D-Bus Remote (RC-5) In/Out
External IR In/Out
Front Panel A/V Inputs
Headphone Out
AC Outlets (Switched/Unswitched)
SPECIFICATIONS
AUDIO SECTION
Power Output (8 Ohm)
S/N Ratio
Freq. Response (Analog In)
Freq. Response (Dig In)
TUNER SECTION FM
Frequency Range
S/N Ratio (Mono/Stereo)
TUNER SECTION AM
Frequency Range
S/N Ratio
VIDEO SECTION
Video Freq. Response (Component)
Video Freq. Response (Composit, S-Video)
Signal to Noise
GENERAL
Color
Front Panel
Remote Control
Power Requirement
Power Consumption
Dimensions W" x H" x D" (Inches)
Weight (lbs)


7
-
(+ 96/24)






All 7ch
EI
192kHz/24-Bit
Cirrus Logic ® 32-Bit


Metal


Up to Component
-
-
-
-

-


-
2 (Assignable)
5
5
-
1
3
3

8
5
2
2
1
1
-

8ch
-
8ch
1 (L&R)
-

-
-

-
2/2
-

Dolby Headphone
1/1


90W x 7 (<0.08%, 20Hz - 20kHz/THD)
105dB
8Hz - 100kHz (+/- 3 dB)
8Hz - 45kHz (+/- 3 dB)

87.5 - 108.MkHz
Mono/Stereo 75/70 dB

520 - 1710kHz
50 dB

5Hz - 80MHz (- 1 dB)
5Hz - 8MHz (- 1 dB)
60 dB

Black
Aluminum
Pre-Coded System Remote RC5500SR
AC 120V/60Hz
450W
17 5/16" x 6 7/16" x 18 1/4"
30

Zen Dragon

Simphiwes:

A couple of thoughts. back about 20 years ago Pioneer had good build quality and a solid reputation. Over the years they have lagged a little behind the competition in quality.
As to the power difference, the Marantz will generally deliver it's power with a higher current capability, which is an important factor when driving many speakers to their full potential. I doubt the extra 15 watts of the Pioneer would produce a higher fidelity then the Marantz. This may not matter if you plan to use the pre-outs to a separate amplifier.
As to the bi-ampability of the Pioneer...Do you plan on bi-amping you speakers? If you bi-amp your mains off external amplification this is no longer a factor.
One feature I noticed on the Marantz that I did not see on the Pioneer is HDMI I/P and O/P. This may be important to you now or in the future if you wish to use the high end connectivity of a large HDTV.
All that being said I have not listened to or used either of these units. Why don't you take a favorite CD or two and find a dealer who carries both lines. Give them a look and a listen and see which you like more. See which has the better feel and useability. On paper I lean towards the Marantz, but it is not my system.
Good luck. If you get a chance tell us what you decide and why.

danger boy

first off. they aren't called amps.. they are receivers...

amps are different, a power amp is just an amp.. no pre amp or anything..

bobman1235

What danger boy said.

And I'd go witht eh Marantz all the way. The regular Pioneers (non-Elite) are pretty middle of the road, while Marantz's are a little more well-regarded. Also the Marantz has pre-outs for upgradeability.

If you can, give them both a listen, see which you like better.

Also, ignore those power ratings. They're useless. 110wpc vs 95wpc printed on a receiver couldn't mean less in the real world.

*Seby*-Polk-

Marantz...no doubt. Far way superior .... far way better sound.

simphiwes

Thanks for ya'lls input. its not that easy building a system, especially when you have sales people trying to shove the one brand under your arm never mind whether you like it or not, all for the sake of commission, cant blame them though, they need to pay their bills as well. i'll keep in mind next time not to call them amps but receivers.

thanks guys.

jayman_1975

well..put it to you this way. I live in a city of about 20,000. There are two or three stores that deal pioneer recievers.(Wallmart being one of them). BTW. I have to drive 130miles to find a city that has a marantz dealer. Only one in that city as a matter of fact (190,000 ppl). My bro in law has a marantz reciever and i have a denon. I would trade him in a heartbeat.

Tour2ma

Actually they're AVR's.

Marantz is the easy choice. Once great then went to the brink of audio oblivion, but has come back to recapture some of its past glory.

Pioneer... not so much...

simphiwes

Does anyone know what AVR i can look at which has the option to bi-amp my speackers and does not cost more than $500? something fairly potent!! its not so important for it to have to have a million and one Features just good clean power.

Lowell_M

I just bought a Harman/Kardon AVR-635 refurbished on ebay(from Harman Audio) for $503. I don't have it tweaked in yet, but the sound so far is amazing compared to the JVC receiver that I had (which would be comparable to the Pioneer that you are talking about) There are a couple other HK options, but if you don't mind buying refurbished they are an excellent option.

By the way, you don't bi-amp off of a receiver....You use separate amps plugged into your pre-outs in the receiver....two amps per speaker would be bi-amp'ing.

Zen Dragon

a_mattison wrote:

By the way, you don't bi-amp off of a receiver....You use separate amps plugged into your pre-outs in the receiver....two amps per speaker would be bi-amp'ing.

Actually the new trend in AVR receivers is supplying two sets of powered output jacks for the purpose of either bi-amping, or sending the additional signal to a separate listening area. Of course proper bi-amping should always be done off separate amplification, because any speaker offering biampability is generally a higher end speaker which will benefit of the higher quality/drive capability of a separate amp.

Lowell_M

Right....I guess I came off sounding a little smart assed, but really, it doesn't do much good to bi-amp off the receiver since you are drawing from the same power supply anyway right?

krabby5

a_mattison wrote:

Right....I guess I came off sounding a little smart assed, but really, it doesn't do much good to bi-amp off the receiver since you are drawing from the same power supply anyway right?

I don't notice anything...I don't use the back surround speakers and I had extra wire and connectors, so I tried it on my Pio Elite 72..

I still have it set as bi-amping the fronts, but I probably wouldn't miss it if I put it back to normal...

Tour2ma

Yeah, you gotta work on your smart-**** level... it's way too low for this forum.

AVR bi-amping no good? Have to say it depends on the AVR. At the low end/ intro level I'd agree with you, but there are some seriously potent AVR's out there. Also have to remember that for 2-ch music duty a couple amps are inactive, so their current is available.

That said.... simphiwes,
I think the key is to pick an AVR that does not cut off the signal to its internal amps if you patch in an outboard amp via the AVR's unpowered pre-outs.

Welcome to the Club...

Zen Dragon

a_mattison wrote:

Right....I guess I came off sounding a little smart assed, but really, it doesn't do much good to bi-amp off the receiver since you are drawing from the same power supply anyway right?

Didn't think you came off smart assed. Just thought I would expand on your answer which suggested you could not bi-amp of an AVR.
Yes you are drawing off the same power supply. Not as good as separate supplies for sure, but there is a different set of output amplifiers for the bi-amp output. You are driving more power to the speakers in bi-amp mode. You just don't have the high current reserve you get from separate amplifiers.

simphiwes

last night i had a bit of time on my hands so i played around with my equipment. i used the ONKYO 501E and the Sony STR BD798 to bi-amp the M40's. i unforunatelly dont have pre out's on either AVR but like i said i was playing around. So i connectd the dvd player to the ONKYO via optical cable and the speaker wire to the hi-freq and the Sony was connected via the coaxial from the same dvd player and the speaker wire went to the low-freq, i must say initially i was a little difficult to balance the volume from both AVR's but if was fun though. Eventually when i got the volume levels at almost decently equal levels i took out my whole cd collection and they all seemed new. And I heard some new things, some new detail. i was just impressed with my M40's. Look this isnt the ideal way to bi-amp but it was all in the name of fun. i tried the same with my B&W 602's they didnt give me as much exitment. as i guess you all know you need some serious power to drive most to all B&W speakers. i had considered selling them (B&W 602) and goin polk all the way but i love them all the same, i like listening to different equipment, they all have the good points and not so good point, the 602's just sounded warmer and laid back.

this is what i want to do, buy the Marantz SR4600 and the Rotel RA-03 and connect the hi-frq to the SR4600 and the low-freq to the RA-03, do you guys think this would work. i know ya'll proberbly think i am abssesed with bi-amping but according to my ears it just sound a whole lot better than, bi wirring and or normal wiring.

Tour2ma

Necessity is a mother... or something like that.

Neat little test, but not the same as AVR bi-amping. What you did was more like bi-AVR-ing as you brought an entirely separate, additional power supply into the equation. I can certainly see where volume balancing two different frequency ranges would be problematic. Even playing music with which you are very familiar. So it's easy to see why your collection all sounded "new" (or at least different).

What I can't see is why the B&W's would not respond in kind to your test. If they are normally run off only one of the receivers, the two should have produced some audible difference, even if it was ultmately attributable to an emphasis of one FR over the other.

As for your Marantz/ Rotel combo proposal. Only way to know is to try it, but different amps in a single manufacturer's line can be different enough that they do not work well together. So I'd be leery of the Marantz/ Rotel combo. Two very different levels of audio there, IMO.

simphiwes

i here this a lot, rotel is in a totaly different league, what does that mean, what league is this and what sets it so different from marantz, yamaha, ONKYO, parasound, classe blah blah? what do they do that other manufactures dont do? or rather what does their equipment do that other manufactures dont do. i mean in general rotel is expensive, what am i forking out the extra $$$ for? can i get a response either than it just sounds better. what sounds better to to one person might sound crappy to another.

2+2

simphiwes wrote:

this is what i want to do, buy the Marantz SR4600 and the Rotel RA-03 and connect the hi-frq to the SR4600 and the low-freq to the RA-03, do you guys think this would work. i know ya'll proberbly think i am abssesed with bi-amping but according to my ears it just sound a whole lot better than, bi wirring and or normal wiring.

Why would you get an RA integrated? If you must bi-amp, get a power amp(s) like Marantz monoblocks , hook it up to the preouts of your AVR, and use the speaker posts of teh SR to the high freq. and send the power amp to teh low freq.....

AndyGwis

Just FYI, I tried to bi-amp using my HK 635 for the highs and Carver tfms for the lows on my fronts and rears. Didn't work. . . created terrible tonal imbalance, even rerunning EzEQ.

Edit:
I did not put much effort into the arrangement, however. If I spent some time working out the kinds, further tweaking the volume levels and such, it may have produced different results.

Tour2ma

Real world examples do help, Andy.

And good catch on the RA, 2+2. The Marantz mono's alternative is a much more likely match.

simphiwes wrote:

i here this a lot, rotel is in a totaly different league, what does that mean, what league is this and what sets it so different from marantz, yamaha, ONKYO, parasound, classe blah blah? what do they do that other manufactures dont do? or rather what does their equipment do that other manufactures dont do. i mean in general rotel is expensive, what am i forking out the extra $$$ for? can i get a response either than it just sounds better. what sounds better to to one person might sound crappy to another.

I totally agree that individual taste/ ears are a big factor in the selection of any link in the audio chain. It's why anything you get comment-wise on this or any other forum needs to be considered as advice and not as gospel. And the best advice is to listen for yourself whenever you can.

I did not see it right off, but now I do see where you are coming from on the "better" question. It's the "different levels of audio" comment I made. My choice of words overstated what I was trying to convey, namely that there are differences. I have to admit that my choice of words was also was a peek at a bias I have against Marantz. We all have biases, either for or against a given brand, thus my opening comments on advice vs. gospel. But let's set that aside for now...

I know based upon past threads here that opinions vary widely on what is the most important link in the audio chain. IMO, speakers are on the order of 75% of the equation in determining what kind of potential listening experience you will have. Once you select a pair of speakers, the rest is about finding what will move them in the direction of realizing that potential. In addition to electronics, the search should also include acoustically refining the listening room, but this is often overlooked.

Numerous CP members turn over amps, pre's, CDP's, interconnects, etc., two or three times a year in the pursuit of "better sound." Sometimes they buy and resell. Sometimes they borrow from dealers or friends, be they across the street or CP members that are across the country. (I'm trying to get a couple pieces to FedEx today for a couple members to play with.)

Since it's usually not practical to lug your speakers into a dealer to audition a piece, it's in-home trial and error. Were you able to get your speakers to a dealer and find the perfect piece to make them sing, it's very likely that your new found, ultimate combination would sound different back in your listening space. Different room = different acoustics.

What are the differences in amps? I'd actually started addressing that when I realized that this is the internet, and that info is out there in individuals' sites, company sites, white papers, etc. I've visited a couple of the ones I've posted below before today. A couple I just found and scanned though. I'm sure there are many more and even better references just a Google away.

• Amplifier Basics - Covers the different classes of design, tubes vs. solid state; good amount of factual info, some editorializing. Does start off dealing with a comment that "all amplifiers sound the same", but read on.
• More on amp classes
• Some amp measurements
• More amp measurements
• Even more...

On your question about why some cost more and what can you get by spending more. The first linked site touches upon this. The design, and the research effort that went into developing the design, are factors. Also component quality and test standards, i.e., reject rate, are factors. Then there are the same costs any company producing any good or service face, e.g., Sales and Marketing, salaries, benefits, and on and on.

And not to start yet another round of Bose bashing, but it's well established that they put a heavy emphasis, AKA $$$$, on advertising. How many other audio products at any level do you see advertised on TV at all, let alone on a daily basis?

Hope this helps...

simphiwes

Thanks (Tour2ma) i am reading up on those links you sent me. 2+2 i actually got the model numbers incorrect i ment the power amp instead. back to (Tour2ma) or anyone for that matter, what makes Rotel in partucular different from any other brand?

danger boy

I don't think any one gear is better than other high quality gear. It depends on what went into the build and care when building a particular piece of electronics that make it good.

I have a Rotel carousel CD player.. and it really sucks. I mean it's an older model..but the sounds is muddy and dirty. Not by just a slim margin, alot. All three of my NAD's from approx the same era beat the snot out of the Rotel.

So saying that Rotel is in a different league all together is a misnomer (sp) completely.

That's like saying all Bose speakers sound like crap. when in fact... Bose has in years past made some decent speakers.. their current offerings may not hold up to their past speakers.

But blanket statements that brand A or brand B gear is in a league by itself... doesn't explain squat.

Yes, I believe there are some makers of stereo gear out there that consistantly hit the mark on high quality, excellent sounding gear. But they don't hit a home run every time.

Even the likes of say... McIntosh... i'm sure had a few components that really stunk. OF course we know that not all McIntosh gear sucks either.

Marantz of today is no where at the level of Marantz of the 60's 70's. Just like Pioneer isn't either.

Tour2ma

You had to go and mention Pioneer, #1 on my bias list... At least I'll say that Marantz has come a good ways back. Pioneer... no...

simphiwes,
Actually I think Pioneer is a great example of a company that tried to do everything at the cost of doing things well. Only things of theirs I ever respected enough to buy were their car speakers.

The same can be true of companies I love, e.g., Audio Alchemy, a great digital and small electronics firm. They overreached beyond their core area of expertise and launched into amplifiers. The financial strain ultimately killed the company.

Polk is an interesting example as well. Everything I've heard is that they intend to keep the focus on their core, speakers (duh), while growing their product range, e.g., the XM tuner. Not an easy thing to do, so we'll see what happens as the former "speaker specialist" continues to morph into the company that now invites us to "listen to innovation".

It seems Rotel makes great amps. Nice power, gobs of current capapcity, solid build. I've yet to read of a disappointed Rotel amp owner. Amps are their core area. While they also appear to make solid Pre-Pro's, you don't hear as much about them and I doubt they bring in the money that the amp line does. It also appears based upon a couple of reviews posted here, that they have a winning CDP out now.

Is Rotel better than everything else out there? Heck, no, but their competive with many out there and at their price point offer substantial performance value.... at least in their core area.

simphiwes

now that sounds a lot better than "it just sounds better" or "its in a league of its own". you go into Audio Video shops and sales people always want to sell you a particular product over another, and unfortuantelly the phrase Rotel is in a league of its own always comes up and more often than not they cant explain what that means. i am not against being given good advise but i would prefer more objective advise than biased opinons. you end up only buying a particular brand just because you've told that all other brands suck compared to brand A (in the case where you have no idea what audio equipment is all about and you rely on sales agents for direction). Thanks guys i appreciate all your input. what does the term linear mean in relation to audio equipment

Tour2ma

You're welcome...

On forums, "Item X is in a league of its own" likely means I own and love it. In a store may either mean that as well or mean, "Our manager has given us added incentives to sell the 'X' line this month", or anywhere in between.

And opinions are always subjective... it's axiomatic ($0.25 word of the day).

Linear is a term I've not heard much recently. It's a term I definitely ask the user, "what do you mean when you say 'linear'."

In the past it has described different things about different components. In Pre's often was in reference to the circuit design, i.e., straightest or simplest signal path, AKA "straight line" or "direct". Also was used in describing the relative gain with increasing volume POT settings, which in the analog days were almost exclusively non-linear.

In amps in olden days often it referred to the consistency of the amplification across the frequency spectrum and/ or with varying input level. But consistency is so often the norm today, it's hardly the bragging point it once was.

Linear is/ was used for other components as well. Linear tracking TT's (an obvious use), CDP's, DVDP's, etc.

SKsolutions

Scroll, scroll, scroll,










scroll,










scroll,









Scroll,













Is it much farther Papa Smurf?

simphiwes

when buying an amp/avr/integrated amp what are the most important things to look at as i have learnt that watts dont neccesarilly mean an amp is any more efficient than another aside from listening to it. What are the benefits of using a power amp in any avr system, is it alway neccesary to us a power amp.

Lsi9

Marantz will always have better amps than pioneer

starchaser

simphiwes, i don't know enough to remark, yet, questions lead to better questions... this is the place for good answers.

thx. for the links tour.

edit.. still learning to spell!

Tour2ma

EDIT: You're more than welcome. No one I know of dropped out of dear old Mom knowing this stuff. We all had to learn somewhere at sometime. And around here the learning never stops...

simphiwes wrote:

when buying an amp/avr/integrated amp what are the most important things to look at as i have learnt that watts dont neccesarilly mean an amp is any more efficient than another aside from listening to it. What are the benefits of using a power amp in any avr system, is it alway neccesary to us a power amp.

I think there's a question in there...

First, while you could calculate an amp's efficiency (% of power delvivered to the speakers divided by power drawn from the wall plug), efficiency isn't a term normally assocaited with amps. Efficiency is a term associated with speakers (sound pressure developed at a distance of one meter with a 1 watt input signal).

Second, if I understand what you are asking, I and many others believe that there are significant benefits associated with the use of separate pre- and power amps. Some highlights would include:

• Separate power supplies - Many, if not most, receivers use one to supply power to both the Pre-amp and power amp sections and their needs are very different with the amount of power being needed the most obvious difference.
• Separation of the circuits - Pre-amp circuits are not immune to spurious signals, magnetic fields, etc. Such signals and fields (and etc.'s ) are generated where large amounts of current flow, e.g., the amp section. Also Pre-amp circuits are generally more heat sensitive and amps (due to their inefficiencies) generate heat. So remove the amps and you remove the heat, the fields and the signals they generate.
• Choice - Some companies make great amps, some make great Pre-amps, some make both great. By an AVR and you are stuck with one company so they need to be good at making both. With separates you can mix and match. And not just brands, you can also go with tube Pre's and Solid State (SS) amps or vice versa.
• Upgradability - With separates its Pre-amp or power amp, your choice. With a receiver, the whole thing goes when it's time for a change... or... you add an outboard amp to a receiver which may leave 2 or more channels of receiver amplification unused.

Hope this helps...