T Cobe wrote: Anthem and Rick,

Thanks for the positive feedback on the 105. I think I may hold off on a CD player for now and save up for a new Oppo or maybe put it on my Christmas list. I have a processor upgrade that needs to happen first.

Anthem, how do you integrate the Cambridge CD player? Is it in a secondary system? Am I correct in assuming you like the 105 better since it is in your 2-channel setup?

Rick, I'm glad there was not a drop off from the NAD to the Marantz and that you are still enjoying it. Would you buy it again? Any advice on the brand based on your experience. I'm still looking towards the newly released 7702 mkII and would appreciate your feedback. I believe the 7010 and the 7702 are pretty similar in form and function.

Cheers,

T Cobe

Hi, T Cobe

RE the NAD vs. the Marantz: yes I purchased the Marantz in part to expand the channels I could power directly, or support with external amps, and support ATMOS/height channels . But, I am also finding other things I love about the Marantz ( and the NAD was no slouch for SQ). I loved the NAD's detail in the treble and mid range, but always wondered about it's willingness to send deep, rich bass to channels set as LARGE directly, vs. it's willingness to send full bass to pre-outs. LFE was no issue.

I had from the start wondered about the NAD's "timidity" in pushing deep, standard 2 channel bass to the powered Triton fronts (T2's at first, only fixed by adding an external amp).) The Marantz is completely willing to send full, rich, deep bass to any channel, including the T2's, fed directly from the Marantz. now installed as surrounds, at least equal to the bass I heard with the NAD, ONLY after I installed an external amp for the fronts.

Re SQ in general, the NAD (and I listened to the top of the line 787 also), has great mid and treble clarity, and I wondered if the Marantz could match that. Yes, it can! The Marantz is richer in mid range SQ, it just sounds a little more "mellow", without giving up any detail. Both are without listener fatique, but my nod goes to the Marantz. It's realistic, without coloration, and just presents the whole frequency range in a very rich, listenable way. I highly recommend Marantz. I really think you would love the 7702 mkII.

One thing I am puzzled about. The new Marantz SR 7010 has a new feature, "ECO mode" for the amps, and the options are "Off", "Auto" and "ON'. When in "Off" mode, the receiver runs some hot, almost like a class A amp. Is it acting like a class A amp for lower volume and then switching? Marantz literature doesn't say so, nor can I find anything on the internet. One would think that that would be a selling feature... So I don't know what it means, but I leave the feature in "Off". That's also what the manual recommends if playing in higher volumes.

Yes, I would buy it again, in a heartbeat. It really is a beefy, classy receiver. And, when processing MP3 inputs, it can be set to upsample/massage the feed to improve lost high/low signals.

I give it an A.


Rick

Rick,
That is quite a report on the Marantz, and pretty much just what I would expect. To me they are the go to brand for SQ in receivers and what is called mass market manufacturers.
Just my opinion from my experience with their AV7005 pre-pro.
The only thing I did not like about it was Audyssey; I wanted, needed better room correction so I went with the Emo XMC-1 with DIRAC.
But that description of the sound is typical of the good Marantz gear.
Happy Listening,
God Bless, Wayne

Hi, T Cobe

More on the NAD vs. the Marantz AVR's...

I really like the Maranz AVR, but the NAD did some things VERY well. For instance, if the ONLY song I ever played was Eric Clapton's "Tears in Heaven", then I would want to play it on the NAD. The guitar chords just jump at you! I'd have to find a way to pump the bass in surround to the T2's as surrounds, though.

What the Marantz does, though, is probably more like a TOOOOB amp (as Wayne calls them), more SMOOTH, very rich.
I guess it comes down to musical tastes. IF NAD had a 9.2 channel offering, with expandable pre-outs, then I would have definitely auditioned it. NAD's are good at what they do!

BUT, for 90% of the music that I have listened to, I really prefer the SMOOTH, balanced sound of the Marantz. Especially as the music comes from the OPPO.

Good luck searching for your next pre!!

Rick

Rick,

Thanks for the additional update. In my few auditions of Marantz in surround sound, I found it to be more open and airy compared to my Integra which has a warm and meaty mid range albeit a bit boxier/recessed. That's based on just a couple of showroom auditions with Marantz and years with Integra. I actually enjoyed my Integras for music but I think the recessed sound doesn't suit home theater as well. It's funny, but I've always considered my Integra to sound a bit like a tube amp/pre-amp due to its warm and substantial mid-range. Maybe we both need toooobs! (Thanks, Wayne!)

Keep the feedback coming!

Cheers,

T COBE

RE how the Marantz sounds with feeds from the OPPO, no SQ issues whatsoever. Words like rich, full, detailed, come to mind. I've listened to a number of DVD's I was familiar with, and they ALL sound fantastic.

I guess I have to try analog feeds from the OPPO in stereo to finish judging my new set-up.

Rick

Rick,

I know you enjoy your multi-channel audio but I bet that stereo playback from your Oppo direct into your 2-channel NAD through your T1s will be a revelation! I'll stay tuned to see what you think. The Oppo setup menus are fairly extensive and may take some tweaking to get optimized for direct playback. Even with my 103, analog playback was noticeably better.

Cheers,

T Cobe