AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Bias from Home Theater Magazine reviews
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bias from Home Theater Magazine reviews

post #1 of 29
5/29/12 at 9:56am
Thread Starter 
Denon 3312 review
Marantz 6006 review
I know reviewers are just as susceptible to bias as anyone else but this one I found to be hilarious. It has become pretty common knowledge that Marantz and Denon are using the same components for their receivers. The Marantz 6006 is just basically a Denon 3312 with a different cover on it and 7.1 analog inputs added to the back. I got the June issue of Home Theater Magazine and looked at the Marantz 6006 review and just started laughing. They reviewed the Denon 3312 the month before and gave it pretty decent scores but the Marantz got a perfect score of 5 out 5 for audio performance. The Denon 3312 only gets a 4 out of 5. Also the Marantz is $100 more and it gets a perfect 5 out of 5 for value while the Denon gets a 4 out of 5. I went ahead and posted a comment on the 3312 review just to see what kind of response I would get and here it is:

Quote:


The two models differ markedly in power specs and have radically different feature rosters. In addition D&M offers this response: "Denon and Marantz share the same parent company as well as several core AV receiver technologies and features. There are, however, significant differences in the overall design, goals and audio circuitry employed by the two brands. Probably the biggest difference is in the somewhat esoteric nature of the overall audio experience. How you listen to music and what moves you is by definition subjective. While neither brand is 'better' per se than the other, they do vary, and each has its own specific 'audio signature.' This is why we encourage potential owners to audition products side-by-side whenever possible. In addition, in most cases Marantz offers more analog audio and video connectivity to facilitate the use of legacy equipment, which has special appeal for a certain type of consumer."

Here are the lab test for the two receivers
Marantz 6006
Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 127.9 watts
1% distortion at 153.2 watts

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 75.9 watts
1% distortion at 92.0 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 71.3 watts
1% distortion at 83.4 watts

Denon 3312
Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 122.9 watts
1% distortion at 143.3 watts

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 82.9 watts
1% distortion at 103.0 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 79.5 watts
1% distortion at 96.8 watts

Wow what huge differences in power specs!

Also the difference in feature rosters is only 7.1 channel Analog inputs on the 6006.

I just found this to be really funny that reviewers will try that hard to defend their golden ear reviews. I actually subscribe to home theater magazine and enjoy reading a lot of their articles but this review was just a joke. I went a ahead and posted one more response asking for them to post some pics of the insides of both receivers and to do some blind a/b testing but I know they wont do any of it. Marantz has a reputation for sound quality so I know that a sighted review will always carry some bias. I think the Marantz 6006 is a good receiver just like the Denon 3312 but getting an extra star for sound quality and value just because of their name is pretty crazy
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 29
5/29/12 at 11:28am
It's kind of what you're paying for with reviews of this sort. Expert wine tasters may not be able to reliably tell the difference between a $10 bottle of plonk and a $200 rare vintage in blind tests but that's not the point. Wine connoisseurs just want to be reasured that their $200 is getting them something that spending $10, $100 or even $190 can't.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 29
5/29/12 at 11:39am
I like HT only for their bench tests.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 29
5/29/12 at 12:33pm
I posted this previously but it is worth repeating..

D&M Holdings has had significant financial losses and starting in 2012 the Denon & Marantz brand AVRs will begin sharing engineering, manufacturing and tooling assets..

Originally Marantz AVRs were built by 1 China subcontractor and Denon AVRs by another, but now they are starting to be built @ the same factory. D&M does have their own factory in China but it has been slow in coming up for building AVRs, it has generally been assembling their midi-systems which are quite popular in markets outside of North America.

During the last 6 years, Denon AVRs have always outsold Marantz AVRs by a wide margin, but the last 2 years have been extremely challenging to Denon as they have lost significant AVR market share both in North America and Europe..

It is very difficult for an AVR brand to sell the both big-box retailers/internet sellers price-point AVRs while maintaining an equitable presence in the CEDIA install segment for their stepup AVRs..

Just my $0.02..
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 29
5/29/12 at 1:23pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross Ridge View Post

It's kind of what you're paying for with reviews of this sort. Expert wine tasters may not be able to reliably tell the difference between a $10 bottle of plonk and a $200 rare vintage in blind tests but that's not the point. Wine connoisseurs just want to be reasured that their $200 is getting them something that spending $10, $100 or even $190 can't.

This is true. I usually don't pay much attention to the sound quality section of receiver reviews. They do have some good articles from time to time. I got a lot of info from their 4k issue. I think I only have 2 more issues coming and then I'm going to get a digital subscription on my iPad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rnatalli View Post

I like HT only for their bench tests.

Yeah I always check out the test bench first. I have heard that some manufactures send over different versions for the reviews to make the test bench look better. It's nothing I can confirm but it was pretty interesting to hear.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 29
5/29/12 at 1:27pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post

I posted this previously but it is worth repeating..

D&M Holdings has had significant financial losses and starting in 2012 the Denon & Marantz brand AVRs will begin sharing engineering, manufacturing and tooling assets..

Originally Marantz AVRs were built by 1 China subcontractor and Denon AVRs by another, but now they are starting to be built @ the same factory. D&M does have their own factory in China but it has been slow in coming up for building AVRs, it has generally been assembling their midi-systems which are quite popular in markets outside of North America.

During the last 6 years, Denon AVRs have always outsold Marantz AVRs by a wide margin, but the last 2 years have been extremely challenging to Denon as they have lost significant AVR market share both in North America and Europe..

It is very difficult for an AVR brand to sell the both big-box retailers/internet sellers price-point AVRs while maintaining an equitable presence in the CEDIA install segment for their stepup AVRs..

Just my $0.02..

Thanks for the info M Code. Does that include the xx12 series as well? It seems like the 2112 did pretty well but I can see how the 2312 and 3312 would have bombed as the Onkyos were quite a bit better in that price range in my opinion.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 29
5/29/12 at 3:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjpearce023 View Post

Denon 3312 review
Marantz 6006 review
I know reviewers are just as susceptible to bias as anyone else but this one I found to be hilarious. It has become pretty common knowledge that Marantz and Denon are using the same components for their receivers. The Marantz 6006 is just basically a Denon 3312 with a different cover on it and 7.1 analog inputs added to the back. I got the June issue of Home Theater Magazine and looked at the Marantz 6006 review and just started laughing. They reviewed the Denon 3312 the month before and gave it pretty decent scores but the Marantz got a perfect score of 5 out 5 for audio performance. The Denon 3312 only gets a 4 out of 5. Also the Marantz is $100 more and it gets a perfect 5 out of 5 for value while the Denon gets a 4 out of 5. I went ahead and posted a comment on the 3312 review just to see what kind of response I would get and here it is:



Here are the lab test for the two receivers
Marantz 6006
Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 127.9 watts
1% distortion at 153.2 watts

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 75.9 watts
1% distortion at 92.0 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 71.3 watts
1% distortion at 83.4 watts

Denon 3312
Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 122.9 watts
1% distortion at 143.3 watts

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 82.9 watts
1% distortion at 103.0 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 79.5 watts
1% distortion at 96.8 watts

Wow what huge differences in power specs!

Also the difference in feature rosters is only 7.1 channel Analog inputs on the 6006.

I just found this to be really funny that reviewers will try that hard to defend their golden ear reviews. I actually subscribe to home theater magazine and enjoy reading a lot of their articles but this review was just a joke. I went a ahead and posted one more response asking for them to post some pics of the insides of both receivers and to do some blind a/b testing but I know they wont do any of it. Marantz has a reputation for sound quality so I know that a sighted review will always carry some bias. I think the Marantz 6006 is a good receiver just like the Denon 3312 but getting an extra star for sound quality and value just because of their name is pretty crazy

Yea, I agree with you that those test results got to be BS, those two avrs don't put out much more than 50 watts a channel, going by the way they sound with full range speakers...
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 29
5/29/12 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by joehonest View Post

Yea, I agree with you that those test results got to be BS, those two avrs don't put out much more than 50 watts a channel, going by the way they sound with full range speakers...

Hm, I don't think the OP was questioning the actual measured output, but rather the statement that they "differ markedly in power specs" and the mystical nonsense about distinct "audio signature."
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 29
5/29/12 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post


Hm, I don't think the OP was questioning the actual measured output, but rather the statement that they "differ markedly in power specs" and the mystical nonsense about distinct "audio signature."

Non sequiturs are kinda par for the course around here. I haven't seen anything to suggest ht mag's tests are deficient for the things they test. Obviously from a pure power perspective the Marantz and Denon are essentially indistinguishsble
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 29
5/29/12 at 4:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post


Non sequiturs are kinda par for the course around here. I haven't seen anything to suggest ht mag's tests are deficient for the things they test. Obviously from a pure power perspective the Marantz and Denon are essentially indistinguishsble

They screwed up the power figures for the review of the Anthem MRX 700. They subsequently corrected this but one guy on this forum still quotes the first print figures.
John
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 29
5/29/12 at 10:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayray View Post

They screwed up the power figures for the review of the Anthem MRX 700. They subsequently corrected this but one guy on this forum still quotes the first print figures.

How have the MRX 700 figures been corrected? The issue that some posters pointed out was that Home Theater measured lower power output with seven channels driven from the MRX 700 than from the MRX 300. And those figures remain. Has Home Theater edited some other figures?

http://www.hometheater.com/content/a...-labs-measures
http://www.hometheater.com/content/a...-labs-measures

AJ
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 29
5/29/12 at 10:11pm
I suspect that some of the Home Theater writers are "living a lie." They fully recognize that many differences they perceive are largely imagined. But, hey, people want to read a good story. Moreover, if not for that flowery prose selling the audio dream, ad dollars would dry up, and the magazine would cease to exist.

On the other hand, some of the writers are likely just as delusional as many of the subjectivists in the forums here.

AJ
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 29
5/30/12 at 3:38am
Basically two things should help clarifying
a) compare the components and component layout by looking at the service manuals for any (significant) differences, if available. Those specs mentioned don't tell everything.
b) do they share the same firmware ? Some of the SQ aspects can be manipulated by the DSP-based firmware, making it possible to "tune" a models sound, at least to some extent and when the onboard DSPs are engaged in the sound path.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 29
5/30/12 at 5:30am
If the two avrs were the same on the inside, they'd have the same power specs. since they don't, and have different feature sets, they must be different.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 29
5/30/12 at 6:43am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurkey View Post

Basically two things should help clarifying
a) compare the components and component layout by looking at the service manuals for any (significant) differences, if available. Those specs mentioned don't tell everything.
b) do they share the same firmware ? Some of the SQ aspects can be manipulated by the DSP-based firmware, making it possible to "tune" a models sound, at least to some extent and when the onboard DSPs are engaged in the sound path.

I dont have the service manuals but I found a couple of pics.

I know the Firmware updates have all been released at the same time.

Marantz 6006
Attachment 248006

Denon 3312
Attachment 248007
LL
LL
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 29
5/30/12 at 6:48am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength View Post

I suspect that some of the Home Theater writers are "living a lie." They fully recognize that many differences they perceive are largely imagined. But, hey, people want to read a good story. Moreover, if not for that flowery prose selling the audio dream, ad dollars would dry up, and the magazine would cease to exist.

On the other hand, some of the writers are likely just as delusional as many of the subjectivists in the forums here.

AJ

Can't argue with that. I always get a kick out of their receiver and amp reviews. The response they provided was a little frustrating I will admit.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 29
5/30/12 at 6:51am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by runnin' View Post

If the two avrs were the same on the inside, they'd have the same power specs. since they don't, and have different feature sets, they must be different.

I have seen test bench done on the same receiver from different publications get different results so I don't think the 5 or 10 watts really proves anything. See the pics I posted above. They are a slightly different angle and the lighting is brighter on the 6006 but they look the same piece for piece.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 29
5/30/12 at 7:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjpearce023 View Post


I have seen test bench done on the same receiver from different publications get different results so I don't think the 5 or 10 watts really proves anything. See the pics I posted above. They are a slightly different angle and the lighting is brighter on the 6006 but they look the same piece for piece.

Also you could easily specify 2 amps that are idenitcal in different ways. Wtate power for one at .1% thd and for the other at .5%.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 29
5/30/12 at 7:06am
just look at internals.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 29
5/30/12 at 8:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by runnin' View Post

If the two avrs were the same on the inside, they'd have the same power specs. since they don't, and have different feature sets, they must be different.

Both reviews and measurement sets are online:

http://www.hometheater.com/content/m...-labs-measures
http://www.hometheater.com/content/d...-labs-measures

The power specs are not identical between the two AVRs, but the differences are negligible. In fact, the very minimal differences in power output are on the order of what you might expect in variation from one unit of the same model to another unit of the same model.

This is especially apparent when you convert the measurements to dB (in keeping with most of the other measurements in the set). For example, the SR6006 seven channel continuously driven output at 0.1% THD is 71.3 W, which is 18.5 dBW; the equivalent 3312CI output is 79.5 W, which is 19.0 dBW. The 0.5 dB difference is insignificant.

Furthermore, compare other measurements between the two AVRs. Frequency responses, power vs THD curves, crosstalk, S/N ratios, and LFE low pass filter frequencies are practically identical.

AJ
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 29
5/30/12 at 9:47am
IMO the real difference would be how each handled a 4ohm load since a lot of speakers dip there on the low end.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 29
5/30/12 at 10:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkhorror View Post

just look at internals.

look the same, don't they

Seriously, Home Theater Mag's response seemed a tad defensive to me. Even beyond what I'd expect them to say publicly. Maybe the reviewer is just in the place AJ calls...."living the lie".

They've come to believe all their own subjective biases without realizing it and without side-by-side objective comparisons, just continue the practice. I don't doubt the reviewer thinks that what he wrote wasn't accurate. He probably didn't know or chose to ignore that they are the same platforms. I think it's inherent in their business to come up audible differences even if unprovable.

It's a shame more of them don't (or can't due to mfg imposed restrictions) remove the hood to see for themselves.

This is certainly not nearly as egregious as the $3K Lexicon case-within-a-case Oppo that Audioholics busted them for. But it does cast doubt on the reviewer's ability to be objective, write objectively or be consistent with his own previous review.

I still think HTM is much better than most. Too bad the reviewer didn't do more homework and at least be consistent with his previous review. He only hurt his own credibility.

This past HTM issue is interesting. McIntosh's latest "budget" $6K prepro that shares its "heritage" with other D&M gear. At least Fremer has 2 things going for him in his review -

-he upfront acknowledges the sharing of technologies, platforms, and even some hardware but says McIntosh has put their own implementation on hardware and/or software. He doesn't a/b compare (probably against the "rules") but he does try to explain how the McIntosh is its own animal.

-and this is supported by just looking at the faceplate; clearly McIntosh has developed their own unique implementation, different from any Denon or Marantz.

I don't have a problem with same thing, different brands. After all, our auto industry has done it for decades

But I do have a problem with a legit reviewer feebly attempting to justify his bias by using amp measurement differences that are insignificant. That is lame.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 29
5/30/12 at 6:13pm
Also those measurement differences could be on 2 Denons or 2 Marantz, just differences from sample to sample. Different temps, different source power, differences in the tolerances of the test equipment. You name it, there's always variables and that difference of power is insignificant.

Their power tests on the AVR-2312ci and the AVR-3312ci show that the AVR-2312ci has higher power output into 2 channels driven into 8 ohms.

The real test is the current output (4 ohm) as the AVR-3312ci has shown to be a bit better.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 29
5/31/12 at 2:45pm
Thread Starter 
Now I got a response from Home Theater Magazine's Scott Wilkinson telling me that blind A/B testing is not "as straightforward or revealing as I think." So apparently because blind A/B test would prove them wrong they are of no value. This is too good!
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 29
5/31/12 at 3:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjpearce023 View Post

Now I got a response from Home Theater Magazine's Scott Wilkinson telling me that blind A/B testing is not "as straightforward or revealing as I think." So apparently because blind A/B test would prove them wrong they are of no value. This is too good!

He has a point. Blind testing is by definition not revealing....

Of course, if they did engage in blind testing, they'll lose their advertisers within a couple of months and the reviews will be much more boring.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 29
6/1/12 at 6:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjpearce023 View Post

Now I got a response from Home Theater Magazine's Scott Wilkinson telling me that blind A/B testing is not "as straightforward or revealing as I think." So apparently because blind A/B test would prove them wrong they are of no value. This is too good!

What is straight forward then Scott?
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 29
6/1/12 at 7:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian-HD View Post

What is straight forward then Scott?

"Straight forward" sounds like it means what is the best method to bring in more advertising in order to boost the cash flow of Home Theater Magazine.


"Revealing" means that blind A/B testing would not be in the best interest of the Magazine, or of the writers for that matter.

The equipment reviewers are too lazy (or is it dishonest) to implement the room correction systems that are included (by the manufacturers) in the AVR's they write up. How useful to the prospective buyer is that?

Oh, and btw ........how much stock in the magazine does Def Tech and/or Golden Ear own? Or is it vice-versa?

I used to subscribe to this glossy rag. I very recently let my subscription lapse. It would take some MAJOR changes before I would ever even consider subscribing again.

Rant mode off

Cheers,
SB
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 29
6/1/12 at 9:08am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post

He has a point. Blind testing is by definition not revealing....

Of course, if they did engage in blind testing, they'll lose their advertisers within a couple of months and the reviews will be much more boring.

That is true. It's stupid to expect the reviewers to hold the reader's interest in any regard. It's all about filling up those extra pages with revenue. I just love the way they will defend their reviews even when something fishy is pointed out.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 29
6/1/12 at 9:15am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotcheckBilly View Post

"Straight forward" sounds like it means what is the best method to bring in more advertising in order to boost the cash flow of Home Theater Magazine.


"Revealing" means that blind A/B testing would not be in the best interest of the Magazine, or of the writers for that matter.

The equipment reviewers are too lazy (or is it dishonest) to implement the room correction systems that are included (by the manufacturers) in the AVR's they write up. How useful to the prospective buyer is that?

Oh, and btw ........how much stock in the magazine does Def Tech and/or Golden Ear own? Or is it vice-versa?

I used to subscribe to this glossy rag. I very recently let my subscription lapse. It would take some MAJOR changes before I would ever even consider subscribing again.

Rant mode off

Cheers,
SB

I still like flipping through the pages but I wouldn't base any buying decision off of their reviews. I haven't heard any of the Golden Ear speakers but they do seem to give them very rave reviews. The thing that gets me is there really never is a bad review. It's so strange that every product they review is either a good or great product.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Bias from Home Theater Magazine reviews