[headshrinker2]

Greetings everyone,

I very recently picked up an Onkyo 706 AV receiver at a great price (i.e. $500). Since then a friend who previously owned a high end stereo shop recommended Marantz as a better receiver from a pure sound quality point of view. While I love movies, I care more about music.


As we all know, people says lots of stuff about the different brands. From those who have listened to all this equipment, will a similarly spec'd Marantz sound better than an Onkyo? If so, how much better? In what ways?


Thanks in advance. I am still within my return period for my Onkyo.

 

[N8DOGG]

until you have both side by side in the same room, hooked up to the same speakers, you'll never know.


You not gonna hear what someone else does so take your "friends" advice with a grain of salt because it's not as cut and dry as that.

 

[tim3320070]

While I've not heard a Marantz (I'd like to), I did have a SR705 and moved to a Pioneer Elite 92TXH which is considerably better in SQ than the 705 was- fuller, warmer wider sound. I feel there are better out there than the lower/middle end Onkyo, especially if you spend a couple of hundred more. That said, tons of people love their sound, just not me.

 

[Mr. Lizardo]



Quote:
Originally Posted by n8dogg /forum/post/15459131

until you have both side by side in the same room, hooked up to the same speakers, you'll never know.


You not gonna hear what someone else does so take your "friends" advice with a grain of salt because it's not as cut and dry as that.

+1

 

[headshrinker2]

Thanks for the reply You make some excellent points. I would never rely on any single person's subjective opinion- even about a restaurant! Ultimately, AV equipment has to please the individual user.


However, certain receivers are better regarded than others for either sonic or video performance. For example, it is clear from perusing these forums that Denon receivers are generally preferred over Onkyo.


The advice was given to me by somebody who is currently working in a AV store that just happens to carry Onkyo, Denon, NAD and Marantz. He actually is in a unique position to compare equipment. I'm not particularly nor exclusively interested in his opinion. This is way I'm wondering if folks across the forum have any intelligent or consistent opinions.


-- Take care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG /forum/post/15459131


until you have both side by side in the same room, hooked up to the same speakers, you'll never know.


You not gonna hear what someone else does so take your "friends" advice with a grain of salt because it's not as cut and dry as that.

 

[N8DOGG]

I understand about your friend who works there but it is still just his opinion.

I really just mean maybe you should go to his store and bring some cd's, get him to connect some speakers so you can a/b test and decide for yourself. (without him feeding his salesman mumbo jumbo.


And personally if I had to choose? I'd go with nad, The marantz sound is not for me (which is why I went with separates

)

 

[naschbac]

Not sure that it really matters, but Onkyo receivers I've auditioned in my theater/music setup have pretty weak pre-amps in terms of sound quality. Overly bright is how i'd describe it.


Probably works great on most low to mid-range home theater speakers, but on more analytical/accurate music oriented speakers it wasn't a happy marriage.


To be fair, I was only testing the pre-amp as I use external amplification.


Never had a Marantz in here, but as far as low-cost receivers go, I was very impressed with the sound quality of the Pioneer 1018 when used as a pre-amp.

 

[JTik]



Quote:
Originally Posted by naschbac /forum/post/15460744


Not sure that it really matters, but Onkyo receivers I've auditioned in my theater/music setup have pretty weak pre-amps in terms of sound quality. Overly bright is how i'd describe it.


Probably works great on most low to mid-range home theater speakers, but on more analytical/accurate music oriented speakers it wasn't a happy marriage.


To be fair, I was only testing the pre-amp as I use external amplification.


Never had a Marantz in here, but as far as low-cost receivers go, I was very impressed with the sound quality of the Pioneer 1018 when used as a pre-amp.

I had an Onkyo 606 and took it back for a 1018, I am much more happy with the 1018.

 

[JTik]



Quote:
Originally Posted by naschbac /forum/post/15460744


Not sure that it really matters, but Onkyo receivers I've auditioned in my theater/music setup have pretty weak pre-amps in terms of sound quality. Overly bright is how i'd describe it.


Probably works great on most low to mid-range home theater speakers, but on more analytical/accurate music oriented speakers it wasn't a happy marriage.


To be fair, I was only testing the pre-amp as I use external amplification.


Never had a Marantz in here, but as far as low-cost receivers go, I was very impressed with the sound quality of the Pioneer 1018 when used as a pre-amp.

I had an Onkyo 606 and took it back for a 1018, I am much more happy with the 1018.

 

[headshrinker2]

Was the 1018 also an Onkyo?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JTik /forum/post/15461164


I had an Onkyo 606 and took it back for a 1018, I am much more happy with the 1018.

 

[headshrinker2]

Thanks for the reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naschbac /forum/post/15460744


Not sure that it really matters, but Onkyo receivers I've auditioned in my theater/music setup have pretty weak pre-amps in terms of sound quality. Overly bright is how i'd describe it.


Probably works great on most low to mid-range home theater speakers, but on more analytical/accurate music oriented speakers it wasn't a happy marriage.


To be fair, I was only testing the pre-amp as I use external amplification.


Never had a Marantz in here, but as far as low-cost receivers go, I was very impressed with the sound quality of the Pioneer 1018 when used as a pre-amp.

 

[headshrinker2]

I would agree about listening w/ my own ears w/ recordings that I am familiar with. I have a standard set of CD's that I bring w/ me whenever I audition equipment. Listening in a store, in a different room, different speakers, different electronics... can also be of limited value. Whenever possible, I try and demo equipment at home on my stuff. That tells me what I really want to know.


I also like NAD very much. My last AV receiver and CD player are both NAD. While many love the NAD stuff for audio, it is not always considered tops for video processing.


I will probably go w/ a separates approach for a smaller room 2-channel listening environment, as my HT is currently in my family room.


Take care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG /forum/post/15460461


I understand about your friend who works there but it is still just his opinion.

I really just mean maybe you should go to his store and bring some cd's, get him to connect some speakers so you can a/b test and decide for yourself. (without him feeding his salesman mumbo jumbo.


And personally if I had to choose? I'd go with nad, The marantz sound is not for me (which is why I went with separates

)

 

[juggy4805]



Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3320070 /forum/post/15459313


While I've not heard a Marantz (I'd like to), I did have a SR705 and moved to a Pioneer Elite 92TXH which is considerably better in SQ than the 705 was- fuller, warmer wider sound. I feel there are better out there than the lower/middle end Onkyo, especially if you spend a couple of hundred more. That said, tons of people love their sound, just not me.

I am no pro in sound quality but statements like this confuse me. The sound was fuller,warmer and wider. In my opinion audio reproduction should be true to the original recording. If you do blind listening tests and one receiver sounds fuller than the other receiver, is the receiver that sounds "fuller" correctly reproducing the sounds? How can that question even be answered?


I only ask this because I get confused when terms like "full","warm", "bloated", "coarse" or any word that describes "texture" of music. I'm not disagreeing that these terms should be used but, there is no accurate definition to how someone perceives sounds.

 

[Naxray]

headshrinker2,


IMO, the Marantz sound is akin to NAD's. I had an NAD T760 and loved it's sound. When it died I bought the Pioneer 1018, and subsequently a Marantz 5003...ended up keeping the Marantz because of the "warmer" sound it produced. I have not compared the Onkyo...

 

[bryanb]

I'm curious how big the differences are in sound quality these days since almost all receivers have an automatic calibration mode (audyssey, mcacc, ypao). I just got the Denon avr-989 (same as 2809ci) and it sounds completely different (much fuller, warmer etc.) with Audyssey calibration vs. the precalibrated sound.

 

[Veda]

Onkyos are brighter than Marantz but have a lot more features. I'd say the overall sound quality is the same. Marantz seems to have better materials and sounds cleaner on the higher freq. I ended up getting the Marantz.

 

[Veda]



Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanb /forum/post/15462576


I'm curious how big the differences are in sound quality these days since almost all receivers have an automatic calibration mode (audyssey, mcacc, ypao). I just got the Denon avr-989 (same as 2809ci) and it sounds completely different (much fuller, warmer etc.) with Audyssey calibration vs. the precalibrated sound.

I can't comment on YPAO as I haven't used a Yamaha receiver lately due to my bias against their house sound but Marantz's MRAC seems to be missing EQ and low freq correction compared to Audyssey. But Denon which is the strongest proponent of Audyssey doesn't come with a better amp module to begin with so even with Audyssey it still sounded veiled and unbalanced. To me anyway...

 

[Naxray]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Veda /forum/post/15462919


I can't comment on YPAO as I haven't used a Yamaha receiver lately due to my bias against their house sound but Marantz's MRAC seems to be missing EQ and low freq correction compared to Audyssey. But Denon which is the strongest proponent of Audyssey doesn't come with a better amp module to begin with so even with Audyssey it still sounded veiled and unbalanced. To me anyway...

Marantz uses Audyssey MultEQ...at least on the US models. I see you list your location as Asia - do they not use Audyssey MultEQ on the Asian models?

 

[bryanb]

What I'm curious about is since current Onkyo and Marantz receivers use Audyssey, will they sound any different comparitively after Audyssey calibration? Assuming we are comparing similar models with similar quality DACs etc.

 

[Naxray]

This is a great question...I'd like to hear some feedback as well. Maybe you could pose it in the official Audyssey thread and let us know.


Only comment I have - FWIW - is that after MCACC on the PIO and Audyssey on the Marantz, the Marantz sounds better...and it sounds better with the correction stuff disengaged on both.