S&V tests the Marantz SR7200 (1 Viewer)

[Paul_Psutka]

2)would 20w really be more than enough for a full range speaker? Sure...if you're using extreme sensivity horns,have a small room,and/or never listen at more than moderate levels.
yes, and that's what David Ranada said in his review for S&V magazine. This receiver seems to only have ample power when in 2 channel stereo mode.
Let's not forget about how poor the 4 ohm output must be for this receiver. With all six channels driven, the output at clipping @ 1KHz into 8 ohms is 27 watts per channel. I wouldn't be surprised if the 4 ohm output with all 6 channels driven is around 13 to 14 watts (about 1/2 the 8 ohm output).
But as another poster mentioned, we're really expecting too much from under $1,000 receivers. I see posts all the time where people want a receiver rated at 100 watts x 7, with all the latest decoding and features for under $300! In fact, my brother-in-law told me today that he doesn't want to spend over $300 on a new receiver, but he expects it to have DD/DTS and lots of power. If the market keeps demanding these products, then I'm not surprised that we'll find faults and exaggerated power specs with many home theater receivers under $1,000.
[Edited last by Paul_Psutka on October 13, 2001 at 10:14 PM]

 

[Paul_Psutka]

Did Marantz ever claim the SR7200 should output 105W x 6 with all channels driven simultaneously?
The "fast facts" in the S&V review are taken from the Marantz literature, and it says "105 W x 6 into 8 ohms from 20 Hz to 20kHz with 0.05% THD, CHANNELS DRIVEN IN PAIRS". If that's all Marantz is advertising, then this power output was tested to be true - as long as only 2 channels are driven at a time. (i.e. the stereo performance with 2 channels driven was tested to be 120 W @ 1kHz which would translate to around 105 W full bandwidth.)
[Edited last by Paul_Psutka on October 13, 2001 at 10:23 PM]

 

[Charles J P]

I do agree with Paul, 100 watts per channel is the default rating for most of the major brands (JVC, Kenwood, Pioneer, Sony, Onkyo, Marantz, Denon) no matter what they really put out.
I think I should point out that I'm not saying that the 7200 tested by S&V put out less than 30 watts, but I'm saying if it did, I honestly think there was something wrong with that particular unit.
------------------
My Website: Link Removed
e-mail me: [email protected]
My DVD Profiler
Paradigm Lover

 

[Paul_Psutka]

I do agree with Paul, 100 watts per channel is the default rating for most of the major brands (JVC, Kenwood, Pioneer, Sony, Onkyo, Marantz, Denon) no matter what they really put out.
and then shoppers overlook products from companies (who conservatively and honestly rate their power specs)like NAD, Rotel, and Harman Kardon because their receivers are only rated at 75 to 85 watts x 5, and don't meet that "100 watts category". Yet these receivers will have a higher tested output (especially with lower impedances) than many of the above mentioned brands who claim 100 W x 5.
[Edited last by Paul_Psutka on October 13, 2001 at 10:40 PM]

 

[Charles J P]

I don't deny that Paul, but I don't think Marantz is the evil corporation that has taken the overblown power figure too far, I think time will reveal that there was a problem with that unit. Like I said, my SR-6200 exhibits no lack of power, no background noise, no more distortion than any other receiver in its class, and drives my system to INSANE levels. I guess the proof is in the pudding.
------------------
My Website: Link Removed
e-mail me: [email protected]
My DVD Profiler
Paradigm Lover

 

[Lewis Besze]

I was going through my S&V stack today and I noticed that not a single reciever they reviewed in 2001 has hit its advertised wattage

Check the June issue.
HK AVR 510 is advertised as 70wx5,it managed 74wx5 on the test bench.
------------------
"You Hungarians always disagree"

 

[Chris PC]

Personal experience with a receiver should account for something. I have to concure that my receiver is quite loud in stereo aswell as in 5.1 DD and also in 5 channel stereo. I bought a Technics receiver rated 100 watts into 6 ohms and it was far lower in volume with 8 ohm speakers than the SR 6200 I have now. As long as the receiver puts out 105 watts x 2 in stereo and a little more into 5 and 6 ohms, than its fine for me. I've been comparing my new speakers with my old speakers and I can't realistically turn the volume above 0 dB and the top is +15 dB. I can hear a small amount of hiss if I am within 2 feet of the speakers, but thats it. Sitting down, with the volume loud or low, I cannot hear any noise.
Tomorrow I will try my older 50 watt per channel amp with my new speakers and see how it compares to my newer SR 6200 receiver. Again, I'd rather not crank it to the limit, but I can at least get a reasonable feel for how it compares. From what I remember with my older 8 ohm speakers, it could get very loud, but I don't recall it ever getting as loud as the SR 6200. I'd have to compare with the same speakers though, as my new speakers are noticably more efficient and are also 6 ohms vs 8 ohms.
Anyone who says they agree with the S & V article and feels it proves that Marantz is poor is jumping the gun. What receivers of comparble price test better? Of course, unless you can test and compare receivers yourself, we should wait until we find out any more info from Sound & Vision and Marantz regarding the particular receiver that was tested and the method of testing.
[Edited last by Chris PC on October 13, 2001 at 11:19 PM]

 

[MatthewJ S]

o.k ,one more opinion for what it's worth...
I am sceptical of the facts that clearly indicate that this receiver sucks!,because though I don't sell marantz and don't think that the gear is all it's cracked-up to be,I don't think it's garbage either...
now, as for marantz grabbing one right of the shelf and sending it out blindly for review...YEAH, RIGHT!
I would like to see more reviewers do what afew good ones do ,that is , go to an a/v store they know and say "give me a broken-in, working demo" for review ,so they don't get a "tweaked-out" one from the mnfgr!!!!!!!
this being said, I will tell you that the salesmen in this buisness who enjoy referals are loath to recommend product that has too high a failure(or under-performance ) rate..
Marantz has,of late,been surviving by telling it's ma and pop shops that it is protecting their dealership regional integrity and margins and are trying to keep the product "unique" so there are many local dealers who have this as their favorite line to sell.But these local "high service" dealers can't support an inferior line either, so this may be a problem for marantz
As for S&V's testing ,I must assume that these figures were checked and re-checked, because none of these magazines wants to risk the potential loss of advertising revenue
from a bad review....by the way, when was the last time anyone saw a HUGE FOLD OUT AD for marantz in S&V ? Could this ,perhaps be a fund-raiser?
manufacturers quality go up and down with economics/the market/perceived value of features vs. oerformance/etc...,
so I stick with brands that rarely let me down and when their new lines come out I listen to them with a VERY suspicious ear!
------------------
that receiver sounds great demo'd through my computer speakers!
I bought the best ones, my buddy would never steer me wrong .He's not trying to make a commission off me and Cambridge Sound's factory direct pricing means that I got a great deal!
It must be a good deal all the people on the net would surely tell me if they didn't make a good choice and all those guys that are nice enough to provide a link i'm sure none of them are making a dime for it...all that stuff about e-marketing is probably Hooey!

 

[Charles J P]

Hey guys, I just wanted to come clean here. My receiver is a real piece of shit. I just wanted to string you all along for a while. It is horrible, and my only sense of satisfaction comes from trying to convince others to buy the same thing. I am so upset that you have found me out.
------------------
My Website: Link Removed
e-mail me: [email protected]
My DVD Profiler
Paradigm Lover

 

[Jeff D.]

Funny how quick people are ready to judge....
Especially Lewis, who seems determined to trash the 7200 based on one review, refusing to believe any number of possibilities and instead insisting that S&V must be the gospel.
It is quite possible that the 7200 is in fact a poor performer. It is also equally possible that something is amiss here...it is very possible that S&V received a faulty unit.
Also, it is QUITE clear that S&V should have taken steps - which, if one reads the article it doesn't appear they have - to speak with Marantz about the problem and try to see if anything was wrong. They didn't choose to do that, and I find it surprising.
Mike Knapp, no matter how many people try to say otherwise, has hit the nail on the head - WATTAGE MEANS JACK SHIT in terms of sound quality. People who honestly think any product sounds better because it has 100W of power versus 25W are MISSING OUT on a lot of what this hobby is about.
I know of many people who are satisfied with their 7200 product. If people wish to ASSUME this review MUST be GOSPEL and thus that the 7200 "SUCKS", then that is their (misguided and uninformed) choice, IMHO.
----
Jeff
------------------
"They're coming to get you Barbara..."
[Edited last by Jeff Kowerchuk on October 14, 2001 at 12:25 AM]

 

[Chuck C]

Aww c'mon Charles man, don't let these guys get to ya, I'm sure Marantz and S&V has a perfectly good expalination to all this, we just have to wait.
------------------
Chuck
http://www.hometheaterinsider.com

 

[Charles J P]

Thanks for the support Chuck. I have freely admitted that I own a similar product, and I know that can lead to bias, but it seems like some people here are happier arguing than finding out what the deal is. If my receiver only puts out 30 watts, than at least its the best 30 watts I ever bought. And since I bought with my ears, and not based on a magazine, I got exactly what I expected. See, I expected a unit that sounded as good as the one I demoed, and thats what I got, If I expected to get a unit with 105 watts, then I might be dissapointed, but since a watt doesnt make any music, I'm not too upset that I may not have gotten as many watts.
------------------
My Website: Link Removed
e-mail me: [email protected]
My DVD Profiler
Paradigm Lover

 

[Lewis Besze]

I know of many people who are satisfied with their 7200 product. If people wish to ASSUME this review MUST be GOSPEL and thus that the 7200 "SUCKS", then that is their (misguided and uninformed) choice, IMHO

NO it's not a gospel,it's simply an OBJECTIVE DATA.Nothing more nothing less!
------------------
"You Hungarians always disagree"

 

[TerryC]

This reminds me of when Ford came out with the 1999 Mustang Cobra, it was spec'd at 320HP but track times proved different and law suits flourished. To the old objective Dyno the 1999 Cobra's went and low and behold it was majorly down on power! Ford was embarrassed to say the least and recalled all 5000 Cobra's to retrofit a "fix" as it would soon be called which included new intake manifolds, exhaust and some other goodies to make it how they advertised it, 320hp.
If Marantz advertises more and it's way off then they should be held accountable. A manufacturer just can't stick an arbitrary sticker on something and say its something when its not and expect the consumer to remain quiet although I know audio gear has left a lot of breathing room in this already it just looks like maybe Marantz took it to anohter level?

 

[Vince Chan]

I had demoed a Marantz 6200 last weekend and found that the unit was defective. It generated a lot of noise that increased as the volume dial was turned up, even in Dolby and DTS recordings. I have also been told by an associate of mine that when he bought his 7200, his unit was defective too, although his second one seems to be fine.
Now I know that Marantz is a respectible company with a good history of products. However, I am currently less than impressed with their new line of receivers. There seems to be a high failure / defective rate with these new ones, and I noticed that they are no longer being made in Japan, but rather in China. Perhaps it is simply a matter of quality control rather than Marantz trying to deceive the general public.
------------------
Link Removed

 

[David Head]

Charles,
Are you happy with your receiver? If so, I wouldn't listen to anyone that had made up their mind based on one review and not listened to a product IN THEIR OWN HOME. When the S&V article on the Onkyo 696 came I out I had to laugh at all the people that trashed it because of the numbers quoted. I know what it sounds like in my home and I'm VERY happy with its performance. I've also listened to a Marantz 5200 when I was auditing speakers and thought it sounded great. The 7200 may still be a dog, but I won't pass judgement on it without listening to it myself.
David

 

[Chuck C]

The key word here is "defective" ...Vince is proof for that. Don't you remember all the threads about the S-video problems before the mag. review? I bet those AVRs had the same faulty amps as did S&V's sample. Bottom line: Noise=No
------------------
Chuck
http://www.hometheaterinsider.com

 

[Jeff D.]

Can you say that if an amp start to distort,even clip,and produce a worst then average noise floor,it would still "sound" as good as an amp that has none of those problems[enough headroom,lower noise],at the same amplitude?

I don't recall saying that power rating was irrelevant. The simple FACT is (and yes, it IS a FACT, even if it makes you more comfortable to deny it) that POWER RATING has NOTHING to do with sound quality. I have heard 15 watt amps that BLOW away these little surround receivers pumping out 120WATTS across all five channels. Can that amp go as loud as the 120W? Obviously not. But the fact that the amp has 120W does not make it sound better.
I have also heard comparisons between many similarly rated receivers and some sound good and some sound bad.
If you want to drive your system hard, yes, you need power. But let us assume for a moment that the 7200 really does have these low power ratings - does that make it bad? Certainly not. As long as it sounds good. The only consequence would be that it is not able to go as loud as other products.
If you purchase an amp solely based on its power supply, well I suppose that is your call. But the FACT remains:
WATTAGE MEANS JACK SHIT IN TERMS OF SOUND QUALITY.
Period. End of story.
----
Jeff
------------------
"They're coming to get you Barbara..."

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

WATTAGE MEANS JACK SHIT IN TERMS OF SOUND QUALITY.
Period. End of story.

Well then Marantz(or any product that doesn't measure up to its manufacturer's specifications) doesn't have anything to worry about. There is no reason they need to respond to the review(except to paraphrase what you said above). Somehow I don't think that is going to happen.

 

[Vince Bray]

1. I think it is perfectly acceptable for the manu. to check out the gear when submitting it. This does not mean re-engineer (and that's not realistic is it?), but when I show equipment to a prospective customer, I make sure it works first. The goal is to provide good product always. When a product goes out and doesn't work, you have the unpleasant job of fixing it asap. This does NOT mean the manu. is trying to cheat, it just insures that you don't run in to the unfortunate *occasional* problem when the product is reviewed. When a consumer gets a bad unit, you have one person to get happy. When a review goes badly,it's not so simple...
2. S&V is TOTALLY remiss for not contacting Marantz to check things out. On the receiver grid http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Holl...1/ratevsac.htm all the Marantz receivers were fairly close to spec. The SR-14EX was in excess of spec by 4w, and that was THIS YEAR. It is one of the approx 15-20% that exceeded spec. It's just not fair to hose the thing without at least giving the manu. a call.
3. That said, it sounds like the new receiver is a fundamentally good design suffering from some QA or component failure problems.
The mags used to harp on the fact that offshore manufacturing has led to much more product for less price. I agree that we expect alot from the receivers in particular, but it is also possible to put an honest 7x80w in a box for about $1k. You won't have the ultimate oomph, but with a powered sub it'll be fine. I plan to add an external amp before I upgrade receiver next time, and if I find a cheap pre/pro all the better (go outlaw).
Vince