S&V tests the Marantz SR7200 (1 Viewer)

[ChrisAG]

I agree it is probably a QC issue. I noticed the bad S-video in my 6200 right away and complained to the dealer. They hadn't heard of the problem, but I persisted and soon the Canadian distributor confirmed that the early production run had a problem.
Marantz SHOULD have cought this problem before they shipped, but they obviously did not. If the line shipped with one major flaw, why not another?
They were fools to ship these units without adequate QA. Marantz most likely changed manufacturing plants to save money, and now it has come back to haunt them.
To their credit, they did fix my unit's S-video problem quickly.
[Edited last by ChrisAG on October 14, 2001 at 12:03 PM]

 

[Chris PC]

I think I can address the arguement about WATTS:
1) Lets first deal with the issue of whether or not the receiver was advertised to put out a given amount of watts to a given number of channels at once or SIMULTANEUOSLY and if it does not, that in itself is enough to be disappointed with it. I cannot find any advertising or specifications quoting that the Marantz SR x200 series receivers puts out xxx watts (105 watts in the case of the 6200 and 7200) to ALL 6 channels AT ONCE. If that is in fact what Marantz advertises and this performance cannot be met by lab tests, then there is issue of false advertising. Again, we'll have to wait and see.
My owners manual states:
Continuous Audio Power Output (8 ohms/20 Hz-20 kHz)
Front=110 W
Center=110W
Surround=110W
THD Front (20Hz-20kHz)...8 ohms 0.05 %
2) The quantity of WATTS themselves do not garantee good or bad sound with too few being often connected with poor sound due to clipping.
3) You cannot argue that WATTS don't matter at all. If that was the case, then a 5 watt per channel amplifier would be able to drive a full range speaker to loud levels without any distortion. I believe there is enough power requirement at 16 to 64 hz in lots of different natural and otherwise synth music that requires quite a few WATTS more than 5 or 10 watts in order to produce that amount of bass without clipping. I have heard clipping and its not nice.
4) At moderate listening level with moderate levels of bass, I am sure there are cases where a very well designed 30 watt per channel amplifier can sound better than a poorly designed and otherwise noisey 100 watt per channel amplifier.
My SR 6200 receiver has the S-video problem and I will get that fixed. The receiver does not seem to be lacking in power. I have turned up the volume to beyond comfortable listening levels and that seems to indicate to me that it is not likely under powered. I cannot of course determine its actual full power at clipping, as I do not want to damage the receivers amp or speakers by accident. I don't have the equipment to test. I could be wrong, and my receiver could very well be below spec or match the Sound & Vision specs, but I doubt it.
Noise. The Marantz SR 6200 volume control range is from -75 dB to + 15dB. When I pause a selection and listen, I cannot hear any noise. I can only detect any significant NOISE if I have the receiver cranked up to +5 to +15 dB with 15 dB being the maximum. At normal listening levels, which is for me, below 0 dB, and most often between -15 and -25 dB, I can detect any background noise in quiet passages or when pausing the track or whatever source.
[Edited last by Chris PC on October 14, 2001 at 01:12 PM]

 

[Lewis Besze]

quote: I don't recall saying that power rating was irrelevant[/quote]
No, you said it means "Jackshit"!
We're not talking about power rating here,but the ability to deliver it.DO YOU GET ME!!!!!!!!!
If all you do is listen at moderate levels your whole life materials that has no or very little dynamics,then yes you probably only need a dozen or so watts to enjoy that.
However if you like large orchestral music, film score,heavy metal, rap,blockbusters,then you need a ton of power to reproduce it faithfuly.If at those peaks the power is clipped,and noise is elevated then the quality would suffer,DON'T YOU AGREE!
BTW S&V wasn't so concerned about the the lack of power as much with the high,audible noise that the unit generated,at most listening levels,this is where the "watts mean jackshit" camp should take notice,since it's right up in your alley.
------------------
"You Hungarians always disagree"
[Edited last by Lewis Besze on October 14, 2001 at 02:02 PM]

 

[KeithG]

I agree with what some of the others have said about Sound & Vision having the guts to post their findings. I think it adds a lot of credibility to their publication and I'm sure they will give Marantz a chance to reply. People should really wait to see what is said from Marantz before making their final decision. I personally think if they are having QC issues that's important information also. Would you rather they contacted Marantz, received a tweaked replacement and just ignored these issues?
If any of you of read Home Theater Magazine think about the last time you saw a bad review there. I can't remember seeing a bad review in that magazine. Their reviews go from good to great, doesn't that make any one else suspicious? Personally when I only see a good review in that magazine I often wonder if it was really a piece of junk. I doubt many of these reviewers have the guts to call it like it is when advertising dollars are involved.

 

[Charles J P]

Chris PC, even though I have been defending the new Marantz units, I must comment here that pausing the source is not a good way to test noise floor, especially on a digital source, because some receivers will shut down amplification if no signal is present. I did however test this myself in a different manner, and I can tell you the result would have probably been the same. Track 41 on Sheffield Lab's/A2TB Test Disc "My Disc" is recording of 0 bits "digital black". It is a track designed to test "the noise floor of components or a system". I get no noise with the receiver cranked to the max using both a digital PCM input and an analog input, using all applicable surround modes, and stereo. I'm glad there were people here who got me mad enough to test my own gear, so now can sit in peace, knowing that my unit (if nothing else) works fine.
I hope this should also satisfy Lewis's comment

BTW S&V wasn't so concerned about the the lack of power as much with the high,audible noise that the unit generated,at most listening levels

and by the way, I think myself as well as others would appreciate it if you would quit shouting, as I'm sure you know it is frowned upon here. I am beginning to wonder what bee you have in your bonnet. The owners of X200 series units here are calmly defending their turf with their real-life experiences while you (someone who doesn't own this unit) are on the attack, making fun of people, shouting, and displaying your superiority, like someone who does own one and is suffering buyers remorse. I really don't get it. Do you get me?
------------------
My Website: Link Removed
e-mail me: [email protected]
My DVD Profiler
Paradigm Lover
[Edited last by Charles J P on October 14, 2001 at 02:11 PM]

 

[Jeff D.]

quote: No, you said it means "Jackshit"![/quote]
I did NOT say wattage meant "jack shit". In fact, what I said was:
quote: WATTAGE MEANS JACK SHIT IN TERMS OF SOUND QUALITY[/quote]
Two totally different things. Once again, if you think that a higher wattage rating=better sound, well then I pity you.
Once again (and I stated this before) - more watts are needed if you listen at louder levels with material that demands it - I never said otherwise. Two points here (which I labour to make again, since they seem to be forgotten so easily):
1. We don't all need 100W of power. Many people in apartment settings or who just don't like it loud DO NOT NEED anywhere NEAR 100W of power.
2. Just because a receiver has 100W of power does not mean it sounds good. Yes, it can go louder without damaging your speakers - but that has nothing to do with sound quality. Many amps can go bloody loud and they also sound like utter crap.

DON'T YOU AGREE!

I did in the first place. Take time to read.
quote: BTW S&V wasn't so concerned about the the lack of power as much with the high,audible noise that the unit generated,at most listening levels,this is where the "watts mean jackshit" camp should take notice,since it's right up in your alley.

Once again there is this strange loyalty to S&V going on here. You are acting like a disciple. S&V was also NOT concerned about contacting Marantz, discussing their findings and trying to see if there was indeed a problem.
S&V should know from previous experience that Marantz has an enviable reputation for building quality electronics gear. The performance of the 7200 they measured was a stark contrast to previous Marantz products. S&V should have investigated the situation.
----
Jeff
------------------
"They're coming to get you Barbara..."
[Edited last by Jeff Kowerchuk on October 14, 2001 at 02:16 PM]
[Edited last by Jeff Kowerchuk on October 14, 2001 at 02:16 PM]

 

[Shane Martin]

We're not talking about power rating here,but the ability to deliver it.DO YOU GET ME!!!!!!!!!
If all you do is listen at moderate levels your whole life materials that has no or very little dynamics,then yes you probably only need a dozen or so watts to enjoy that.
However if you like large orchestral music, film score,heavy metal, rap,blockbusters,then you need a ton of power to reproduce it faithfuly.If at those peaks the power is clipped,and noise is elevated then the quality would suffer,DON'T YOU AGREE!

Lewis,
I see your point but there is another factor is this. The ability of the receiver to push the reciever to that level. As someone with Efficient speakers like myself(104db 1 watt), I can achieve reference level way before most do. The more inefficient speakers that people have the more the lack of power becomes an issue. I think you can agree with me there.
The last part about the peaks causing the power to clip causing noise and quality suffering is 100% correct.
Then again I'm a rare case with effecient speakers. Klipsch owners are in this same boat as well.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Lewis,I see your point but there is another factor is this. The ability of the receiver to push the reciever to that level. As someone with Efficient speakers like myself(104db 1 watt), I can achieve reference level way before most do. The more inefficient speakers that people have the more the lack of power becomes an issue. I think you can agree with me there.

Yes,Shane I do agree with you 100%,and it is said in the review as well.
It seems you're the only one catching on what "im saying here,loud or not.

------------------
"You Hungarians always disagree"

 

[John-D]

The 696 doesn't look that bad now does it?

------------------
The things we own, end up owning us

 

[Paul_Psutka]

quote:
The 696 doesn't look that bad now does it?
[/quote]
yeah, the Onkyo 696 has about double the power (so 3dB louder) with all channels driven, no hiss/noise problems, and no subwoofer dynamics limitation, plus it has better functionality (imo). Of course, this is only in comparison to the Marantz SR7200 review model that S&V had -- which could have been defective.
Though I still think the best values in the Onkyo receiver line are the 595 and 797 models.

 

[Lewis Besze]

quote: Two totally different things. Once again, if you think that a higher wattage rating=better sound, well then I pity you.[/quote]
No I don't think that,and I never said that,that was your interpretation of me saying,one needs more power to reproduce large dynamic peaks without audible distortion.
You can keep your pity!quote: 1. We don't all need 100W of power. Many people in apartment settings or who just don't like it loud DO NOT NEED anywhere NEAR 100W of power.[/quote]
I agree,however some of us do need,even more than that for occasional peaks,especially with speakers of low sensitivity[88db or lower].quote: 2. Just because a receiver has 100W of power does not mean it sounds good.[/quote]Very true!
quote: Yes, it can go louder without damaging your speakers - but that has nothing to do with sound quality. Many amps can go bloody loud and they also sound like utter crap.[/quote]
That's more of a philosophical POV then a sound technical one,although there are examples I'm sure that support your theory.However were are not talking about many amps here but the 7200 only.quote: Once again there is this strange loyalty to S&V going on here. You are acting like a disciple. [/quote] Well,you're showing a quiet a support for Marantz,yet I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm loyal to S&V in a sense because they represent what I think is important in audio[video too],they subjective data is backed up by objective as well.
Their reviewers are understanding that "good sound" can mean a lot of different things to many people,so they leave out the audiophile cliches,and present their opinion,along with their objective data,which is far more useful to me,and people like me than a subjective only review that is full of cliches and self observations.quote: S&V was also NOT concerned about contacting Marantz, discussing their findings and trying to see if there was indeed a problem[/quote]Indeed,however should that over shadow the fact that it is Marantz's responsibility to supply S&V with a test unit that is fully representative of the production line in the first place?
------------------
"You Hungarians always disagree"
[Edited last by Lewis Besze on October 14, 2001 at 04:32 PM]

 

[Jeff D.]

Indeed,however should that over shadow the fact that it is Marantz's responsibility to supply S&V with a test unit that is fully representative of the production line?

So, let us assume for a moment that there is in fact a serious problem with production of the 7200. Marantz takes a unit off the assembly line and tests it before sending it to S&V for evaluation. They find problems, fix and tweak the unit and send it off. It gets glorious reviews and people flock to it. Meanwhile, a potential production problem could possible remain hidden.
I think the better route is for Marantz to simply pull a unit off the line and ship it. If there are problems, Marantz should (rightfully so, I would think) expect that S&V would contact them to discuss the odd results.
Quite clearly, S&V is out of line at this stage. They have published a review that tarnishes the good name of a company well-respected in the industry. S&V should have contacted Marantz to get their side of the story, but this was not done. While others are lauding S&V for being honest - I find this only tarnishes THEIR image. Until I hear that they took steps to see if there was a problem with Marantz, I think they are completely out of line.
----
Jeff
------------------
"They're coming to get you Barbara..."

 

[Lewis Besze]

It is pontless to continue this, since you diregard[conviniently I might add]many of my points which if you read'em carefully,addresses many of your concerns,even if you not agreeing with'em.
I'll waste no more time on this,since everything has been said what could have been, on this matter!
------------------
"You Hungarians always disagree"

 

[Mike Knapp]

Lewis,
I, like everyone else, are just confused at the level of enjoyment this report seems to have given you. We cannot figure out why you would wish ill on any manufacturer or the enthusiasts that own their product.
Did someone named Marantz run off with your wife and dog?

Your points have been made and as many have suggested, there must have been a problem with the review unit....if not then Marantz should be held accountable. I dont think anyone has disputed that.
We are curious what your agenda is (as it appears that you certainly have one), nothing more.
Mike

 

[Lewis Besze]

We are curious what your agenda is (as it appears that you certainly have one), nothing more.

I need your help Mike,see I'm confused now too.
I can't think of any reason what possible motive I could have to trash Marantz.
Why would it make me happy to see a negative review on one their products?
Can you offer some help here please? I'm lost,like my wife and dog.

------------------
"You Hungarians always disagree"

 

[Mike Knapp]

Lewis,
I have no clue my friend. It does look like you are relishing this a little too much. Perhaps toning down the rhetoric a notch would help.
If I find your wife and dog, shall I send them home or do you prefer them gone?
Mike

 

[Lewis Besze]

You can keep'em Mike!

------------------
"You Hungarians always disagree"

 

[Mike Knapp]

I am already married and although I am many things I am not foolish enough to have TWO wives!
I could use a dog though.
Mike

 

[Stephen Dodds]

I've had good results from Marantz equipment in the past, although I have no intention of buying a receiver anytime soon.
However, I think people would be surprised how much power is sometimes necessary for musical and orchestral peaks.
There was one magazine (I forget which, maybe Stereophile) which did a piece one the peak requirements of some major orchestral peaks with 88 dB speakers to match concert hall volumes.
The results were in the order of hundreds of watts.
My power amp puts out 650 watts into my 4ohm speakers (which are pretty efficient) and yet I've had my prepro at 0dB. If you want realistic volumes, you need real power.
And any receiver which drops from 110 on 2 channel to 29 with five channel simply has a badly designed power supply, or worse.
Although I am surprised about how little musical or effects power there usually is in the rear channels.
Cheers
Steve
P.S.
There was a comment earlier about the B&K/Lex/Meridian overview. IMHO, the point of a surround component is that it offers good surround for any input. Any (especially high end ones) that does have a decent matrix mode does qualify as stripped down.

 

[Patrick Wilmes]

I would love to know how many of the people who are praising S&V for their straight shooting honest review were also the ones cancelling subscriptions and damning them to hell a couple months back for their displeasure with those pesky "black bars".
I will give Marantz the benefit of the doubt based on S&V's somewhat tarnished past.This is just ONE review,and based on who wrote it I'll wait for a more reputable magazine before I believe it.