Discuss: S&V review of Marantz 5400 - Page 2

Craig_Kg · 12-28-2003, 10:56 PM

The only mass market receiver manufacturers that have consistently met their claimed power rating when all channels are driven are Rotel, NAD and Harmon Kardon.

What's with the price comment about Rotel's range?

HienD · 12-29-2003, 07:18 AM

Don't most companies just rate their receiver as number of amp times the rms output of the amps. It's the dealers that are actually doing the math and printing a number that can be attained.(in most cases anyways)

FeisalK · 12-29-2003, 10:43 AM

The dealers aren't the ones printing the glossy brochures with the figures in question.

John Garcia · 12-29-2003, 01:28 PM

Quote:

The only mass market receiver manufacturers that have consistently met their claimed power rating when all channels are driven are Rotel, NAD and Harmon Kardon.

Let's not make blanket statements. The top 2 Pioneer Elite models actually exceeded their rated power outputs. There are plenty of others that are within an acceptable range of their claimed power. Note also that these manufacturers who meet their ratings also are stating them in "real world" terms of output, in other words, the seemingly lower cliamed output of 50wpc with H/K means that is what it is really capable of, and a comparable Denon (not picking on them) may claim 100w, while actually only being capable of 50wpc. The fact is, people like to see that magic number 100wpc, and less knowledgable buyers who don't know the difference, might not look at H/K based on it's seemingly lower output ratings for the price.

Craig_Kg · 12-30-2003, 12:58 AM

I'm making a blanket statement since it is true. Pioneer Elite receivers may meet/exceed their rating in multichannel mode but their other receivers don't. ALL of the Rotel, NAD and Harmon Kardon receivers do meet their spec with all channels driven with a 8 ohm load.

The reason the other manufacturers quote with lower loading is exactly what you have stated.

Mark C. · 12-30-2003, 02:45 AM

John:

According to you, we're not consider Rotel because it doesn't make a receiver under $500 or even $1,000? I didn't know you had such authority to guide the discussion.
For some, Rotel is a legitimate option and, furthermore, fits with the topic of this discussion: manufacturers who report accurate power ratings.

John Garcia · 12-30-2003, 01:46 PM

Quote:

According to you, we're not consider Rotel because it doesn't make a receiver under $500 or even $1,000? I didn't know you had such authority to guide the discussion.

That's funny, I don't remember making either of these statements...

My point is, Rotel does not compete at the price point of the 5400, which is WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT - A $500 receiver, not how Rotel rates their receivers (since we are talking about receivers in this case), which are well above that price range and are NOT a direct comparison.

Quote:

ALL of the Rotel, NAD and Harmon Kardon receivers do meet their spec with all channels driven with a 8 ohm load.

Well, I guess everyone should choose only from these three manufacturers then, since they are the only ones who are honest about their ratings across their entire line. I think not. I am a fan of all 3, but still chose Marantz, even over Rotel, at my price point.

Fernando Saa · 12-30-2003, 06:26 PM

Hi, I'm getting ready to upgrade my receiver, and was ready to pick a Marantz, but in the last couple of days I read that some of its receivers have problems (audio dropouts and such). Mr Garcia is a proponent of this brand, just like many others in the forum, I'd like to ask you John, what is it that you like the most of this brand, the power, sound, or overall quality? My budget could go up to about $700 dollars. I like the Marantz 5400's Sound and Vision review but don't know if 90 watts would suffice for my 30' by 20' room that opens up to other areas. I also like to throw parties once in a while, so I set the amp to stereo. Thanks a lot

John Garcia · 12-30-2003, 07:03 PM

If you search around, you will find that all major manufacturers have had various quality control and random problems, so I wouldn't say one brand has a history that is better or worse than another.

For me, the sound of Marantz is very pleasing, especially with music, and I listen to more music than movies. HT is no slouch either.

I would say the 5400 might be a borderline for a room of that size, but it also depends on the speakers that will be used.

Craig_Kg · 12-30-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Well, I guess everyone should choose only from these three manufacturers then, since they are the only ones who are honest about their ratings across their entire line.

I made the comment about the power ratings to try and put all the comments about the S&V figures in perspective. In isolation, a comment that the Marantz 5400 doesn't reach its rated power spec according to S&V makes the receiver look bad when it is, in fact, typical in its real output vs spec.
.

Quote:

the last couple of days I read that some of its receivers have problems (audio dropouts and such)...don't know if 90 watts would suffice for my 30' by 20' room

The audio dropout problem was in the early runs of the x300 series, I believe (plus some power supplies frying). The current x400 range doesn't seem to have been having these problems. 90W is plenty of power in stereo mode and if you use a sub and set all the speakers to small, it won't struggle in multichannel, either

Fernando Saa · 12-30-2003, 10:46 PM

I have bipolar towers from Definitive Technology (BP30's) for fronts and the SVS BP2-plus. All channels set to small. These speakers tend to be bright. Would the Marantz 5400 or any other model be a good match to them in the audio department? Thanks for clarifying things in the power deparment. I feel more confortable about the latter now. Thanks again.