Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

S&V tests the Marantz SR7200


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
289 replies to this topic

#1 of 290 OFFLINE   Lewis Besze

Lewis Besze

    Producer



  • 3,134 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 1999

Posted October 10 2001 - 04:34 PM

Just got the latest S&V mag and found the review of the Marantz receiver in there.
Being the "tech" guy I vent to see the "in the lab" section first.
And what I've seen there is quiet disappointing.
This receiver is rated for 105W x6,however it is only putting out 29w! with 5 channel driven,and 27w with 6channel driven at the same time.[all figures are into 8ohm,at 1khz!].
While sound "quality" may not bad at low volume levels it will certainly hamper it at loud levels.
Also the noise levels were pretty bad too,according to D.R.,"they were about 10db worse then the theoretical minimum,and audible as an elevated background hiss,under critical listening conditions". To top that the subwoofer line level output had some weird dynamic limiter[not engaged by the user,more like an anomaly],but since it is limited to it's top 6db of it's scale it might not be an issue to certain user.
Still these are disappointing news indeed.

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


#2 of 290 OFFLINE   Henry Carmona

Henry Carmona

    Screenwriter



  • 1,302 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 07 2000
  • Real Name:Henry Carmona
  • LocationSan Antonio

Posted October 10 2001 - 04:54 PM

Yeah a bit disappointing. What does this receiver sell for?

------------------
Posted Image "Charlie don't surf."

"Charlie don't surf."

#3 of 290 OFFLINE   Lewis Besze

Lewis Besze

    Producer



  • 3,134 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 1999

Posted October 10 2001 - 05:01 PM

$850.00 retail!

#4 of 290 OFFLINE   RobP

RobP

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 188 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 04 2001

Posted October 10 2001 - 05:07 PM

Its rated 105W and its putting out 29W. That is pretty sad.

#5 of 290 OFFLINE   Glen_L

Glen_L

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 86 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 10 2000

Posted October 11 2001 - 02:20 AM

Shades of the Onkyo 696 review! Has S&V somehow made their testing procedure stricter to generate these awful power results? It seems like the new receivers just aren't stacking up to the figures the older models put out. Does anybody have the S&V "receiver compilation" chart link for reference?

#6 of 290 OFFLINE   Lewis Besze

Lewis Besze

    Producer



  • 3,134 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 1999

Posted October 11 2001 - 02:33 AM

http://www.geocities....1/ratevsac.htm

#7 of 290 OFFLINE   BryanZ

BryanZ

    Screenwriter



  • 1,215 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 18 2000

Posted October 11 2001 - 03:19 AM

I wonder what has changed at S&V to cause those receivers to get such bad testing results. It would almost appear like something went bad or changed between June and July. Just a thought.

#8 of 290 OFFLINE   GarryW

GarryW

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 165 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 1999

Posted October 11 2001 - 03:37 AM

I too read this review last and it's sad to see something from Marantz perform so poorly. Could it be that Marantz is
just trying to stay competitive in this part of the market with others like Sony, Denon and Yamaha?

I look forward to seeing some feedback from Marantz!



[Edited last by GarryW on October 11, 2001 at 10:46 AM]
Equipment List: Marantz AV600 Pre-Amp, (5) Marantz MA-500 Monoblocks, Marantz DP-870 DD 5.1 decoder, Sony C600D CD/DVD player, RCA DSS Model 5451RB Satellite Reciever, JVC S-VHS HR-S-4600U, Paradigm Monitor 7's, CC-350, ADP-350 Dipole Surrounds, PW-2200 Sub, Paradigm X-30 Crossover, Philips...

#9 of 290 OFFLINE   Bhagi Katbamna

Bhagi Katbamna

    Supporting Actor



  • 874 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 01 2000

Posted October 11 2001 - 05:28 AM

Those kind of test results aren't typical of Marantz gear.
To educate a man in mind and not morals is to educate a menace to society.
Teddy Roosevelt

#10 of 290 OFFLINE   Duane_T

Duane_T

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 178 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2001

Posted October 11 2001 - 05:50 AM

Not what I wanted to hear. I've been going back and forth between the 6200 and the 3802, leaning toward the 6200 because I like the Marantz sound and at around half the price, I would be able to afford it as a Christmas present for myself. Now I don't know.

#11 of 290 OFFLINE   Chuck C

Chuck C

    Screenwriter



  • 2,237 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2001

Posted October 11 2001 - 07:32 AM

Do you think it has something to do with power consumption? For instance, the 6200 draws 3.8 amps whereas the Denon 2802 draws 5A.

I believe the 7200 draws 3.8A also the 3802 draws 6 or 7.

------------------
Chuck

Chuckster's HT Site
Equipment List
The Dorm Room Theater


Posted Image



#12 of 290 OFFLINE   Shanthi

Shanthi

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 109 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2001

Posted October 11 2001 - 10:19 AM

Wow, I recently got a Denon 3802, comparing with 7200 and oh boy I made a right choice.

I like the stereo though in the Marantz..



#13 of 290 OFFLINE   Gary Kellerman

Gary Kellerman

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 127 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 1999

Posted October 11 2001 - 11:03 AM

Thank you Lewis for posting that link. About an hour ago, I was on audioreview commenting along these lines mainly about STANDARDS of power ratings on receivers.

Many of the manuals are very ambiguous on the power ratings of 5 channels driven of many multichannel receivers. Sound and Visions chart is really telling all of us that there needs to be a crackdown by the FTC on specifications of power just as there was in the early 1970s. In the late 60s and early 70s, there were all kinds of "methods" to brag about watts(IPP, EIA, IHF come to my mind). The 400 watt IPP amp was actually something like a two or three watt RMS amplifier in equivalent. The Sound and Visions chart shows that a standard of spedficications needs to be established. It appears that the buying public is being hoodwinked again like it was in the past. The orginal Dynaco company revised their stated power figures downward on their amplfiers in compliance with the original FTC crackdown so a purchaser knew exactly what they were getting. They elaborated on the FTC rules in their brochures
so those that were interested in their products were completely informed of what they were buying.

[Edited last by Gary Kellerman on October 11, 2001 at 06:05 PM]

#14 of 290 OFFLINE   Jeremy Hegna

Jeremy Hegna

    Supporting Actor



  • 816 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 28 2000

Posted October 11 2001 - 11:17 AM

OUCHHHH Posted Image

#15 of 290 OFFLINE   Michael Botvinick

Michael Botvinick

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 104 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 2001

Posted October 11 2001 - 11:28 AM

You are spending a lot of money on Onkyo and Klip and I think its not worth it. There are many posts in this Forum about other great equipment.
I agree don't spend the money on the wire. Here in Orange County there is Orange County Speaker that is a local secret (you can get cheap wire or cables. Also HomeDepot is geat for that). If I had your money (well I have a wife so it wouldn't work anyway) I would get a bigger TV frist!.
I use to manage DOW stereo (I am sure you know it and now out of bussn) in San Diego and I purchased the Definitive Technology (2002 series) speakers for my Home Theat. (I use Mag for listening to music). Check them out. They are incredible! and many people in this Forum own them. They have great customer support. THere was a stereo shop right near the Sports Arena that sold them recently.

Also if you want to spend big bucks on a DVD, check out Pioneer Elite. McCintosh used their stuff in their DVD.

Outlaw Products are very highly rated and make right here in the USA. They make a 7 channel amp.

Get a BIGGER TV!

ALso stay with seperates so you can upgrade in the future.

For me if money was not an issue, I would have a Lexicon MC-12 in a second!

mbotvinick@trimedyne.com

------------------


#16 of 290 OFFLINE   Paul_Psutka

Paul_Psutka

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 118 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 23 2001

Posted October 11 2001 - 12:41 PM

I too read the S&V Marantz SR7200 review today. I'm glad S&V has the balls to tell it as it is. I can't imagine anyone buying the SR7200 after reading that review.

A lot of times I dislike S&V because they don't have enough subjective (listening session) opinions, but at the same time it worries me when other magazines don't perform objective tests.

I think the Marantz 7200 review is accurate. The only possibility is that they had a defective unit. That's the only thing I can think of.

For those who think S&V have changed the way they test receivers, I disagree. In between the poor Onkyo 696 and Marantz 7200 receiver test results, they tested JVC & Kenwood receivers which had excellent power output.

BTW, their test results show the Onkyo 696 to be much better than the Marantz 7200. The Onkyo had higher output, and didn't have any of the noise/hiss problems or subwoofer output problems the Marantz had.



[Edited last by Paul_Psutka on October 11, 2001 at 07:51 PM]

#17 of 290 OFFLINE   James W. Johnson

James W. Johnson

    Screenwriter



  • 1,061 posts
  • Join Date: May 26 2001

Posted October 11 2001 - 12:41 PM

This is clearly a typo by S&V there is no way a deck rated @ 105x6 20-20K @8 ohms could only put out 27wpc @1Khz into 8ohms with all channels driven.

If this does turn out to be the truth, then shame on Marantz!

[Edited last by James W. Johnson on October 11, 2001 at 07:44 PM]

#18 of 290 OFFLINE   Lewis Besze

Lewis Besze

    Producer



  • 3,134 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 1999

Posted October 11 2001 - 02:49 PM

It cetainly isn't a typo,as David Ranada noticed the power saging,during listening tests.
Also the receiver was able to put out 135w into one speaker,but when they did the 5 channel test the fronts vent down to 29w,and the surrounds to 52w,which would indicate a serious design problem or a simple malfunction on Marantz's part.
I'm sure that the manufacturer will respond soon, but I would surely stay away from this receiver till this thing clears up.

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


#19 of 290 OFFLINE   RobP

RobP

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 188 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 04 2001

Posted October 11 2001 - 03:37 PM

Since I didn't see the actual review, I have a question for those that have. Besides the power ratings, how was S&V's review of the 7200 in other aspects and overall what did they think of it.
Rob

#20 of 290 OFFLINE   GregJ

GregJ

    Agent



  • 28 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 01 2001

Posted October 11 2001 - 03:56 PM

I have to echo the "ouch" posted earlier. I have the SR5200 which only claims 85 watts so I'm afraid to see the true output numbers. To be honest I've been very happy with the receiver since I got it, I like the PL-II, the 5.1 surround, and many other features. As the artical says I have older JBL speakers and I don't play it all that loud, it's a wife acceptence level thing. I do believe the Marantz is a good receiver for me but I can't help being disappointed with my purchase. The bad part is I've seen tests on the Technics receiver I replaced and it actually had pretty good power output. I have to say live and learn since there isn't much I can do about it now. If you are going to be dumb, you better be tough!
Greg




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users