Discuss: S&V review of Marantz 5400 (1 Viewer)

[Chu Gai]

and this has been stonewalled for some time at the FCC. I once had a link to a location at the FCC where a tentative proposal was being floated and indicated how people could comment on it. Where that link is now, lord only knows. It's not like this hasn't drawn the attention of the government. The only thing I can think is that people contact the companies that are putting out these optimistic numbers and tell them that they're consumers, they read the numbers and they're not buying their product because the numbers are bogus. Further, you tell them what forums you belong to and tell them how you're going to publically urge others to stay clear of their products. To me, this isn't a question of whether you like Onkyo, Yamaha, Denon, or anybody else. It's a matter of getting the all the bastards to play fair. If enough consumers write and write for long enough, maybe someone will get the message. They may well answer to the stockholders, but it's about time someone answered to us.

 

[JackS]

I really don't know if we'll ever get any difinitive answer to this question, it seems to be never ending. Here's a suggestion- If you already own 4ohm speakers , purchase the receiver you truly like with the understanding that it can be returned if it turns out to be inadequate . I have a feeling that many of these midpriced receivers mentioned will work fine. If your purchase involves the strong possibility that you will upgrade to 4ohm speakers down the road, I think you can still buy the receiver you really like as long as the receiver has a set of pre-outs to add an external amp if needed. If you maintain the thought that an external amp is always a possibility, this should open the door to many choices among receivers since the receiver is now going to be regarded as a pre-amp. Consider the features you want in a receiver as the number one priority and the amp section as the secondary (or not at all if you are so inclined). Maybe a better question to ask forum members- What receivers are you using as pre-amps? are you happy/unhappy? This may be even a more important factor than power when trying to assess true quality rather than relying on true power ratings which no-one including the "experts" can agree on.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Quote:
Lewis, the link that gets posted here many times take us to a table that appears to have been posted somewhere in Geocities.com Have you seen the test results for the Marantz in the S&V itself? Yes, I may still have the issue in question,this unit also had high noise problems as well,according to the S&V report.

 

[Cary P]

Quote:
OMG with this old S&V report. We're STILL discussing this? Wasn't this resolved? There was a bad batch of caps if i recall correctly, and S&V received a faulty unit. I'm not rushing to defend marantz, and while I own one of their receivers, you should not expect only 27watts per channel with a 7300. Though be free to discuss the quality control that there would be faulty units that might.

As a previous owner of the Marantz SR7000, SR7200, and SR7300 receivers, I've been following this matter closely over the last couple of years. I do not recall ever seeing an explanation from S&V or Marantz explaining that the particular unit in question was defective in any way. So I believe S&V's 27 watt/channel measurement for the 7200 was never officially disputed and still stands.

I do remember that some people were having loud popping problems and units catching on fire due to bad caps in some of the receivers.

I've always liked Marantz products, and still feel the SR700X line is among the most competitive bang for the buck and best sounding amongst home theater receivers under $1000. I've used these receivers mainly as home theater pre-pro's, so the power issue was never really a problem for me.

However, both the SR7200 and SR7300 had significant quality control issues which ultimately led me to returning both to my dealer out of frustration and disappointment with Marantz' customer service. I am waiting to read some thorough reports on the SR7400 before I consider going with Marantz again, but it's good to hear the 5400 tested so well.

IMO, the SR7000 was the true classic out of the line and was the one unit which performed flawlessly and was a great value for the $699 I paid back in early-2000. I sometimes wish I would've just kept that unit instead of going through the hassle of annual upgrades (perhaps updates is more fitting in my case) over the past few years. I have a friend that still has her SR7000, it is still going strong after four years, and the only processing modes it really lacks compared to the X200/X300/X400 models is DPLII and DD-EX/DTS-ES.

The SR7400 looks to be a great receiver with outstanding value, and hopefully Marantz' QC problems with the last two generations of receivers are behind them.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

It took some searching but i found it:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...highlight=7200

Skip forward to page 7 if you want, Marant'z response was posted, and discussion resumes from there.

 

[John Garcia]

IMO, the SR7000 and SR8000, as well as the SR-14 through 19, are excellent receivers, and their models after that have been good, but not quite as good. I feel those older models had excellent sounding DACs and great amp sections. Ever since hearing my friend's SR5000, I've been a fan of Marantz.

 

[JohnHa]

This is kinda off the main topic, but on topic w/ some of the sub-topics discussed in this thread. I was wondering if you could list some brands that do have accurate power ratings, and some brands that do not have accurate (bogus)power ratings. More specifically to me, does NAD accurately list their power ratings?

 

[John Garcia]

NAD's amp sections are very stout, and they tend to be very honest, if not conservative, with their ratings.

 

[Mark C.]

Rotel offers true power ratings.

 

[John Garcia]

Rotel doesn't offer any receivers in the $500 range...or even in the sub $1K range for that matter.

 

[Craig_Kg]

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]

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]

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

 

[John Garcia]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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