I just recently bought the Marantz SR6008. I bought Marantz for the reputed warmth and clarity. I was not disappointed. I got the 6008 because it was the lowest common denominator providing a 2nd HDMI out for my evil purposes.
I considered a 6007 for a while. Then I saw the spec sheets for both. (
SR6007,
SR6008) Looking at the 6-ohm distortion rating for each, it's clear that some sort of advanced sorcery has been employed in the 08. Considering that 8 ohm speakers aren't consistently 8 ohms from min to max frequency, I figured I'd get the best sound from the current model. That, and I've also got my eye on a pair of 6-ohm mains.
Regarding all the Zone 2 / Zone 3 garbage, I'm completely befuddled by this. I don't get why multi-zone capability is such a popular feature in receivers, or why it should be a deal breaker if a Yamaha's zone 2 uses the front height channels rather than the rear surround. I mean, after you have gone to the trouble of running wires from room to room, setting up an RF extender / IR blaster, and so on, only to end up with 2.1 sound in the second room, wouldn't it have been easier (and perhaps even cheaper) just to buy a dedicated system for the 2nd room? I mean, if your source is Blu-Ray or similar, it seems awfully inefficient to go to a different room to insert a disc. If you're streaming FLAC files from a media server, ethernet or wifi ought to be just as effective and much less complicated. If you're piping music outside to a hot tub, then what's the benefit of making your home theater receiver pull double duty rather than using a second amp or a second receiver? What sort of first world problem is Zone 2 solving?
Then again, I intentionally try to limit my AV technology to one room of the house. I don't even have a television in my bedroom, and I prefer it that way. I used to be such a technophile. Have I become
that old guy, the 12 o'clock flasher? (You know, where every clock in the house flashes 12:00.)