Looking for 2 channel integrated amp to power my Monitor Audio speakers...

[1957Goldtop]

I have some old speakers that I still think sound pretty great… Monitor Audio Silver 9i.
Product Review

I currently have a Marantz SR6005 receiver and the speakers are being powered by a Sherbourn 5/1500a amp.
Sherbourn 5/1500A Five-Channel Amplifier | Sound & Vision

I don’t really use my system for home theater any more and my main priority is 2 channel music via a Rega RP3 turntable.

I’d like to get rid of my Marantz and Sherbourn and replace them with a good 2 channel integrated amp.

I was reading about the Rotel RA-1570 and it looked interesting.

My budget is capped at the $1600 Rotel price. When i say $1600 I really mean $1200 but I’ll go ahead and bump it up to $1600… so there is no more room for “it’s only an extra…”. I’d even be open to keeping it under $1000 if that’s possible with some used gear.

I have a Rega photo stage, but I’d love to get rid of it so I’d love something that has a good quality phono stage built in. HDMI to connect to my TV would be nice. I don’t need any USB ports.

Thanks!

 

[crossedover]

why not just add a high quality phono preamp and keep your existing gear. I really dont see the need for a change, unless im missing something

 

[1957Goldtop]

why not just add a high quality phono preamp and keep your existing gear. I really dont see the need for a change, unless im missing something

I'm imagining a 2 channel integrated amp designed for music would be better than a general av 5.1 home theater receiver.

Also, replacing the two components with one is appealing since the Sherboun is quite large.

 

[crossedover]

Other than size I can't imagine you would benefit sonically.

 

[PENG]

I'm imagining a 2 channel integrated amp designed for music would be better than a general av 5.1 home theater receiver.

Also, replacing the two components with one is appealing since the Sherboun is quite large.

Have you tried AB comparing using the 6005 without the Sherbourn and with the Sherbourn? If you are going to try, then make sure you level match and have someon do the switching so you don't know which one is being used.

If you just want to get a separate system regardless then I think the Rotel is a great choice. Or you can keep the 6005 as a preamp and match it with a Parasound A23 plus a phono box.

 

[agarwalro]

Do you need bass management for a subwoofer?

Man that Sherbourn is a beast! Its performance is going to be tough to replicate. I'm not a proponent of biamping, but, since you have three spare channels, why not .

I'm imagining a 2 channel integrated amp designed for music would be better than a general av 5.1 home theater receiver.

You're imagining things for sure . Amps being designed for music vs HT is a false belief. An amp that can properly drive your speakers will not care if you play Holst or Skrillex or The Kings Speech or Sharknado.

If anything, at minimum HT processors have options to set distance, levels and crossover and this can go a long way for asymmetric stereo setups, especially if there is a subwoofer in the mix. Also, the mid level AVRs are starting to include decent processing for room response correction. IMO, the combination of the lot makes 2ch integrated somewhat of a illogical choice.

For someone who does not care for accurate sound, instead espousing a minimalist setup, the 2 channel integrated with built in phono preamp makes perfect sense.

 

[1957Goldtop]

Hmm, interesting.

First: as far as all the processing and "room correction" goes (which the Marantz has), I actually turn all that off. I listen to my turntable in "Pure Direct" mode which is essentially disabling all the processing and keeping the signal analog (from what I understand). I've done many a/b comparisons and to me my current system sounds best this way.

This is why I thought a system designed without all the digital processing and is meant for 2 channel stereo would be better than a general system designed for stereo, 5.1, and every other thing under the sun. It just seems logical (I guess logic doesn't always apply to hifi) that the Marantz being a $1000 piece of gear with all that extra stuff in it would have to cut corners somewhere versus a $1500 piece of gear with much less stuff ("stuff" being the technical term) would have better components for the things that actually matter to 2 channel sound.

But, I do realize that the Sherbourn is a dedicated amp which is going to be a plus. Space is also a concern (and is also the selling point to my wife as my justification for the new purchase). I definitely don't want to be worse off in terms of sound quality an amplification going from a dedicated amp to the integrated amp.

Another piece of gear I was considering was the NAD C375BEE.

Thanks!

 

[agarwalro]

It just seems logical (I guess logic doesn't always apply to hifi) that the Marantz being a $1000 piece of gear with all that extra stuff in it would have to cut corners somewhere versus a $1500 piece of gear with much less stuff ("stuff" being the technical term) would have better components for the things that actually matter to 2 channel sound.

Perhaps... For the most part, it is a matter of cost to volume. AVRs sell in orders of magnitude more than stereo integrated amps. Consequently, manufactures can stuff more into them for less money. There is also the "audiophile markup" as soon as one starts taking dedicated stereo setup or vinyl. Last but not the last, there is the Veblen's Effect. A finding that up to a point most people equate price increase to quality increase.

as far as all the processing and "room correction" goes (which the Marantz has), I actually turn all that off. I listen to my turntable in "Pure Direct" mode which is essentially disabling all the processing and keeping the signal analog (from what I understand). I've done many a/b comparisons and to me my current system sounds best this way.

Perfect! I wanted to hear this exactly before suggesting integrated amps. Now to find something that fits need...

 

[Swerd]

I remember hearing those Monitor Audio Silver 9 speakers in the past, and I though they sounded good.

I agree with the others who said your receiver and amp should do an excellent job driving your speakers with music sources.

But if you must replace that gear, I suggest an Outlaw RR2150 receiver, for a price of $700, well within your budget limit. It was reviewed favorably here on AH and elsewhere as well (see the links on the Outlaw page). It comes with a good phono preamp stage, and I think it has enough power to drive your Silver 9s well. I've heard this receiver driving a pair of Salk SongTowers, with a phonograph music source, and I think it should satisfy you.

 

[PENG]

Hmm, interesting.

First: as far as all the processing and "room correction" goes (which the Marantz has), I actually turn all that off. I listen to my turntable in "Pure Direct" mode which is essentially disabling all the processing and keeping the signal analog (from what I understand). I've done many a/b comparisons and to me my current system sounds best this way.

I believe Audyssey XT can do better than pure direct in a difficult room but only if you follow the instructions step by step, provided on the Audyssey website. It is also possible that your room just does not need much room correction, and/or you simply prefer the uncorrected sound. For example, many people prefer to set their subs a few dB "hot", making everything sound warmer at the very least. Pure direct does not equal pure direct in the final sound quality in a room but again, one has to go with what they prefer, and that largely a subjective matter.

This is why I thought a system designed without all the digital processing and is meant for 2 channel stereo would be better than a general system designed for stereo, 5.1, and every other thing under the sun. It just seems logical (I guess logic doesn't always apply to hifi) that the Marantz being a $1000 piece of gear with all that extra stuff in it would have to cut corners somewhere versus a $1500 piece of gear with much less stuff ("stuff" being the technical term) would have better components for the things that actually matter to 2 channel sound.

D&M sells tons of AVRs so they most likely get great discounts for the REQ software and the necessary processing chips. Rotel probably cannot say the same so I can fully understand why they prefer to focus their dollars on the best components they can put into their units.

Another piece of gear I was considering was the NAD C375BEE.

Thanks!

I think the Rotel is the better one from an audiophile stand point. The NAD has too many gadgets. You seem to prefer simple and pure signal path, the Rotel offers that plus everything you stated you need except maybe 1 dB less powerful than the NAD, not significant at all. I do believe the Parasound A23 in theory should sound better but I do not believe the difference is audible, not to me anyway but maybe to you. The A23 costs less than 1K but then you need to keep the 6005 and still have to buy a phono stage so it may not be an option for you.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

First: as far as all the processing and "room correction" goes (which the Marantz has), I actually turn all that off. I listen to my turntable in "Pure Direct" mode which is essentially disabling all the processing and keeping the signal analog (from what I understand). I've done many a/b comparisons and to me my current system sounds best this way.

This is why I thought a system designed without all the digital processing and is meant for 2 channel stereo would be better than a general system designed for stereo, 5.1, and every other thing under the sun.

That's what I thought for many years - that Pure Direct was the best. I was so hard set on that notion. I wasn't even willing to think otherwise. That is until I tried Audyssey XT Dynamic EQ one day and it was like turning the switch from night into day. My music became fuller and more lively (bass from subs), but everything else was still crystal clear.

So I think it would be a huge mistake and going backward from a Marantz processor to an integrated amp.

The $1200 Marantz 6006 outputs 153W x 2Ch into 8 ohms and 196W x 2Ch into 4 ohms. The 6005 should be the same. So you most likely don't need an external amp for 2Ch music only. You could try just the Marantz alone and see if you could tell the difference. If not, sell the amp and just keep the Marantz.

 

[ematthews]

In case your a dead set on an integrated amp for music only. Go with a Marantz PM8004 OR 8005.

 

[j_garcia]

I remember hearing those Monitor Audio Silver 9 speakers in the past, and I though they sounded good.

I agree with the others who said your receiver and amp should do an excellent job driving your speakers with music sources.

But if you must replace that gear, I suggest an Outlaw RR2150 receiver, for a price of $700, well within your budget limit. It was reviewed favorably here on AH and elsewhere as well (see the links on the Outlaw page). It comes with a good phono preamp stage, and I think it has enough power to drive your Silver 9s well. I've heard this receiver driving a pair of Salk SongTowers, with a phonograph music source, and I think it should satisfy you.

If you really want to get rid of your gear, this I would call an "upgrade" to simplify. Agree with others also though, that your current setup should be fine as is.

 

[1957Goldtop]

So just to see what life would be like without the Sherbourn I decided to take it out of the chain and connect my speakers to the Marantz.

I put on a record that I know sounds great… and out came a horrible horrible sound. I was shocked by how terrible the sound was. If the record was a 10 with the Marantz/Sherbourn configuration, I wouldn’t even give it a 2 with the Marantz alone.

The one thing that changed besides removing the Sherbourn were the wires connecting the speakers. The Marantz doesn’t accept spades and my Better Cables speaker cables have spades. They were also bi-wired on the speaker side. So, I had to replace them with some standard Dynex speaker wire I got at Best Buy (the only option this quickly).

Was it the speaker wire? There is always debate about paying high prices for speaker wire/cables and many say it doesn’t matter. But this was a drastic and horrific difference.

 

[crossedover]

The wire will make no difference (expensive cables make absolutely zero sound improvement compared to the same gauge as lamp cord) unless you forgot to hook up the phone stage, I'm completely dumbfounded how there would be a sound difference that noticeable ( let alone even at all). Check your connections again. Did you replace the jumpers on the back of the speakers?

 

[1957Goldtop]

Everything is back where it was.

It's not just the vinyl though... The audio through my Tivo (connected via HDMI the same way it was before the Sherbourn was removed) sounds terrible.

The only difference with the Tivo is that I took out my center speaker and disconnected my subwoofer so all the audio is coming out of the L/R speakers. It sounds hollow and echoey. And I'm not talking about extreme action where the sub would have given everything some oomph. I'm talking about casual dialog and background music.

 

[crossedover]

Again did you put the jumpers on the speaker terminal. That would explain your issue. FWIW the Marantz was processing the audio before. Now it's amplifying it also. Can't be that drastic

 

[1957Goldtop]

Jumpers on the speaker terminals? On the speaker side or the Marantz side? What do you mean by jumpers? The bi-wiring of the speakers?

If you're talking about the speaker side, I don't have any... can I make some with the speaker wire and bi-wire them that way?

 

[crossedover]

If you had the speakers bi wired before and now you don't you need to put the jumpers on the back of the speakers terminals. This is so the power is sent to both upper and lower frequencies. The terminals need to be jumped.

 

[1957Goldtop]

Ok... I don't have the jumpers any more, they got lost somewhere along the way. If I ran a bit of speaker wire between them would that do the trick?

+ to +, - to -, correct?