Please explain the difference between Marantz SR and NR models

[BoomDog28]

I am a complete noob when it comes to A/V. I want to add surround to my living room. Im not building a home theatre or anything crazy, not in the near future at least. I just want to add a nice sound system and get as much bang for my buck to improve movies.

Looking at Marantz, The NR models like the NR1606 looks like they would do the job nicely. They are attractively slimmer for storage and from what I can see offer atmos, dts-x, blutetooh, etc. They also have a nice lower price tag.

The SR series like the SR5010, obviously has a few more bells and whistles, power, as long with size, but I dont know if those extras are anything that I will need for what Im trying to achieve.

So can someone with more knowledge explain in simple terms the difference? Does the NR series require another piece of equipment (amp) to power? Will it do the job for an 5.1 system? How will 700 watts perform with set up below?

If it helps, Ive been eyeing the SVS brand, more specifically ultra bookshelves, prime satelittes, and s-2000 sub

Thanks

 

[Adam]

Hey, BoomDog. I own two of the NR series from two years ago (NR1504 and NR1604), and to me the biggest trade off is size versus power. At lower listening levels, the NR series held their own - but for less money at the time, the Denon AVR-E400 and Onkyo TX-NR626 absolutely crushed them at louder levels in regards to audio quality. I love the form factor of the NR models, but the two that I got didn't overly impress me audio-wise at anything above my everyday volume levels (such as when I wanted to watch a movie or listen to music a little louder). I've never heard a Marantz SR model, though, so I can't say how those would compare to the NR models.

 

[slipperybidness]

I believe the SR line also tends to have the upper level room correction while NR has the lower level.

 

[fmw]

My comment is that amplifier power is not usually a good reason to choose one AV receiver over another. Doubling the power only adds 3 db of headroom which isn't a lot. Furthermore, headroom is nothing more than unused power capacity. Most of us that use subwoofers never exceed 20 watts per channel on the 5 or more speakers the AVR powers and that is on high volume peaks. Average power dissipation is usually less than 1 watt per channel. Yes, there are exceptions but, frankly, they are rare in home audio. My advice is to choose the unit that has the features you want and will use. Don't worry about power.

 

[KEW]

The NR would work well in a smaller room or with very efficient speakers. As said, they can be a little weak for loud or a large room.
However, they do have pre-outs for the R & L channels. So it does offer room to grow!
I wonder how well it would do in a large room if it was only powering the center and surrounds while a separate amp took on the L & R channels. It is rare that the surrounds have much content. A lot depends on the content of the center. If it is used for dialog and not much special effects, it would be a pretty light load. I don't know if there is a rule of thumb or if it all depends on the producer as to how the channels are mixed.

 

[Adam]

I'm going to disagree when it comes to this comparison, fmw. I noticed a definite difference in audio quality between the NR1504/1604 and my other receivers that have higher power - and I don't listen very loudly. The NR1604 rated at 70W, which is higher than the 50W rating on the 1606 (yeah, I know...ratings aren't perfect), just didn't have the dynamics at louder volumes. My older Pioneer experienced that same "muffled" sound, which was corrected with an external amp. My current Pioneer, as well as those mid-level Denon and Onkyo models that I mentioned, didn't have any issues without an amp at reference level. I completely agree about the average power that most of us use, though.

 

[fmw]

I'm going to disagree when it comes to this comparison, fmw. I noticed a definite difference in audio quality between the NR1504/1604 and my other receivers that have higher power - and I don't listen very loudly. The NR1604 rated at 70W, which is higher than the 50W rating on the 1606 (yeah, I know...ratings aren't perfect), just didn't have the dynamics at louder volumes. My older Pioneer experienced that same "muffled" sound, which was corrected with an external amp. My current Pioneer, as well as those mid-level Denon and Onkyo models that I mentioned, didn't have any issues without an amp at reference level. I completely agree about the average power that most of us use, though.

Just guessing but I would think that your opinion resulted either from hearing bias or from a difference in the ways the two different room calibration routines did their thing. Since you are experienced I would guess it was the room calibration. If you don't use all the available power, then power isn't the issue. If you do use all the available power, you will know it immediately. The only way to know for sure is to compare the two units together and blind.

 

[Seth=L]

I haven't had my NR1504 run out of headroom yet, but I live in a small apartment. Having a subwoofer makes a world of difference too I'm sure.

If headroom were to become an issue you could get a 2 channel amplifier and connect it to the 2 channel preouts of the NR1606 and let the receiver power just the center and surround speakers.

So far I've been really enjoying the Marantz and I'm pretty sure its gonna stick around for a while.

 

[Adam]

Just guessing but I would think that your opinion resulted either from hearing bias or from a difference in the ways the two different room calibration routines did their thing.

Reasonable guesses, but I don't concur. The Marantz, Denon, and Onkyo receivers all used the same Audyssey version and were set up the same way. The NR series just weren't as dynamic at higher volumes. I got them all around the same time, and the difference was obvious to me. As I mentioned, that it exactly the same thing that I experienced with my first Pioneer before I got an amp for the front channels. My second Pioneer, that also uses MCACC, has a better power system and is more dynamic than the first Pioneer. IMO, I know what a receiver sounds like when it can't handle transients at louder volumes - and those NR models fall into that category. At lower volume levels, the NR models sounded just fine.

 

[Seth=L]

Reasonable guesses, but I don't concur. The Marantz, Denon, and Onkyo receivers all used the same Audyssey version and were set up the same way. The NR series just weren't as dynamic at higher volumes. I got them all around the same time, and the difference was obvious to me. As I mentioned, that it exactly the same thing that I experienced with my first Pioneer before I got an amp for the front channels. My second Pioneer, that also uses MCACC, has a better power system and is more dynamic than the first Pioneer. IMO, I know what a receiver sounds like when it can't handle transients at louder volumes - and those NR models fall into that category. At lower volume levels, the NR models sounded just fine.

Everything in the NR series Marantz receivers is a bit smaller. I don't expect a half size receiver to have as much dynamic headroom as a competent full size AVR.

 

[Adam]

Everything in the NR series Marantz receivers is a bit smaller. I don't expect a half size receiver to have as much dynamic headroom as a competent full size AVR.

Agreed - I was just pointing that out to the OP who asked about the differences.

 

[Seth=L]

Agreed - I was just pointing that out to the OP who asked about the differences.

I got a little excited, it happens sometimes.