Which AVR would you go with ...

[ThunderClap]

If the speakers have sufficient range and output to not use a sub great but that usually takes some serious money for those speakers....and few bookshelves even get close IMO.

If you're happy with all that S202 can do, great. Cant stand listening to Guttenberg for the most part, tho.

I’m not overly familiar with him but I do notice - everything is “‘wonderful “ “ great “
He’s your classic village New Yorka ( I’m Manhattan born)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lovinthehd]

I’m not overly familiar with him but I do notice - everything is “‘wonderful “ “ great “
He’s your classic village New Yorka ( I’m Manhattan born)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Meh, he's a reviewer. Promotes some outright crap, too. He's bad enough in written form but his youtube stuff someone linked to recently just made me turn it off quickly....

 

[KEW]

So in theory a set of bookshelves and a stereo receiver should be the way to go ... or a set of towers ....

In your opinion - matching a sub run thru speaker “B” is half ass guessing .

Steve Guttenberg “ the Audiophilliac “
Loved this : straight , cheap , no sub
No speaker correction - and people rave about its sound.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/this-149-yamaha-rs-202-stereo-receiver-wowed-the-audiophiliac/

$99 A4L


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure who's theory you are speaking of, but to answer your first sentence I need to know your budget.
For music only, you certainly can avoid a sub; but you would miss a lot of fun watching an action movie when transformers collide. etc!
If you have a total of $350 to spend, I would say you could get that $99 stereo receiver and a pair of Philharmonic Audio Affordable Accuracy speakers (which have amazing bass). Add a little room gain (common to a typical bedroom or den and less so, but still common to a living room) and you will feel pretty good about the bass unless you are into Dub Step or the like!

The problem with the above receiver is you have no easy upgrade. If you expect to add a sub, get an AVR!
If you are trying to get the most quality for the least money, tell us your overall budget and we'll give you suggestions to consider.

I don't think much of Guttenburg's opinion. I have listened to plenty of speakers and he seems very beholden to the advertisement dollars CNET gets!

 

[KEW]

Meh, he's a reviewer. Promotes some outright crap, too. He's bad enough in written form but his youtube stuff someone linked to recently just made me turn it off quickly....

I think autocorrect struck and converted the original "Audio Phallus" to "Audiophilliac".

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

...each sound different...

Usually mainly because the volume is different or if DSP and EQ are used, or if you are comparing the sound from MEMORY and BIAS.

 

[MR.MAGOO]

I'm not sure who's theory you are speaking of, but to answer your first sentence I need to know your budget.
For music only, you certainly can avoid a sub; but you would miss a lot of fun watching an action movie when transformers collide. etc!

IMO I'm not sure, I'd think one would need a subwoofer for MUSIC and MOVIES.

 

[Verdinut]

I also prefer the Marantz look, except I wish they don't use so much plastic in the front.

My SR5010 has the main front panel in aluminum, but one of my friends has the SR5011 which has an all plastic front.
We were comparing the weight of both models, and we realized that it explained why the SR5011 is several ounces lighter.

 

[ThunderClap]

He like the 5011?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PENG]

My SR5010 has the main front panel in aluminum, but one of my friends has the SR5011 which has an all plastic front.
We were comparing the weight of both models, and we realized that it explained why the SR5011 is several ounces lighter.

Double check yours, I am quite sure the 5010, even the 5009 has only the center front piece AL, the side pieces are plastic too.

 

[KEW]

He like the 5011?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you don't need the latest and the greatest, you can get the refurbished SR 5008 for $350
https://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/marsr5008/marantz-sr5008-7.2-ch-x-100-watts-networking-a/v-receiver/1.html

Make sure there are no features missing that you want, I am not familiar with the details.

 

[Verdinut]

Double check yours, I am quite sure the 5010, even the 5009 has only the center front piece AL, the side pieces are plastic too.

I know. That's why I said "the Main Front Panel"

 

[PENG]

I know. That's why I said "the Main Front Panel"

Sorry, missed that.. Actually it still looks very classy regardless.

 

[Verdinut]

If you don't need the latest and the greatest, you can get the refurbished SR 5008 for $350
https://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/marsr5008/marantz-sr5008-7.2-ch-x-100-watts-networking-a/v-receiver/1.html

Make sure there are no features missing that you want, I am not familiar with the details.

Of note, is the fact that this SR5008 is not recommended for driving 4 ohm speakers.
Cheers,

 

[Verdinut]

Sorry, missed that.. Actually it still looks very classy regardless.

As a pre/pro, it does an excellent job at the right price.

 

[KEW]

Of note, is the fact that this SR5008 is not recommended for driving 4 ohm speakers.
Cheers,

Point taken!

That is Marantz being overly conservative, then relaxing their specifications for their X009 models to better match the competition. Given how sloppy speaker manufacturers are with their "nominal impedance" specifications, you might understand their reluctance to spec a 4 ohm nominal speaker which could dip below 2 ohms and still be 4 ohms nominal.

As a personal observation, my old SR-6001 was rated as minimum of 6 Ohms, but when benched, it was discovered to have the exact same amp section as the 7001 and produced 134WRMS @ 8 ohms and 204WRMS @ 4 ohms for two channels. Moreover, it produced 90WRMS @ 8 ohms and 130WRMS @ 4 ohms into all five channels!

The 5008, 6008, and 7008 were all specified as a minimum of 6 ohms driven, and the next year the 5009, 6009, and 7009 were all rated at 4 ohms minimum load. Yet Marantz makes no mention of a new or improved amp section in their marketing materials (you can bet they would if they could).

The 7008 was Marantz's flagship amp, and I would surmise it is as capable as my 6001 and a currently produced 7012 with 4 ohm speakers.

But Damn, due diligence and all, you are making me do research...

S&V did testing of the 6 ohm minimum SR5003 and the 4 ohm minimum 5009!
S&V is not real thorough about addressing 4 ohms but the lab reports both have MJP's initials on them so I feel they are comparable data sources.

For the "6 ohm" 5003:

Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 204.7 watts and 1 percent distortion at 239.6 watts.
Read more at https://www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-sr5003-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures#KBSvOWD1iyTKDEY3.99

For the "4 ohm" 5009:

Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1% distortion at 182.7 watts and 1% distortion at 203.9 watts.
Read more at https://www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-sr5009-av-receiver-review-test-bench#luFYXustyUeyc8ca.99

These are not full range RMS watts, but it is clear that the 6 ohm rated 5003 is more capable at 4 ohms than the 5009 which is rated for 4 ohms!

 

[ThunderClap]

Kew that's WAY above my AV/ HT comprehension level but I think I get what you're saying !

 

[KEW]

Kew that's WAY above my AV/ HT comprehension level but I think I get what you're saying !

Simply put, it seems the 5008 is at least as capable as the 5011 despite the 6 ohm rating of the 5008 and the 4 ohm rating of the 5011.

 

[PENG]

Point taken!

That is Marantz being overly conservative, then relaxing their specifications for their X009 models to better match the competition. Given how sloppy speaker manufacturers are with their "nominal impedance" specifications, you might understand their reluctance to spec a 4 ohm nominal speaker which could dip below 2 ohms and still be 4 ohms nominal.

As a personal observation, my old SR-6001 was rated as minimum of 6 Ohms, but when benched, it was discovered to have the exact same amp section as the 7001 and produced 134WRMS @ 8 ohms and 204WRMS @ 4 ohms for two channels. Moreover, it produced 90WRMS @ 8 ohms and 130WRMS @ 4 ohms into all five channels!

The 5008, 6008, and 7008 were all specified as a minimum of 6 ohms driven, and the next year the 5009, 6009, and 7009 were all rated at 4 ohms minimum load. Yet Marantz makes no mention of a new or improved amp section in their marketing materials (you can bet they would if they could).

The 7008 was Marantz's flagship amp, and I would surmise it is as capable as my 6001 and a currently produced 7012 with 4 ohm speakers.

But Damn, due diligence and all, you are making me do research...

S&V did testing of the 6 ohm minimum SR5003 and the 4 ohm minimum 5009!
S&V is not real thorough about addressing 4 ohms but the lab reports both have MJP's initials on them so I feel they are comparable data sources.

For the "6 ohm" 5003:


For the "4 ohm" 5009:


These are not full range RMS watts, but it is clear that the 6 ohm rated 5003 is more capable at 4 ohms than the 5009 which is rated for 4 ohms!

Just a couple of points, food for thought only:

1. D&M switched to 4 ohm compatible not by boosting their power supplies, but by providing options to limit the output voltages. If you follow their instructions and limit the output V, you will not get more output into 4 ohms, may even get less. They also must have improved their protective circuity so they became more confident in not ending up with more warranty claims.

2. Regarding the 2008 (edit: 2006-7?) models, something seemed to have happened to that year's models. If you compare the weight of the SR7008 and SR7009 you will know what I am getting at. I am not one who would pay too much attention to weights between comparable models of different brands, but the SR7008 and 7009 are presumable designed by the same people. Both are class AB, same number of channels, and just one year apart, so it is reasonable to expect they weigh the same or almost the same.

Edit: I have the model year mixed up a little, the SR7008 looked fine, it's the SR7007 that was put on diet for some reason. The SR5003 actually is heavier than the SR7007. The 5000 series appeared to have been put on diet a year or two earlier (from SR5006 and later models).

The lighter weight could also be due to the use of lighter material such as plastic, Aluminum, and transformers and capacitors that have higher output to weight ratio, still I am suspicious about the SR7007 in particular.

 

[Verdinut]

Just a couple of points, food for thought only:

1. D&M switched to 4 ohm compatible not by boosting their power supplies, but by providing options to limit the output voltages. If you follow their instructions and limit the output V, you will not get more output into 4 ohms, may even get less. They also must have improved their protective circuity so they became more confident in not ending up with more warranty claims.

2. Regarding the 2008 (edit: 2006-7?) models, something seemed to have happened to that year's models. If you compare the weight of the SR7008 and SR7009 you will know what I am getting at. I am not one who would pay too much attention to weights between comparable models of different brands, but the SR7008 and 7009 are presumable designed by the same people. Both are class AB, same number of channels, and just one year apart, so it is reasonable to expect they weigh the same or almost the same.

Edit: I have the model year mixed up a little, the SR7008 looked fine, it;s the SR7007 that was put on diet for some reason. The SR5003 actually is heavier than the SR7007. The 5000 series appeared to have been put on diet a year or two earlier (from SR5006 and later models).

The lighter weight could also be due to the use of lighter material such as plastic, Aluminum, and transformers and capacitors that have higher output to weight ratio, still I am suspicious about the SR7007 in particular.

The SR7008 (9 ch AVR) weighs 30 lb. The SR7007 only weighs 27 lb, but it only has 7 ch amplification. However, the previous SR7005 was heavier by about 1 lb.
That seems reasonable to me.

 

[PENG]

The SR7008 (9 ch AVR) weighs 30 lb. The SR7007 only weighs 27 lb, but it only has 7 ch amplification. However, the previous SR7005 was heavier by about 1 lb.
That seems reasonable to me.

You are right, thanks for correcting me again. I typically don't rely on memory. I did this time, and it resulted in errors.