Help needed for new AVR

[poondes]

I need a suggestion
1) I am looking to buy Marantz AVR and I am choosing between SR 6012/ 7012. How much these 2 are different in term of sound quality? Should I get 7012 or save some money to buy better speaker with 6012? My room is 5.7m*3.8m* 2.6m

2) Seller in my town recommended Pioneer SC LX 701 to me. He claimed that 701 had more watts than SR6012 which will be better for 5.1.4 setup. But i searched on the internet I tend to believe that
135 W/ch 8 ohms, 1 kHz, 0.08 %, 2 ch Driven FTC of 701 is not higher than 110 W per channel (8 ohm, 20 Hz - 20 kHz, 0.08% 2ch Drive) of SR6012. Am i correct or the seller correct?

3) IS audyssey beeter than MCCACC?

4) From those 3 choices which one should I get 701 and 6012 cost roughly the same but 7012 cost around 550 usd more than those 2.

 

[lovinthehd]

I wouldn't expect any particular sound quality differences among any of the avrs you're thinking about unless it related to particular dsp/eq employed by one vs the other. Pick by the feature set/connectivity you want for the price you like would be my suggestion.

Amp differences are negligible at even 135wpc vs 110wpc (altho hard to compare those two particularly as the basis for the spec is different), less than 1dB in any case even just 135 vs 110, but with the different spec basis they're probably closer than that. While I prefer Audyssey (XT32 particularly) in my Denons over the MCACC I used before my Pioneer failed, I liked MCACC and now has newer features since that time. You should also consider Denon, Marantz' sister brand.

Right now with the turmoil with Onkyo/Pioneer due Gibson's financial misfortunes, I'm a little leery of Onkyo/Pioneer (and V-Tech just bought one of Pioneer's manufacturing facilities in Malaysia, altho it seems oriented towards pro gear).

 

[poondes]

I wouldn't expect any particular sound quality differences among any of the avrs you're thinking about unless it related to particular dsp/eq employed by one vs the other. Pick by the feature set/connectivity you want for the price you like would be my suggestion.

Amp differences are negligible at even 135wpc vs 110wpc (altho hard to compare those two particularly as the basis for the spec is different), less than 1dB in any case even just 135 vs 110, but with the different spec basis they're probably closer than that. While I prefer Audyssey (XT32 particularly) in my Denons over the MCACC I used before my Pioneer failed, I liked MCACC and now has newer features since that time. You should also consider Denon, Marantz' sister brand.

Right now with the turmoil with Onkyo/Pioneer due Gibson's financial misfortunes, I'm a little leery of Onkyo/Pioneer (and V-Tech just bought one of Pioneer's manufacturing facilities in Malaysia, altho it seems oriented towards pro gear).

In my country Denon 4400 cost more than SR7012 so I tend to not consider them

Is 7012 better than 6012 in term of sound quality not the loudness?

I am more than just fine with 6012 and sc 701 feature set

 

[lovinthehd]

I doubt there's any appreciable/audible difference in sound quality between those two Marantz units except on paper, but if worried about it and you think thats worth $550.....

No Denon X3300/3400 available for a more reasonable price? What country are you in?

 

[poondes]

I doubt there's any appreciable/audible difference in sound quality between those two Marantz units except on paper, but if worried about it and you think thats worth $550.....

No Denon X3300/3400 available for a more reasonable price? What country are you in?

x3400 cost the same or 100 usd less than 6012 and I want 9.2 channel AVR

I am from Thailand by the way almost everything is overpriced here

 

[poondes]

Any more thought?

 

[speakerman39]

Any more thought?

Well, if you want a 9 CH amp section, then that totally rules out the 3400 right? It sounds like to me you have already made up your mind on the Marantz 6012. So, what are you waiting for? Go for it! Both the 3400 and/or the 6012 are excellent AVR's. I would easily be happy with either one myself. But, we all have different needs. Best wishes!


Cheers,

Phil

 

[poondes]

Well, if you want a 9 CH amp section, then that totally rules out the 3400 right? It sounds like to me you have already made up your mind on the Marantz 6012. So, what are you waiting for? Go for it! Both the 3400 and/or the 6012 are excellent AVR's. I would easily be happy with either one myself. But, we all have different needs. Best wishes!


Cheers,

Phil

I keep hearing go for 7012 or pioneer sc lx 701 is superior than 6012.
So i want to know how much different between 6012 and 7012. Is it worth the extra money if I dont need extra feature from 7012 beside higher watts?
and Is sc lx 701 is superior than 6012 in term of watts

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Is 7012 better than 6012 in term of sound quality not the loudness?

No, it is not.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I keep hearing go for 7012 or pioneer sc lx 701 is superior than 6012.

Yeah, you will keep hearing a lot of things. Just don't believe any of it.

What speakers do you have?

As far as Audyssey and all Room Correction software, I don't really care for any of them.

But I do absolutely care about Audyssey Dynamic EQ, which I think subjectively makes the sound more lively and "large" or more "dynamic".

When you ask people which components they like better, the answers are just too subjective.

For example, if I were a billionaire, I would still buy a processor with Audyssey XT32 Dynamic EQ because I haven't found anything else that gives me the same satisfaction in sound quality.

But others may disagree with me 100%.

I have heard, played with, and owned other high-end electronics, but so have other people.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So I say get the Marantz SR6012.

 

[speakerman39]

Yeah, the OP is literally splitting hairs inmho. As mentioned above, I would opt for the 6012 and be done with it. Spend the extra money for better speakers perhaps? Or for a more capable sub? Of course, if you really don't need 9 CH of amplification, then the 3300/3400 would be a more affordable option w/o giving up very much. But, as I mentioned before we all have different needs.


Cheers,

Phil

 

[PENG]

Yeah, the OP is literally splitting hairs inmho. As mentioned above, I would opt for the 6012 and be done with it. Spend the extra money for better speakers perhaps? Or for a more capable sub? Of course, if you really don't need 9 CH of amplification, then the 3300/3400 would be a more affordable option w/o giving up very much. But, as I mentioned before we all have different needs.


Cheers,

Phil

He said the Denon costs about the same or $100 less than the SR6012. He also said he needed 9 channel so may as well go with the 6012 even if it costs $100 more. In fact even if he doesn't need 9 channel, for the same price the 6012 is a better deal.

 

[speakerman39]

He said the Denon costs about the same or $100 less than the SR6012. He needs 9 channel so may as well go with the 6012 even if it costs $100 more.

Right-so if the OP truly needs 9 CH of amplification, then the Denon is out of the question. Therefore, that is why I said he might as well as go w/the 6012. However, if the OP does NOT really need 9 CH of amplification, then the Denon X3300/3400 would be a good option inmho. I do agree that if the OP can get the 6012 for only $100 US more than the 3400, then it is a no-brainer. Especially, since he has mentioned the need for 9 CH of amplification.


Cheers,

Phil

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

He said the Denon costs about the same or $100 less than the SR6012. He also said he needed 9 channel so may as well go with the 6012 even if it costs $100 more. In fact even if he doesn't need 9 channel, for the same price the 6012 is a better deal.

So we have a unanimous vote for the SR6012.

 

[poondes]

thanks guy

 

[PENG]

Right-so if the OP truly needs 9 CH of amplification, then the Denon is out of the question. Therefore, that is why I said he might as well as go w/the 6012. However, if the OP does NOT really need 9 CH of amplification, then the Denon X3300/3400 would be a good option inmho. I do agree that if the OP can get the 6012 for only $100 US more than the 3400, then it is a no-brainer. Especially, since he has mentioned the need for 9 CH of amplification.


Cheers,

Phil

We are on the same page. By the way, see my point about the NA Marantz warm Denon neutral Yamaha bright myth/hearsay? In many parts of the world such hearsay could be different and that might have driven the demands, hence their relative pricing..and therefore Denon $>< Marantz really depends on where you are.

 

[speakerman39]

We are on the same page. By the way, see my point about the NA Marantz warm Denon neutral Yamaha bright myth/hearsay? In many parts of the world such hearsay could be different and that might have driven the demands, hence their relative pricing..and therefore Denon $>< Marantz really depends on where you are.

I agree. Not too long ago I owned a Marantz avr, then a Denon avr back to back. Needless to say, I did NOT really hear that much, if any, of a difference between the two. I will say, however, that the Cambridge SR20 stereo receiver I owned was much more polite and laid-back if you will. Perhaps, a bit more rounded and smooth. Hence, I would not call it warm, but rather more easy-going.

There are differences sometimes between various brands. But, specifically between Denon/Marantz not so much imho. I prefer Marantz myelf, but usually end up w/a Denon b/c Denon is more affordable here in the US. It is more I just like the look of the Marantz.


Cheers,

Phil

 

[lovinthehd]

I agree. Not too long ago I owned a Marantz avr, then a Denon avr back to back. Needless to say, I did NOT really hear that much, if any, of a difference between the two. I will say, however, that the Cambridge SR20 stereo receiver I owned was much more polite and laid-back if you will. Perhaps, a bit more rounded and smooth. Hence, I would not call it warm, but rather more easy-going.

There are differences sometimes between various brands. But, specifically between Denon/Marantz not so much imho. I prefer Marantz myelf, but usually end up w/a Denon b/c Denon is more affordable here in the US. It is more I just like the look of the Marantz.


Cheers,

Phil

Trouble with descriptions like this is they vary with different users/speakers etc....what does "polite and laid-back...more rounded and smooth" even mean?

 

[speakerman39]

Trouble with descriptions like this is they vary with different users/speakers etc....what does "polite and laid-back...more rounded and smooth" even mean?

Well it means it is not bright at all or ear fatiguing. I am fully aware that speakers/room have the most to say, but on some avr's they do sound a little different. Even if only a little. Perhaps, the top end is a bit rolled off. There is a difference to the sound when it is not so forward like I have seen on some other avr's. Maybe the low end is also tapered a bit for a smoother roll-off.

So believe what you will, but in my room the SR20 did sound a bit different when compared to a Denon for example. However, I did not find that much of a difference between the likes of Marantz and/or Denon. At least in my small room the SR20 sounded more mellow. Last time I checked, my hearing is still fully intact. Maybe not to the extent it was when I was in my 20's. But, my hearing is fine as far as I know.


Cheers,

Phil