Marantz NR1509/1609 Slimline AV Receivers Aren't Slim on Features

[Sanyobusiness]

Okay, new update.

I purchased the Klipsch R-10SWi, and now I'm looking to get a couple bookshelf speakers to go next to the TV. The thing is, the TV is on the mantle above the fireplace (no other option in this room) and as much as I'd like a center speaker, I don't want to try to mount it over the screen, and I don't want to lift the screen any higher up to fit it underneath. Maybe someday I'll cut a window out of the front of the mantle and mount it inside, but that's for another day...

Anyway, because I'm a sucker for the copper look, I'm looking at Klipsch cabinet speakers for left and right, and I'm noticing the much more Wife Approved walnut finish is only available in speakers rated at 75W. My receiver is rated at 50W per channel. Is that going to cause problems? Am I just going to slowly wear out my receiver cause any other issues?

 

[everettT]

Okay, new update.

I purchased the Klipsch R-10SWi, and now I'm looking to get a couple bookshelf speakers to go next to the TV. The thing is, the TV is on the mantle above the fireplace (no other option in this room) and as much as I'd like a center speaker, I don't want to try to mount it over the screen, and I don't want to lift the screen any higher up to fit it underneath. Maybe someday I'll cut a window out of the front of the mantle and mount it inside, but that's for another day...

Anyway, because I'm a sucker for the copper look, I'm looking at Klipsch cabinet speakers for left and right, and I'm noticing the much more Wife Approved walnut finish is only available in speakers rated at 75W. My receiver is rated at 50W per channel. Is that going to cause problems? Am I just going to slowly wear out my receiver cause any other issues?

Ditch that sub! Adding $200 to that budget will be very fruitful regardless of your room size. I'd put the same dollar amount to a sub as the front 3 at least.

 

[Sanyobusiness]

Ditch that sub! Adding $200 to that budget will be very fruitful regardless of your room size. I'd put the same dollar amount to a sub as the front 3 at least.

Aw come on! I’m sure it’s a vast improvement over my last setup. Plus it hasn’t arrived yet.

Any input on the cabinet speakers question?

 

[everettT]

Aw come on! I’m sure it’s a vast improvement over my last setup. Plus it hasn’t arrived yet.

Any input on the cabinet speakers question?

An improvement yes, vast no. Cancel if you can. For HT Klipsch is fine with speakers. Their sub you purchased is not to be desired except for music and smaller rooms.

 

[Sanyobusiness]

An improvement yes, vast no. Cancel if you can. For HT Klipsch is fine with speakers. Their sub you purchased is not to be desired except for music and smaller rooms.

Trust me, I wanted to go bigger, but I also want to fit it under a small side table next to the couch. This one will hopefully fit perfectly. I know this is probably unthinkable for an audiophile, but unless it is truly broken it will have to be good enough.

So back to my cabinet speaker wattage question...

 

[everettT]

Trust me, I wanted to go bigger, but I also want to fit it under a small side table next to the couch. This one will hopefully fit perfectly. I know this is probably unthinkable for an audiophile, but unless it is truly broken it will have to be good enough.

So back to my cabinet speaker wattage question...

Speaker wattage ratings are pretty much meaningless. 1 watt is typically very loud with Klipsch speakers. Here is a calculator
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html

 

[Sanyobusiness]

An improvement yes, vast no. Cancel if you can. For HT Klipsch is fine with speakers. Their sub you purchased is not to be desired except for music and smaller rooms.

Okay, so I went ahead and set up the sub. Perhaps I'm just not trained know what to listen for, but it sounds pretty good to me. Perhaps a bit overpowerful for my needs, but it does sound quite a bit better than what I had before. What quality would a better one have that this one doesn't? Or maybe it is what bad qualities does this one have that others wouldn't have that would improve the sound?

Just curious as I do have 30 days to exchange, and I figure if I'm gonna do this, I might as well do it right. What would you recommend and why?

 

[Altoqur]

Love Marantz and the slimline is beautiful

 

[Irvrobinson]

you can get last year's NR1608 for $500 while inventory is still available; but be sure to check exactly what features have changed to determine if you will miss anything!

I just did the unthinkable (for me) and ordered an NR1608 for $499 to replace my Outlaw 975 pre-pro. Not that there's anything wrong with my 975, but I've been wanting 4K video support for a while now, and the prospect of spending $929 on a 976, or much more than that on a Marantz/Yamaha/Denon etc. pre-pro was a turn-off. I really hate the notion of seven amp channels sitting there idle, and the complexity of the Marantz packed with features I'll never use (like ATMOS and Audessey), but the economics of the NR1608 is difficult to argue with. And I needed more pre-out voltage for the Phil3s I intend to order, when Dennis Murphy recovers and returns to the speaker business.

I'll let you know how it goes... an avowed AVR hater using one as pre-pro. Ugh.

 

[PENG]

I'll let you know how it goes... an avowed AVR hater using one as pre-pro. Ugh.

Welcome to the club!

I assume you need the low profile, otherwise the SR5012 appears to be a better value.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Welcome to the club!

I assume you need the low profile, otherwise the SR5012 appears to be a better value.

Yup, I needed the small form factor to fit in the cabinet. I suppose I could ditch the ATI amp and use the AVR L/R amp channels, but then I'd probably throw up.

 

[PENG]

Yup, I needed the small form factor to fit in the cabinet. I suppose I could ditch the ATI amp and use the AVR L/R amp channels, but then I'd probably throw up.

Oh no, don't do that, that little NR's preamp is likely as good as the Outlaw but the power amp section obviously sucks. I mentioned the SR models only because the NRs don't have the HDAM modules but then those modules will most likely not provide the claimed benefits (logically speaking), if one does a simple bottleneck analysis.

 

[Irvrobinson]

The NR1608 is installed. Other than the fact that it's a lot bigger, heavier, hotter (even in pre-pro mode), and more complex than the 975, the Marantz is better in every tangible way. And it even cost $50 less than a new 975, not to mention having many more features and native 4K support. Oddly, the 60Hz hum problem that I could only mitigate but never got rid of with the 975 in the system was eliminated when I replaced it with the Marantz. Highly recommended, even for use as a 2-ch pre-pro.

 

[PENG]

I find it refreshing to see such straight to the point feedback without any subjective sound signature description/comparison.

 

[KEW]

The NR1608 is installed. Other than the fact that it's a lot bigger, heavier, hotter (even in pre-pro mode),and more complex than the 975, the Marantz is better in every tangible way. And it even cost $50 less than a new 975, not to mention having many more features and native 4K support. Oddly, the 60Hz hum problem that I could only mitigate but never got rid of with the 975 in the system was eliminated when I replaced it with the Marantz. Highly recommended, even for use as a 2-ch pre-pro.

Just wanted to make sure that you turned on the Eco Mode. Since you are not using any of the internal amplifiers, there is no risk of it compromising the quality of your audio according to Gene's review of another model that had the Eco Mode.
IME, it will drop the temperature by about 10 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Just wanted to make sure that you turned on the Eco Mode. Since you are not using any of the internal amplifiers, there is no risk of it compromising the quality of your audio according to Gene's review of another model that had the Eco Mode.
IME, it will drop the temperature by about 10 degrees Fahrenheit.

Good suggestion. Thanks, Kurt.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I find it refreshing to see such straight to the point feedback without any subjective sound signature description/comparison.

I do have one subjective comment... when my wife went to watch Netflix via Roku, Netflix auto-detected the 4K capability and asked her if she'd like Netflix's 4k support for an additional $5/month. Naturally, she agreed. Much to our surprise the difference between 4K and HD was not subtle; the 4K version was easily identifiable 100% of the time as being different and better. Since we only have a 70" display and we sit about 12 feet from it, I thought the difference would be subtle at best. Not so, and I spent the next hour driving her nuts trying to optimize every video variable. Had I known the improvement from 4K would be so overt, I would have made the switch much sooner.

 

[PENG]

I do have one subjective comment... when my wife went to watch Netflix via Roku, Netflix auto-detected the 4K capability and asked her if she'd like Netflix's 4k support for an additional $5/month. Naturally, she agreed. Much to our surprise the difference between 4K and HD was not subtle; the 4K version was easily identifiable 100% of the time as being different and better. Since we only have a 70" display and we sit about 12 feet from it, I thought the difference would be subtle at best. Not so, and I spent the next hour driving her nuts trying to optimize every video variable. Had I known the improvement from 4K would be so overt, I would have made the switch much sooner.

I have not done so yet and that's partially due to the fact that Netflix Canada doesn't offer as much 4K contents. I also suspect it is the more than subtle difference could be due to the quality of the recording (video) to begin with. The same can be realized in comparing HDTracks 16/44 to 24/192 or higher material, or DSD128 and higher, not so much the resolution, but the quality of the recording selected for the higher resolution sources. If and Netflix Canada add more 4K movies/videos, I will jump in eventually.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I have not done so yet and that's partially due to the fact that Netflix Canada doesn't offer as much 4K contents. I also suspect it is the more than subtle difference could be due to the quality of the recording (video) to begin with. The same can be realized in comparing HDTracks 16/44 to 24/192 or higher material, or DSD128 and higher, not so much the resolution, but the quality of the recording selected for the higher resolution sources. If and Netflix Canada add more 4K movies/videos, I will jump in eventually.

I know what you're saying, and I agree, but I don't think that's what we're seeing. For example, my wife is currently binge-watching NCIS, and she's in season 9, which I think pre-dates 4K TV source material availability, and she noticed a substantial difference. While I'm not a fan of speculation on technical matters, if I had to guess at the reason for the surprising visual differences I would say there are strategies Netflix could be using to justify that extra $60/year. For example, they might have more 4K rendered material than we would have guessed. Or Netflix might have very effective upscaling software for HD material, and 4K subscribers are literally getting a different bit stream all of the time.

We don't have any 4K Blurays yet. Comcast is not supporting 4K for any of its own streaming content yet. Amazon Prime has some 4K content, but I haven't tested Prime yet to see if we get an effect similar to that as from Netflix. Since we have a Roku box, I'll also be checking the Roku Channel. I'll post some results soon.

 

[KEW]

I do have one subjective comment... when my wife went to watch Netflix via Roku, Netflix auto-detected the 4K capability and asked her if she'd like Netflix's 4k support for an additional $5/month. Naturally, she agreed. Much to our surprise the difference between 4K and HD was not subtle; the 4K version was easily identifiable 100% of the time as being different and better. Since we only have a 70" display and we sit about 12 feet from it, I thought the difference would be subtle at best. Not so, and I spent the next hour driving her nuts trying to optimize every video variable. Had I known the improvement from 4K would be so overt, I would have made the switch much sooner.

Nice, the cynic in me speculates that they might "dumb down" the regular feed so the 4K feed looks better (when 4K would not actually change the perceived appearance).
BTW, did turning on ECO mode get the AVR into the same temperature range as the Outlaw 975, or does it still run hotter? I'd guess it runs hotter since there is more processing going on.