Marantz 6014 or Denon 3600

[PENG]

HDAM is the Marantz version of the Yamaha Aventage “5th foot” LOL

That is my way of saying Denon and Marantz are using mostly the same parts at Sound United.

May be, I much prefer HDAM to the 5th of 6th foot that I wouldn't give a damn, HDAM as least should/probably would actually do something, and cost a lot more than a mere foot.

 

[PENG]

The discussion started with, peng wanting a theatre room AND music room all in one. He wanted to know, Marantz or Denon. I took him down the road where neither a Marantz nor a Denon avr will get him a good sound stage for music. But if you don't know what your missing you can easily assume your not missing a thing. I had no idea how good a sound stage could be till I had one. Much of the discussion was me defending my Marantz over my Denon. I don't like my Denon, and I favor the Marantz. To me, it sounds better, it processes better, it looks better, it's easier to operate, it has more functions. The x1500 will be my last Denon

I never said I wanted one. I have 3 separate 2 channel systems myself, 4 at one time. If I mentioned anything about doing so, I must be responding to and/or referring to the OP, or OPs scenarios, not mine.

 

[Pogre]

As far as Denon and Marantz being owned by Sound United all under one roof, not one sound though. They are a much different product. Do they share parts? I hope so that's what keeps prices down. Business's acquire business's all the time. You know Amazon has a fantastic 30 day return policy, no questions asked. Buy the Marantz, buy the Denon, compare for yourself. Heck might as well grab a Yamaha while your at it.

I've owned both Denon and Marantz and they both sounded great. The only differences were feature sets. I had an older Yamaha, Denon 1910, S520B, X1200 and now currently a Marantz SR6011. They all sounded just as good as the other. Do I have a preference? Yes, but not because one is warmer or whatever. The 6011 has better room correction.

I highly doubt, in a dbt and all things equal that you'd be able to pick one over the other. Remove sighted and expectation bias from the equation and I think you'd be surprised.

*Edit: I also added a separate 7 x 200 w amp to my system. Again, no difference in actual sound quality. I'm not afraid to crank it up once in a while tho...

Also, TOOL is hands down my favorite band! I preordered Fear Inoculum and made a thread here for it, lol.

 

[PENG]

As far as Denon and Marantz being owned by Sound United all under one roof, not one sound though. They are a much different product. Do they share parts?

Of course they do, same parts, same design, same audio specs (THD, SN, FR, etc.) for comparable models (in the audio signal chain), except the HDAM thing I mentioned multiple times.

That's on the document side. On the measurement side, same manufacturer specs (again, on the audio side), at the lower/typical output level, based on available AH, ASR, S&V bench test results, they are typically not that different, and would generally be considered below the threshold of audibility by most people.

As an example, the measurements of the lower mid range Denon AVR-X3500H and the Marantz AV7705 ASR measured, at pre out voltage at 1.2 V (probably up 1.5 V), the Marantz did a little better in distortions+noise, and the Denon did better in FR. Both units shared the same volume control IC, DAC and ADC chips.

I am just stating known facts, i.e. objective stuff only. So of course I agree people should go by their ears/brains if that's what they believe and prefer. How they can do it in meaningful ways I have no idea.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Another one of those 50% Amps-have-sound-signature vs 50% Amps-don't-have-sound-signature debate.

 

[Pogre]

Another one of those 50% Amps-have-sound-signature vs 50% Amps-don't-have-sound-signature debate.

But Yamaha wins either way!

*Edit: Anyone else notice that someone bumped almost every headphone thread on the forums?!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

But Yamaha wins either way!

But not for Sound Quality, which is equal across the board - doesn't matter if it's Yamaha vs Denon vs Marantz vs Sony vs Pioneer vs Onkyo vs Anthem vs Arcam vs Mark Levinson vs Krell vs Boulder vs ATI, etc.

Yes, many of us have owned quite a few different amps and speakers throughout the years.

Nexus: whatever floats your boat, just keep on enjoying it.

 

[PENG]

Another one of those 50% Amps-have-sound-signature vs 50% Amps-don't-have-sound-signature debate.

Yep, that's why I would only respond to questions, and/or would point out any fake facts if I see them presented. There is no point to debate people from either camp if the topic involve subjectivity.

The funny thing is, of the 50% (not sure how accurate this number is, but I'll take your words) would typically point to the importance of only what they hear, like, and prefer matters. Some would simply state that the "sound signature" thing is real, wonder why others couldn't hear/tell etc... They rarely, if at all, provide verifiable, and explainable (based on EE principles) facts to support their claims, other than insisting they all sound different, even night and day kind of difference, and even at low spl.

The other 50% would often point to controlled comparison listening tests, similarity of circuity design, that amps are matured technological products, threshold of audibility in measurable specs etc., while they can never deny, even though some may try, what the other 50% heard for the obvious reasons. Same things day after day, it can be tiring to read, but could still be interesting or at least entertaining. That's why it is still going, I guess.

 

[Pogre]

But not for Sound Quality, which is equal across the board - doesn't matter if it's Yamaha vs Denon vs Marantz vs Sony vs Pioneer vs Onkyo vs Anthem vs Arcam vs Mark Levinson vs Krell vs Boulder vs ATI, etc.

Yes, many of us have owned quite a few different amps and speakers throughout the years.

Nexus: whatever floats your boat, just keep on enjoying it.

I know, I know... I'm just messing with ya, lol.

But yes, I agree with you. Every amp has the same goal, to reproduce sound with as little or no coloration as possible. Any differences in sq are gonna come from room correction, eq and speakers.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yep, that's why I only responded to questions, and/or would point out the fake facts as I see them. There is no point to debate people from either camp.

The funny fact is, of of the 50% typically would point to the importance of what they hear, like, prefer matters, and would simply state that the "sound signature" thing is real, wonder why others couldn't hear/tell... They rarely, if at all, provide verifiable, and explainable (based on EE principles) facts.

The other 50% would on the other hand point to controlled comparison listening tests, circuity design, threshold of audibility in measurable specs etc., while they can never deny, even though some may try, what the other 50% heard for the obvious reasons.

It's probably the same in life everywhere. 50% believe in scientific facts. 50% don't believe in scientific facts - they just don't care.

I think the people who believe in scientific facts in audio have stopped searching for the "best sounding amp", while the other camp will continue to search forever because the next new girl to the dance is always the best one.

Wait, isn't she, though?

 

[Pogre]

I think the people who believe in scientific facts in audio have stopped searching for the "best sounding amp", while the other camp will continue to search forever because the next new girl to the dance is always the best one.

That's a good point! I'd also say that those same people probably have better speakers on average too. Money saved on expensive amplification goes toward better speakers, as it should.

 

[chrysler82000]

Yep, that's why I would only respond to questions, and/or would point out any fake facts if I see them presented. There is no point to debate people from either camp if the topic involve subjectivity.

The funny thing is, of the 50% (not sure how accurate this number is, but I'll take your words) would typically point to the importance of only what they hear, like, and prefer matters. Some would simply state that the "sound signature" thing is real, wonder why others couldn't hear/tell etc... They rarely, if at all, provide verifiable, and explainable (based on EE principles) facts to support their claims, other than insisting they all sound different, even night and day kind of difference, and even at low spl.

The other 50% would often point to controlled comparison listening tests, similarity of circuity design, that amps are matured technological products, threshold of audibility in measurable specs etc., while they can never deny, even though some may try, what the other 50% heard for the obvious reasons. Same things day after day, it can be tiring to read, but could still be interesting or at least entertaining. That's why it is still going, I guess.

So what do you do? Are you going to rely on the scientific measurements. Or maybe rely on this discussion. Or maybe you meet the right sales man and he sells you somethin? Or go to the store and demo the models you're interested in. Or you buy the one YOU want taking all the info you gathered into consideration. Go with the Marantz You'll me much happier

 

[snakeeyes]

Think at $599 (Denon losing money per unit on clearance) you guys like to recommend 3500, but watch how the opinions change as the budget goes up. LOL

We don’t want everyone to have the exact same gear. That would be boring.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

But Yamaha wins either way!

*Edit: Anyone else notice that someone bumped almost every headphone thread on the forums?!

Yeah, wtf... I think sherveritamongo labs headphones would sound great. Cut and pasted like 29 times. I didn’t clicky though. Just smh.

 

[chrysler82000]

I never said I wanted one. I have 3 separate 2 channel systems myself, 4 at one time. If I mentioned anything about doing so, I must be responding to and/or referring to the OP, or OPs scenarios, not mine.

"Building a home theater but 2-channel hifi music is also a priority to me. Planning to go 7.2.4"
That's what you said, that's why I chimed in. I was unable to get my 7.2.4 theater room to meet my expectations for hifi music. Hence I built/bought a 2 channel system for hifi music

 

[KEW]

"Building a home theater but 2-channel hifi music is also a priority to me. Planning to go 7.2.4"
That's what you said, that's why I chimed in. I was unable to get my 7.2.4 theater room to meet my expectations for hifi music. Hence I built/bought a 2 channel system for hifi music

You got the right quote, but the wrong author!

Hi- this is my first post and I want to thank all of you for your outstanding analysis and advice. Love this site!

Building a home theater but 2-channel hifi music is also a priority to me. Planning to go 7.2.4. Room is not huge, about 19' x 12'. Choosing between the new Denon 3600 or the new Marantz 6014. Specs on each of them seem very similar. Both have 11 channels of processing with 9 channels of amplification. Each has similar specs in terms of what they can process and what they can do. I am planning to use an external amp for L/C/R and the internal amps for surrounds and heights. I have a monolith 7x200 for the L/C/R. My question is this- is there a significant difference in the way these two receivers sound when it comes to both home theater AND musicality. The internet is packed with conjecture about Denon being punchier and better for theater and Marantz being more musical. Is this true? or are they basically similar enough that no one could perceive an actual difference? I'm trying to wrap my head around the $400 price difference with such similar specs??? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thank you!

But to your statement:

I was unable to get my 7.2.4 theater room to meet my expectations for hifi music.

Don't you think if you ran Salon 2's with Anthem, yada yada for your HT mains you would meet your hifi music expectations?
Whenever I listen to stereo music, I only use my mains and cannot see how having the connections and speakers for a full HT in the room are going to ruin the experience of the components used for the stereo setup!

 

[KEW]

I have a Marantz SR7008 that sounds very nice, but have found the less expensive Denon X4500 gives me even higher quality sound!
My best guess is that the 4500 allows me to have more control over Audyssey so I can apply it to address the (lower frequency - below ~270Hz) room modes exclusively!
However, this begs the question for @chrysler82000 :
Do you use Audyssey? There is a pretty substantial difference in what 32XT does with your Marantz SR7012 and what the lower version of Audyssey does with the Denon X1500!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Unless you just gotta have 2 or more audio rooms, IMO there is absolutely no reason why you can't have one room to rule them all - meaning one system will sound 100% awesome for EVERYTHING - music, movies, TVs, etc.

 

[2channel lover]

Hi- this is my first post and I want to thank all of you for your outstanding analysis and advice. Love this site!

Building a home theater but 2-channel hifi music is also a priority to me. Planning to go 7.2.4. Room is not huge, about 19' x 12'. Choosing between the new Denon 3600 or the new Marantz 6014. Specs on each of them seem very similar. Both have 11 channels of processing with 9 channels of amplification. Each has similar specs in terms of what they can process and what they can do. I am planning to use an external amp for L/C/R and the internal amps for surrounds and heights. I have a monolith 7x200 for the L/C/R. My question is this- is there a significant difference in the way these two receivers sound when it comes to both home theater AND musicality. The internet is packed with conjecture about Denon being punchier and better for theater and Marantz being more musical. Is this true? or are they basically similar enough that no one could perceive an actual difference? I'm trying to wrap my head around the $400 price difference with such similar specs??? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thank you!

I saw where Peng touched on this, but the only real difference that I can see between the 6014 & 3600 is the Marantz has 7.1 analog inputs.

Musical...you asked if one is more "musical" than the other...no...but the only reason you might want to use the multi-ch analog inputs is if you were playing back hi res multi-ch or 2 ch music and you wanted to use analog inputs instead of HDMI.

I playback using the Oppo 205 player...it has the 7.1 analog jacks as well...I'm connected to the prepro both ways using the 7.1 & HDMI ports...in my case the 7.1 terminates at a DAC that supposed to be one of the better ones...slight difference between the analog and HDMI output, but not something I would spend $400 for.

 

[chrysler82000]

I have a Marantz SR7011 that sounds very nice, but have found the less expensive Denon X4500 gives me even higher quality sound!
My best guess is that the 4500 allows me to have more control over Audyssey so I can apply it to address the (lower frequency - below ~270Hz) room modes exclusively!
However, this begs the question for @chrysler82000 :
Do you use Audyssey? There is a pretty substantial difference in what 32XT does with your Marantz SR7012 and what the lower version of Audyssey does with the Denon X1500!

I use Audyssey on the Marantz and the Denon. I've re-calibrated so many times now I have found the only thing Audyssey really does for me, measure distances. I have familiarized myself and I pretty much change volumes and frequencies to my liking. Because I am frequently tinkering around I prefer the sr7012, it gives me more options and control than the x1500. The X1500 is dated although it's only 8 months old to me.