Integra 80.1 vs Marantz AV8003

[Docks]

Well.. the title about sums it up.
The marantz has problems with room eq while playing certain audio formats. The Integra has better freq response from what i have read.

But for some reason, something just makes me want the marantz more. The integra looks better on reviews i have read, but the marantz i seem to trust more.

Suggestions?

 

[AVRat]

If you can wait a bit: http://www.hifix.co.uk/hifi/audio/marantz-av7005-mm7055-av-prepower/

 

[TLS Guy]

Well.. the title about sums it up.
The marantz has problems with room eq while playing certain audio formats. The Integra has better freq response from what i have read.

But for some reason, something just makes me want the marantz more. The integra looks better on reviews i have read, but the marantz i seem to trust more.

Suggestions?

I can tell you that my Marantz 80023 has been a really solid performer. Not a bit of temperament. I have had zero issues, apart from the pigeon English in the manual.

Here is my two part review. First part.

Second part.

I never seriously considered the Integra. I had a strong premonition of problems to come.

The Marantz has what counts in all the right places. For me headroom is by far the biggest issue with any preamp type of device. This is just about never specified or mentioned in reviews, but is one of the most important parameters of all! Poor headroom is common and a frequently unrecognized cause of poor performance. The Marantz has headroom in spades.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

If you can wait a bit: http://www.hifix.co.uk/hifi/audio/marantz-av7005-mm7055-av-prepower/

I wish the new Marantz pre-pro looks just like their Reference series in Gold color and all.

 

[Warpdrv]

I'm confused - are they not making a Pre-amp for this year...?

The 7005 has amps and there is no Coming soon on the website for Separates


****Edit****

Oh I see, the new Pre amp is labeled AV-7005 instead of the SR-7005 for stereo receiver, I'm looking forward to the new generation and see how it fares....

 

[Seth=L]

I'm confused - are they not making a Pre-amp for this year...?

The 7005 has amps and there is no Coming soon on the website for Separates

The AV7005 appears to be the SR7005 without amps. In place of amps, it has XLR outputs (similar to what Onkyo does with it's preamps and top end receivers). Once again, the preamp costs significantly more than the receiver proving that if you take a receiver and gut out the amp section and try to sell it as a preamp, that it will cost more because less units move.

I'm waiting for the bold company that will pave the way and gut out the amp section in a receiver and charge significantly less for it to see how many units they can move. Sure, joe bloke is going to ask, "what's the point if it can't push my speakers on it's own, I'd rather just spend $300 more to get the regular receiver version". In order to favorably compete with a company like Emotiva, someone should at least try it out.

 

[Seth=L]

Docks. If you really want something that's going to have a top end feel, then I'd get the SR7005. If you just want it to handle HDMI audio and video and have no care for 3D or return audio (HDMI 1.4 capable TVs can send a return audio signal over HDMI to the preamp/receiver) then I would suggest looking at the SR6004 or the SR5004 to use as a preamp. The SR6004 was measured by Gene and he said it gives tremendous performance when used as a preamp for the dollar.

Given the cost of a separate preamp I can rarely think of an occasion where I would recommend one, they simply aren't viable. Considering that the SR7005 and soon to come AV7005 are virtually the same beside the lack of internal amplifiers on the AV7005 I couldn't recommend the AV7005 to anyone. The SR7005, per marantz's website, states the MSRP of the SR7005 is $1599. The MSRP of the AV7005 per the link above states 1699 British pounds, which is roughly $2600 US. While the MSRP may be slightly different when the AV7005 is sold in the US you can still count on it being significantly more than the SR7005. But why? So we can have XLR preouts that aren't true balanced outputs? You'd have to spend even more money to make them balanced, and more money again to balance the inputs on the amplifier in use. Using the XLR for the sake of using it is virtually pointless. It's a more sturdy connection, but that's why they use it in pro audio equipment. It's also less likely for noise to become a problem in excessively long cable runs when using XLR, but in reality your amp and preamp will be right next to each other.

 

[Docks]

I wouldnt mind using RCA outs vs XLR, but the problem lays with the amp i use. The inputs are a bare wire input, so taking a RCA apart could be a bit odd. \
I only recently realized how fine the signal wire is! ( 22ga )
I just find it odd to buy a big nice amp and preamp, some decent rca or xlrs then start taking them apart to hardwire to my amp.
I bought some RCA to XLR's so i can take the XLR side apart, wire it to my amp, and use the rca in the pre-out, is this standard?

 

[TLS Guy]

Docks. If you really want something that's going to have a top end feel, then I'd get the SR7005. If you just want it to handle HDMI audio and video and have no care for 3D or return audio (HDMI 1.4 capable TVs can send a return audio signal over HDMI to the preamp/receiver) then I would suggest looking at the SR6004 or the SR5004 to use as a preamp. The SR6004 was measured by Gene and he said it gives tremendous performance when used as a preamp for the dollar.

Given the cost of a separate preamp I can rarely think of an occasion where I would recommend one, they simply aren't viable. Considering that the SR7005 and soon to come AV7005 are virtually the same beside the lack of internal amplifiers on the AV7005 I couldn't recommend the AV7005 to anyone. The SR7005, per marantz's website, states the MSRP of the SR7005 is $1599. The MSRP of the AV7005 per the link above states 1699 British pounds, which is roughly $2600 US. While the MSRP may be slightly different when the AV7005 is sold in the US you can still count on it being significantly more than the SR7005. But why? So we can have XLR preouts that aren't true balanced outputs? You'd have to spend even more money to make them balanced, and more money again to balance the inputs on the amplifier in use. Using the XLR for the sake of using it is virtually pointless. It's a more sturdy connection, but that's why they use it in pro audio equipment. It's also less likely for noise to become a problem in excessively long cable runs when using XLR, but in reality your amp and preamp will be right next to each other.

As you probably expected, I'm going to disagree with you.

There are those of us who buy for the long haul. We believe good well made gear to be worth the price and the cheapest route in the end.

A receiver is, I believe inherently flawed. Low level signals switching, and processing have no business being in the same case as seven or more powerful power amps. Even if the power amps are not connected, the current draw at idle of all class A B amps is significant. This is a source of noise and unwanted magnetic induction.

Personally I have no intention of owning any product thus conceived. I agree wit the late Peter Walker of Quad on that. He was asked, many times by his staff, if he would design a receiver for the range. His answer always the same. No! His reasons were the ones I sighted.

Now I have had my Marantz unit on the bench and its basic audio performance is exemplary. Above all it has huge headroom. Its is dead quiet. It is not affected by interference from dimmers of which there are a huge number in this house. Distortion is below what I'm able to measure.

The unit has never played tricks. It has shown no temperament. I have not had to reset to default and reprogram. It has been rock solid stable.

The FM radio performance is exemplary. I'm in a marginal signal area, but that unit performs flawlessly. It stand the comparison with my QUAD FM 4, widely regarded as one of the best FM tuners ever.

This pre/pro has all the features I need, and is acoustically neutral. I have been reacquainting myself with the Mahler symphonies this week, and the sound is so real its uncanny. You just have to pinch yourself.

With a Blue Ray Opera recorded with the loss less codecs in multichannel audio the whole experience is unbelievable.

So I feel this AV rig is at a point were I can't up grade electronics without a total speaker redo. I doubt I have in me to go beyond what I have now. So I had to make a judgment, never easy, on likely reliability. So I picked the Marantz 8003 and give it the best protection I know how.

If it lasts the rest of my life or until it can not connect to the prevailing TV technology, then I will regard this unit as a bargain.

I have no interest in 3D, and regard it highly questionable from a medical and health standpoint.

Many people who have normal vision, will not get depth perception from the current technology used. This is a commonly administered medical test. And individual response to perceiving depth based on the technology used is all over the map, with many not responding at all.

I feel the risk of inducing seizures in the young, the old and those predisposed is significant.

The risk to vision of using this technology over significant periods of time remains to be established. It would not surprise me at all if this technology is pulled from the market. I would personally never consider it. Extensive clinical test and trials should have been done before it was brought to market.

So for all the above reasons I think there is and should be a greater case made for separating pre and power amps.

 

[Docks]

Thanks for all of the replies guys, its greatly appreciated.

The Integra 80.1 appears to be a bit better on paper, but
Marantz AV8003 still appeals to me more (just dont trust integra to sound as good or better than the Marantz)

Also, How would the marantz receiver mentioned above compete in here?
Just curious about how everyone feels about these graphs?

Marantz AV8003
http://www.hometheatermag.com/preampprocessors/1008mar/index4.html
Analog frequency response in Pure Direct mode:
–2.38 dB at 10 Hz
–0.74 dB at 20 Hz
–0.17 dB at 20 kHz
–1.09 dB at 50 kHz

Analog frequency response with signal processing:
–2.45 dB at 10 Hz
–0.76 dB at 20 Hz
–0.31 dB at 20 kHz
–47.53 dB at 50 kHz

And for the Integra DHC 80.1
http://www.hometheatermag.com/preampprocessors/integra_dhc-801_surround_processor/index4.html
Analog frequency response in Direct mode:
–0.05 dB at 10 Hz
+0.00 dB at 20 Hz
–0.01 dB at 20 kHz
–0.04 dB at 50 kHz

Analog frequency response with signal processing:
–0.25 dB at 10 Hz
–0.06 dB at 20 Hz
–0.28 dB at 20 kHz
–26.38 dB at 50 kHz

 

[Seth=L]

As you probably expected, I'm going to disagree with you.

I didn't really expect it, but it comes as no surprise since you are the proud owner of an AV8003.

There are those of us who buy for the long haul. We believe good well made gear to be worth the price and the cheapest route in the end.

I believe the mid to top end receivers and preamps are all built to the same standard.

A receiver is, I believe inherently flawed. Low level signals switching, and processing have no business being in the same case as seven or more powerful power amps. Even if the power amps are not connected, the current draw at idle of all class A B amps is significant. This is a source of noise and unwanted magnetic induction.

Please read this, and give me your opinion of it. http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=1699

Personally I have no intention of owning any product thus conceived. I agree wit the late Peter Walker of Quad on that. He was asked, many times by his staff, if he would design a receiver for the range. His answer always the same. No! His reasons were the ones I sighted.

That's all fine and well, but I strongly feel this is a misconception. Proper isolation and filtering can and does reduce the affects of these potential problems. Cheap receivers commonly have these problems, however Marantz receivers and many others are designed and built competently enough that this is not a problem. His and your views, in my belief, are slanted.

Now I have had my Marantz unit on the bench and its basic audio performance is exemplary. Above all it has huge headroom. Its is dead quiet. It is not affected by interference from dimmers of which there are a huge number in this house. Distortion is below what I'm able to measure.

Would you mind putting a receiver like the Marantz SR6004 on the bench and test it under the same conditions? I'm not discounting the performance of the AV8003, I'm discounting it's cost to benefit ratio. It's a great piece of equipment to be sure, but I believe the mid to high level receivers offered by Marantz offer similar to parallel performance.

The unit has never played tricks. It has shown no temperament. I have not had to reset to default and reprogram. It has been rock solid stable.

I don't run into problems with most receivers either, and I've not read anything to indicate that the Marantz receivers are temperamental or unstable. Since they share design concepts with the AV8003 I would expect them to have the same stability in operation. I fail to see how adding an amplifier into the chassis would have any affect on that in any way.

The FM radio performance is exemplary. I'm in a marginal signal area, but that unit performs flawlessly. It stand the comparison with my QUAD FM 4, widely regarded as one of the best FM tuners ever.

Even if Docks has a high level of interest in the tuner section of whatever unit he gets, I am pretty sure they'll be similar.

This pre/pro has all the features I need, and is acoustically neutral. I have been reacquainting myself with the Mahler symphonies this week, and the sound is so real its uncanny. You just have to pinch yourself.

If I didn't think the SR5004 or SR6004 could relay the signal in a linear "acoustically neutral" fashion, I wouldn't be recommending them.

With a Blue Ray Opera recorded with the loss less codecs in multichannel audio the whole experience is unbelievable.

With your sound system, I don't doubt this for a second. The amplifiers you have can dish out some serious power, and your speakers, well..... I've not heard them, but I'm sure they sound great.

So I feel this AV rig is at a point were I can't up grade electronics without a total speaker redo. I doubt I have in me to go beyond what I have now. So I had to make a judgment, never easy, on likely reliability. So I picked the Marantz 8003 and give it the best protection I know how.

If it lasts the rest of my life or until it can not connect to the prevailing TV technology, then I will regard this unit as a bargain.

I have no interest in 3D, and regard it highly questionable from a medical and health standpoint.

Many people who have normal vision, will not get depth perception from the current technology used. This is a commonly administered medical test. And individual response to perceiving depth based on the technology used is all over the map, with many not responding at all.

I feel the risk of inducing seizures in the young, the old and those predisposed is significant.

The risk to vision of using this technology over significant periods of time remains to be established. It would not surprise me at all if this technology is pulled from the market. I would personally never consider it. Extensive clinical test and trials should have been done before it was brought to market.

I think 3D is a dumb technology as well.

So for all the above reasons I think there is and should be a greater case made for separating pre and power amps.

I think you've made your point, and I see the merit in it. I simply don't agree that a receiver is significantly different in terms of preamplifier performance compared to a similarly designed and manufactured preamplifier.

 

[Seth=L]

Thanks for all of the replies guys, its greatly appreciated.

The Integra 80.1 appears to be a bit better on paper, but
Marantz AV8003 still appeals to me more (just dont trust integra to sound as good or better than the Marantz)

Also, How would the marantz receiver mentioned above compete in here?
Just curious about how everyone feels about these graphs?

In the range that both operate in you would not be able to notice a half of a decibel variation from one frequency to another. Speakers and the room play the most significant part in your linearity. A receiver or preamp would have to slope off or up pretty heavily at the top or bottom of the spectrum to make a noticeable impact on the linearity, and it's very uncommon. Both preamps show an even response where it counts.

Also consider this. If you get a receiver, you can use the preouts to feed an s-converter which would eliminate the need to hack and slash your cables. Furthermore, you can use the receiver's built in amplification to power center and surround speakers until you are ready to purchase additional amplification if you deem it necessary. With a preamp you have to wait until you can justify purchasing the amps and the speakers at the same time. The preamp route is far more costly in virtually every way and yields minimal to no performance advantage.

 

[TLS Guy]

I didn't really expect it, but it comes as no surprise since you are the proud owner of an AV8003.



I believe the mid to top end receivers and preamps are all built to the same standard.



Please read this, and give me your opinion of it. http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=1699




That's all fine and well, but I strongly feel this is a misconception. Proper isolation and filtering can and does reduce the affects of these potential problems. Cheap receivers commonly have these problems, however Marantz receivers and many others are designed and built competently enough that this is not a problem. His and your views, in my belief, are slanted.



Would you mind putting a receiver like the Marantz SR6004 on the bench and test it under the same conditions? I'm not discounting the performance of the AV8003, I'm discounting it's cost to benefit ratio. It's a great piece of equipment to be sure, but I believe the mid to high level receivers offered by Marantz offer similar to parallel performance.



I don't run into problems with most receivers either, and I've not read anything to indicate that the Marantz receivers are temperamental or unstable. Since they share design concepts with the AV8003 I would expect them to have the same stability in operation. I fail to see how adding an amplifier into the chassis would have any affect on that in any way.



Even if Docks has a high level of interest in the tuner section of whatever unit he gets, I am pretty sure they'll be similar.



If I didn't think the SR5004 or SR6004 could relay the signal in a linear "acoustically neutral" fashion, I wouldn't be recommending them.



With your sound system, I don't doubt this for a second. The amplifiers you have can dish out some serious power, and your speakers, well..... I've not heard them, but I'm sure they sound great.



I think 3D is a dumb technology as well.



I think you've made your point, and I see the merit in it. I simply don't agree that a receiver is significantly different in terms of preamplifier performance compared to a similarly designed and manufactured preamplifier.

I'm aware of the Sampson unit. It looks like a really nice buffer amp +.

I have no receiver available to test, but would be happy to if I had one.

I just like my units as simple and straightforward as possible, and would not want 7 power amps cooking away. The Marantz units I have uses 60 watts of power as it is. Between my computer, amp case the Marantz unit, that is quite enough heat load in the chase already!

 

[Seth=L]

I'm aware of the Sampson unit. It looks like a really nice buffer amp +.

I have no receiver available to test, but would be happy to if I had one.

I just like my units as simple and straightforward as possible, and would not want 7 power amps cooking away. The Marantz units I have uses 60 watts of power as it is. Between my computer, amp case the Marantz unit, that is quite enough heat load in the chase already!

Your amps probably draw up to a gigawatt.

 

[Docks]

The problem is that the amp i have.. only accepts bare wire connections. Not rca or xlr. So this complicates things. Any ideas for that?

In the range that both operate in you would not be able to notice a half of a decibel variation from one frequency to another. Speakers and the room play the most significant part in your linearity. A receiver or preamp would have to slope off or up pretty heavily at the top or bottom of the spectrum to make a noticeable impact on the linearity, and it's very uncommon. Both preamps show an even response where it counts.

Also consider this. If you get a receiver, you can use the preouts to feed an s-converter which would eliminate the need to hack and slash your cables. Furthermore, you can use the receiver's built in amplification to power center and surround speakers until you are ready to purchase additional amplification if you deem it necessary. With a preamp you have to wait until you can justify purchasing the amps and the speakers at the same time. The preamp route is far more costly in virtually every way and yields minimal to no performance advantage.

 

[Seth=L]

The problem is that the amp i have.. only accepts bare wire connections. Not rca or xlr. So this complicates things. Any ideas for that?

You can buy cable ends and use your own wire. These would be available at any local music supply shop or Radioshack. Then all you need is some 75 ohm speaker wire, soldering iron and solder (for permanent cable ends).

 

[PENG]

I didn't really expect it, but it comes as no surprise since you are the proud owner of an AV8003.



I believe the mid to top end receivers and preamps are all built to the same standard.



Please read this, and give me your opinion of it. http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=1699



That's all fine and well, but I strongly feel this is a misconception. Proper isolation and filtering can and does reduce the affects of these potential problems. Cheap receivers commonly have these problems, however Marantz receivers and many others are designed and built competently enough that this is not a problem. His and your views, in my belief, are slanted.



Would you mind putting a receiver like the Marantz SR6004 on the bench and test it under the same conditions? I'm not discounting the performance of the AV8003, I'm discounting it's cost to benefit ratio. It's a great piece of equipment to be sure, but I believe the mid to high level receivers offered by Marantz offer similar to parallel performance.



I don't run into problems with most receivers either, and I've not read anything to indicate that the Marantz receivers are temperamental or unstable. Since they share design concepts with the AV8003 I would expect them to have the same stability in operation. I fail to see how adding an amplifier into the chassis would have any affect on that in any way.



Even if Docks has a high level of interest in the tuner section of whatever unit he gets, I am pretty sure they'll be similar.



If I didn't think the SR5004 or SR6004 could relay the signal in a linear "acoustically neutral" fashion, I wouldn't be recommending them.



With your sound system, I don't doubt this for a second. The amplifiers you have can dish out some serious power, and your speakers, well..... I've not heard them, but I'm sure they sound great.



I think 3D is a dumb technology as well.



I think you've made your point, and I see the merit in it. I simply don't agree that a receiver is significantly different in terms of preamplifier performance compared to a similarly designed and manufactured preamplifier.

Most of the benefits he cited for not having power amps built in the same box are likely measurable but not proven discernable by people (or at least most people). We all know there are many people who claim the day and night, huge,..etc. difference between different mid range to high end power amps. Who knows if they did, or they think they did, but for me I don't care. The same individuals also totally discounted the induction effect of high current low frequency signals on the much lower high frequency signals in the case of bi-wire and passive bi-amp. Go figure!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Electronics don't lie.

They sound exactly like the way they measure on paper.

I've done comparison among many pre-pros and receivers.

As far as receivers go, the Denon AVR5308, Yamaha Z11, and that $7K Pioneer receiver are the cream of the crops as far as measured specs.

As far as pre-pros, Denon, Integra, Marantz, Anthem, Cary Audio have great measurements.

But Integra & Onkyo receivers & prepros have always measured among the highest regardless of price. In other words, even a $400 Onkyo receiver measures better than many other receivers & pre-pros out there costing 2 - 3 times the price.

The only problems with Onkyo has been the reliability & customer service. I don't know if Integra is better, but I assume it is better.

So if I had to choose between one of those, I would also pick the Marantz pre-pro - the 7005 pre-pro.

The bottom line is, all these pre-pros will sound exactly the same in Pure Direct modes (no EQs, no DSPs, no Tones, etc.), assuming your amps are capable of driving your speakers. All their measurements are great and the differences are NOT audible.

So just pick one based on history of reliability and aesthetics. That Marantz 7005 pre-pros looks hot.

If they could make one in the Reference category (gold color and all), I would get one.

 

[Seth=L]

So just pick one based on history of reliability and aesthetics. That Marantz 7005 pre-pros looks hot.

The SR7005 looks exactly the same, only instead of XLR preouts, it's got speaker outputs. It will also cost about half as much as the separate preamp that has the same fit/finish and features. The SR7005 is rated 125 watts per channel. Given that Marantz has a reputation of delivering their specified power I'd say it's worthwhile for consideration.

 

[Docks]

Pretty off topic.. but have you guys seen the specs on that McIntosh 2kw amp? Pretty intense.