Marantz Capable of living up to it WPC specs?

[bandphan]

I wonder what going to be on the other sideeeeee

 

[yepimonfire]

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[highfigh]

Hey guys I know exactly whats wrong.

Doc Brown is getting tired and in turn is opening and closing the loop for his clock tower....or I mean electrical system.

Its hard to drive a receiver when you need 2.1 jigowatts.

Well, he did biff his melon in the bathroom.

 

[highfigh]

Maybe after you listen to some chocolaty speakers you then could turn on a clean sounding amp to get the chocolate off you.

Or, I could put some music on that has creamy guitar distortion. If I was watching an action movie, I might want the guitar to be more crunchy.

 

[highfigh]

fine, let me change my terminology, this word seems to fit better. it sounds "bright"

That works. It's hard to have consensus when words are used to describe a sensory perception- it can be different from one person to the next.

 

[highfigh]

speakers can sound bright amps dont sound

Some do, but generally, they shouldn't. To me, Yamaha sound a bit thin, like the response is tilted upward from the low end.

 

[highfigh]

well im not exactly sure if the analog sound runs through proccessing from my ipod (well it does wheni use PLIIx MS) but on a normal, no-dsp setting, it sounds a bit better then my kenwood, the kenwood sounds very very warm and seems to have a strong midrange where-as the marantz sounds brighter with much more pronounced bass and highs.keep in mind this is just my personal opinion though. im not sure if this makes a difference or not, but the marantz claims it has a flat response of like 5hz-50khz (i know you can;t hear that high) the kenwood is like 20hz-20khz or something like that. the marantz can also put out twice the power per channel.

What bit rate are you using when you save your MP3 files? That can make a big difference, too. 128KHz is OK if you use ear buds but for anything that can actually sound good, 192KHz or higher will sound much better at all times.

 

[yepimonfire]

What bit rate are you using when you save your MP3 files? That can make a big difference, too. 128KHz is OK if you use ear buds but for anything that can actually sound good, 192KHz or higher will sound much better at all times.

i would NEVER EVER EVER use 128kbps, it is terrible sounding, i use VBR that averages at about 256kbps its set to go from 192kbps-320-kbps, if i use AAC it's usually 256kbps but IMO AAC at 128 sounds like a 256 mp3, much better codec then MP3, it retains crispness, without sacrificing bass or treble which mp3's have a tendency to do, ive done some out-of-phase tests with AAC and MP3, MP3 seems to sacrifice real musical data, AAC seems to discard stuff that honestly does not sound musical at all and don't affect the sound, i can give you the links to the files and show you what i mean.

 

[JerryLove]

what in the world is that?

An EQ, paired with software and a clibration mic. In my Marantz, it's Audessy with a 9-band EQ.

i don't think i am, i was given both the receivers and used the kenwood for a very long time for a stereo setup and was quite happy with the sound, one day i wanted to mess with the marantz and came to the conclusion it sounded much better, it may be the EQ thing your talking about or whatever, the marantz has all kinds of digital processing stuff in it, the kenwood is totally analog. the only way to see if it was the amplifiers themselves would be a double blind test with the direct button enabled on the marantz (bypasses all the processing). either way i really don't care why the marantz sounds better, im just glad it does.

EQ is not an analog-vs-digital thing. My 1989 Pioneer has an EQ in it.

 

[adwilk]

OP, remind us again what type of music you're listening to......

 

[yepimonfire]

all different kinds of music, those were just some of my favorite albums, i listen to rock, classical, etc.

 

[yepimonfire]

An EQ, paired with software and a clibration mic. In my Marantz, it's Audessy with a 9-band EQ.

EQ is not an analog-vs-digital thing. My 1989 Pioneer has an EQ in it.

mind telling me how i can figure out if i have one and if i do how do i use it?

the closest thing i can see to an EQ on here is the bass and treble control in the menu.

 

[JerryLove]

mind telling me how i can figure out if i have one and if i do how do i use it?

If I knew them off-hand I would gladly tell you. If you have a calibration mic, you have some sort of EQ. I would have to refer you to the manual.

the closest thing i can see to an EQ on here is the bass and treble control in the menu.

That would indeed be a very simple EQ (2-band)

 

[yepimonfire]

yea i dont think it has a full eq, it has the bass and treble control and then it has an HT EQ which reduces brightness of film audio, but i think it's kinda useless, i like the high brightness of movie soundtracks.

 

[Seth=L]

The maximum output of your amp (rated) is 745W. I have a pair of speakers capable of drawing near 1000 (never mind the surrounds, and TV, and 300W halogen lights on the same circuit) and don't experience what you are describing.

To know that there's nothing wrong with your wiring would require that you did know what was causing the problem (negative claims are exclusionary). What is causing the lights to dim under a <750W load?

For that matter, what rating circuit/wire is powering your receiver?

And for the topic: even if the Marantz did not (lets say running half rated wattage), you would loose no more than 3db under a full sine-wave.

I think this depends on where you live.

And there may very well be a night and day difference between the Marantz and Kenwood receivers. Kenwoods from the early 90's had terrible SNR issues and so on. It would be easy to pick them out of a crowd.