Marantz SR7002 Receiver Review

A

admin

Audioholics Robot
Staff member
There are so many features being added to AV receivers these days, it's hard to keep up - but that's what I like to call a quality problem. The real problem is discerning which of the features really matter. For those of you familiar with past Marantz products, you may be surprised to note that the company is alive and well and competing head-on with other manufacturers in the home theater market. In fact, I was as stunned as anyone when I realized the incredible potential of the SR7002.


Discuss "Marantz SR7002 Receiver Review" here. Read the article.
 
MUDSHARK

MUDSHARK

Audioholic Chief
I have had this receiver about two months now and am quite pleased with it. The amplifier easily brings out the best in the somewhat challenging Sierra-1 speakers. I wish I had your helpful hints when setting it up.
 
B

Bluesmoke

Audioholic Chief
The great thing about Marantz is how well it does 2 channel audio. I don't know if it's preamp or the poweramp, but stereo music listening is more pleasing on the 7002 than the Pioneer 94, Yamaha 3800 and Denon 3808ci that I compared side by side at a store. It just had this warm, full sound that you can't shake.
 
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
I haven't read the full review yet, so maybe it's just a typo. However, in the pros/cons lists it says HDMI 1.2, the manufacturer's features list indicates the SR-7002 has HDMI 1.3.
 
Clint DeBoer

Clint DeBoer

Banned
I just finished the review of the Pioneer VSX-94TXH and one thing that stood out to me was that, while the Pioneer had more options in the menu system, the Marantz had more usable features. Case in point, the Marantz can have both Zone 2 speakers AND Surround back speakers wired up, with the software switching to Zone 2 as needed. With the Pioneer, you'd have to actually physically move the wires on the back of the receiver (ie you have to pick and choose, not change it on the fly.)

The Pioneer is, in my opinion, overly complicated and most of the features will go largely unused by 99% of the intended market.

While I started off thinking the SR7002 was "simplistic" I now realize it's really just practical and smart.

I haven't read the full review yet, so maybe it's just a typo. However, in the pros/cons lists it says HDMI 1.2, the manufacturer's features list indicates the SR-7002 has HDMI 1.3.
Thanks - fixed.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Seth: I know weight does not tell the whole story, but why do you think the 7002/8002 weighs only 33 lbs?

I wonder if they cut back on heat sinks and use more fan cooling instead.
 
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
Seth: I know weight does not tell the whole story, but why do you think the 7002/8002 weighs only 33 lbs?

I wonder if they cut back on heat sinks and use more fan cooling instead.
It obviously has a smaller heat sink (no fans, the Marantz most absolutely uses a more efficient amplifier design), and by looking at the pictures the receiver is packed full (meaning they didn't waste a huge case on a receiver that doesn't fill it). Will it perform as well as the Onkyo TX-SR805 in terms of power on the bench?, not likely, but the Marantz has other things going for it. There are a few things that come to mind are Marantz's reputation for quality audio equipment that is generally reliable and it doesn't run as hot as a stove.;) Also consider that this receiver is far more accommodating to those that lack depth on their audio rack, unlike the Onkyo.

They all have their little advantages and disadvantages, the consumer just needs to pick a receiver that fits their requirements. Thankfully there are a wide range of home theater products that will accommodate most home theater enthusiasts.:)
 
F

fredk

Audioholic General
At the price Marantz has brought this receiver to market, I'd say the SR7002 is a bargain and Marantz-lovers everywhere should rejoice that the company is more than back in the game - they are leading several innings.
Hmm.... Seems like a good value for a high quality receiver. What I want, and would call a real bargain, is something like the RX-V663 with a beefy amp section (which the 663 may or may not have) at say $650. Now THAT would be a bargain.

Is it an unreasonable expectation to want Maranz or Denon like quality at closer to a Yamaha price??

Fred
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
It obviously has a smaller heat sink (no fans, the Marantz most absolutely uses a more efficient amplifier design), and by looking at the pictures the receiver is packed full (meaning they didn't waste a huge case on a receiver that doesn't fill it). Will it perform as well as the Onkyo TX-SR805 in terms of power on the bench?, not likely, but the Marantz has other things going for it.
According to S&V bench test, on ACD tests it did 5X93 and 7X83W, not bad at all for a 33 lb receiver.
 
I

InTheIndustry

Senior Audioholic
I have been a dealer of the following receiver brands on & off over the past 9 years:

H/K
Denon
Marantz
Onkyo
NAD

I've had extensive installation experience with:

Yamaha
Pioneer Elite

Without question, the Marantz products have been my personal favorite out of all of them and it's not even close! From the bottom to the top of the line it's been fabulous, sounds absolutely great, and has been nearly bullet proof (3 year warranty).

I like the fact that Marantz receivers are shallow. Marantz implemented this shallow chassis concept for, as another member posted above, in-cabinet use.

The reason it doesn’t weigh as much as an Onkyo, for example, is that Onkyo's design and amp implementation hasn't changed for a long time. Meaning: Old School. I was a dealer 99' - 2006/7 and can honestly say that the Onkyo product changed very little, if at all, engineering wise during that time period except for some new casing and video switching. They have to use large heat sinks and fans to cool their receivers because they get so darn HOT! Marantz uses a well ventilated copper plated chassis which cools their receivers naturally. They call this "Intelligent Cooling". So those big, heavy heat sinks and fans used in many other designs just aren't needed in a Marantz. I have seen the weight issue in regards to Marantz pop up on the forum before and just thought I would clarify why the traditional weight isn't there. Last years flagship THX Ultra2 SR9600 only weighed in at only 57lbs and that was an animal of a receiver.

Clint is right on about the set up woes of Pioneer receivers (Elite line included). To me, they're very very odd to deal with and not very smartly laid out. I think, though, that it's all about one's frame of reference. Personally, I've also had frustrations with Yamaha receivers as well but my issues are mainly linked to the video features they include. Everybody has their favorites, I guess.
 
Last edited:
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
According to S&V bench test, on ACD tests it did 5X93 and 7X83W, not bad at all for a 33 lb receiver.
I would be more interested in the 1 and 2 channel ratings at 8 and 4 ohms.:D Those ACD ratings aren't all that important, but they are pretty to look at.:D

I was under the impression that the TX-SR805 and up took a different amplifier approach. I realize my thinking on this may be rather simplistic, but I will spill it anyway.:D The TX-SR805 and up employ 4 transistors per channel, and is less efficient than their previous designs (from my understanding). Typically receivers use only two transistors per channel, or in the bottom lines integrated output devices. I am curious as to why using 4 transistors would cause more heat. If you care to explain I would love to know (just please refrain from getting overly technical as I get easily discouraged when I see lengthy posts with a bunch of math:D).

Anyway, I would like to hear your thoughts and insights on this.:)
 
Last edited:
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
I hadn't had a chance to finish it earlier, I had to go to work. I will probably re-read it entirely tomorrow (a day off, finally:D) and probably catch up on a few other things.

So after looking that the benchtest I conclude, the Onkyo TX-SR805 or TX-SR875 (either one will work) they will out perform the Marantz on the bench in terms of power. That power comes with a price, and no, I am not talking about the price slashing on these units. With the Marantz you can expect reliability, non-quirky performance. I won't say you "should" expect this with Onkyo, but at least face the fact it's more likely to have problems and little annoyances about it.;)
 
Clint DeBoer

Clint DeBoer

Banned
Keep in mind that it's unlikely we pushed the Marantz as hard as they did the Onkyo get the absolute highest numbers. Plus Gene was gun-shy after blowing up the last Yamaha he reviewed, lol.
 
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
Clint DeBoer said:
Keep in mind that it's unlikely we pushed the Marantz as hard as they did the Onkyo get the absolute highest numbers. Plus Gene was gun-shy after blowing up the last Yamaha he reviewed, lol.
:eek: Gene blew up the RX-V1800? Wow, well at least it wasn't the RX-Z11 he blew up.:D

Edit: I see now that the last Yamaha reviewed was the RX-Z11 (the RX-V1800 was an overview). So did he blow up the Yamaha?:(

Depends on when he start composing the response to Peng's October 2004 post :D

Go Marantz ... I still have a Marantz 1060 that I originally used to drive Bose 901s thirty years ago, before I knew how bad Bose sucks.
October 2004 isn't the post date, that's his join date.:D This thread is very new.;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
The Z-11 I blew up was a prototype unit. I was the first in the country to get my hands on one for review. They shipped me a production unit afterwards and it worked just fine.

As for shear power between the Onkyo 805/875 vs the Marantz SR7002, there is no doubt in my mind the Onkyo is more powerful, especially into 4 ohm loads. To be honest the Marantz 7002 is kinda lagging behind the likes of Denon, Yamaha and Onkyo in its price class and its SNR and distortion is average at best. Onkyo really is class leading in amp performance with these receivers but a bit limited in video switching and processing.

That being said, there are many users on our forums that love the sound of the Marantz so measurements don't always tell the whole story here.
 
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
The Z-11 I blew up was a prototype unit. I was the first in the country to get my hands on one for review. They shipped me a production unit afterwards and it worked just fine.

As for shear power between the Onkyo 805/875 vs the Marantz SR7002, there is no doubt in my mind the Onkyo is more powerful, especially into 4 ohm loads. To be honest the Marantz 7002 is kinda lagging behind the likes of Denon, Yamaha and Onkyo in its price class and its SNR and distortion is average at best. Onkyo really is class leading in amp performance with these receivers but a bit limited in video switching and processing.

That being said, there are many users on our forums that love the sound of the Marantz so measurements don't always tell the whole story here.
I noticed the benchtests for I believe it was the Denon AVR-2308CI looked better than the SR-7002. Pretty dissapointing, but at the same time pretty much neglegible when it comes to real world use.
 
Midcow2

Midcow2

Banned
Mea Culpa

:eek: Gene blew up the RX-V1800? Wow, well at least it wasn't the RX-Z11 he blew up.:D

Edit: I see now that the last Yamaha reviewed was the RX-Z11 (the RX-V1800 was an overview). So did he blow up the Yamaha?:(


October 2004 isn't the post date, that's his join date.:D This thread is very new.;)
Mea Culpa - Sorry misread join date as post date
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I was under the impression that the TX-SR805 and up took a different amplifier approach. I realize my thinking on this may be rather simplistic, but I will spill it anyway.:D The TX-SR805 and up employ 4 transistors per channel, and is less efficient than their previous designs (from my understanding). Typically receivers use only two transistors per channel, or in the bottom lines integrated output devices. I am curious as to why using 4 transistors would cause more heat. If you care to explain I would love to know (just please refrain from getting overly technical as I get easily discouraged when I see lengthy posts with a bunch of math:D).

Anyway, I would like to hear your thoughts and insights on this.:)
I think an audio amplifer designer/engineer can answer your question in a more definitive way. My educated (hopefully) guess is that using more transistors per channel may produce more heat during idling but I doubt it is the reason why the 805 reportedly run hotter in general. As you know high power amplifiers generally use much more than 2 transistors per channel and not all of them run excessively hot.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top