Marantz Streaming Integrated Amp: Audiophile Grown Up?

J

JimDandy

Audiophyte
Hi all

i am being seduced by the Marantz M30. Seeing this thread on the M40 seemed like the best place to pose a question.

I am an HT lightweight but a 2 channel glutton. I am attracted to the MM/MC phono stage on the Marantz Model 30 I also love the “Pwr Amp” input setting that would allow me to use it as an amp for my Outlaw 975 Pre/Pro but still run all of my analog sources through the Marantz.

I guess I wonder if the phono stage in the Marantz will be an improvement over the phono stage in my Conrad Johnson PV-10A.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

my current
Set Up:
Media
Sony PS-X70 Turntable
Bluesound Node 2i Streamer
NAD C538 Compact Disc Player
Samsung BluRay
Samsung HDTV
AppleTV

Pre/Pro
Conrad Johnson PV-10A (Tape Outs to Aux In on Outlaw)
Outlaw 975 7.1 Channel Preamp/Processor

Amplification
Front - Kinergetics Research Chiro C-300
Rear - B&K ST2140

Speakers
Front - B & W 640i
Rear- Paradigm Alpha Mini

Interconnects
Blue Jeans LC-1
Audioquest speaker cable

Power Supply
Rotel RLC-900 Line Conditioner

I wonder if the Marantz Class D amp circuit is better than the old school Kinergetics Research Chiro 300.

There are many with more experience than I here so i am grateful for suggestions or thoughts

thanks
 
Last edited:
M

mlknez

Enthusiast
The NR1200 does NOT play native DSD even though the DAC that is included is capable of it. Marantz decided to convert all dsd to pcm prior to playback even if you engage direct mode. The NR1200 also does not have the low pass filtering so that the entire freq range is sent to the main speakers even when a subwoofer is attached. Many corners were cut on the NR1200. Hopefully, the 40n will not cut as many corners. Perhaps they could send one to one of us that owns an NR1200 so that they can be compared.
 
S

sterling shoote

Audioholic Field Marshall
The NR1200 does NOT play native DSD even though the DAC that is included is capable of it. Marantz decided to convert all dsd to pcm prior to playback even if you engage direct mode. The NR1200 also does not have the low pass filtering so that the entire freq range is sent to the main speakers even when a subwoofer is attached. Many corners were cut on the NR1200. Hopefully, the 40n will not cut as many corners. Perhaps they could send one to one of us that owns an NR1200 so that they can be compared.
The NR1200 has adjustable low pass filtering, not high pass. Interestingly enough I am preferring this means to bass management over my OPPO-205 and Parasound P6's means to bass management. One more thing, as I understand it, the NR1200 is no longer built with the double DAC AK4458 installed in each of the two channels, since the AKM fire cut off supply of that DAC, requiring Marantz to fit Saber ESS DACs to the unit? I wonder if that syncs with your observation about the NR1200 converting DSD to PCM, as I was under the impression that the AKM DAC converted DSD to analog? Can you link to the source of your discovery?
 
Last edited:
C

Curtdr

Enthusiast
Reading about the 40n I thought I've read this months ago. Actually, it seems this amp has a feature set very similar to my Marantz NR1200 2.1 Receiver, which is in one word MAGNIFICENT in all manner magnificent can be discerned.
I agree that the nr1200 is an incredible bargain. It mates perfectly with Epi/Human speakers, just beautiful.

... I'm wondering how the m40 could be worth more than 3x the cost... ???
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I agree that the nr1200 is an incredible bargain. It mates perfectly with Epi/Human speakers, just beautiful.

... I'm wondering how the m40 could be worth more than 3x the cost... ???
Just increase the imagination that caused that original weirdness with the change in mediocre integrated amp :)
 
C

Curtdr

Enthusiast
Just increase the imagination that caused that original weirdness with the change in mediocre integrated amp :)
I'm not at all sure what you mean by that; are you saying that in your opinion (have you heard them both? side by side? in the home through the same speakers...? ) that the m40 is not worth the extra money, or that the differences in sound quality would be so small as to be indiscernible?

I believe that it's possible that the m40 would not sound better overall, but I also believe that it is possible that it would. I mean, if there are discernible differences in dacs, then it's not a stretch there are discernible diffs in amps. I'm interested in someone's opinion who has actual experience with both the 1200 and m40, not in theory, but in actual home use.

In this particular case, I have the nr1200 at home and have used it extensively over the course of a year. However, I have not heard the m40 at home or anywhere else, yet, for that matter. If you have something constructive you could clue me in on, specific to these specific amps, great. Otherwise, if there is somebody else who might have some experience with BOTH the amps in my question, then a respectfully constructive opinion would be appreciated. Thanks.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I'm not at all sure what you mean by that; are you saying that in your opinion (have you heard them both? side by side? in the home through the same speakers...? ) that the m40 is not worth the extra money, or that the differences in sound quality would be so small as to be indiscernible?

I believe that it's possible that the m40 would not sound better overall, but I also believe that it is possible that it would. I mean, if there are discernible differences in dacs, then it's not a stretch there are discernible diffs in amps. I'm interested in someone's opinion who has actual experience with both the 1200 and m40, not in theory, but in actual home use.

In this particular case, I have the nr1200 at home and have used it extensively over the course of a year. However, I have not heard the m40 at home or anywhere else, yet, for that matter. If you have something constructive you could clue me in on, specific to these specific amps, great. Otherwise, if there is somebody else who might have some experience with BOTH the amps in my question, then a respectfully constructive opinion would be appreciated. Thanks.
No, but I've experienced better gear, an integrated amp is just a compromise for a single box to an extent, and depends what it does particularly and how well.....as a simple category rather meaningless. Still a compromise in any case housing both amps and other electronics in a single box. As far as that relative nonsense goes in any case, all depends on design/execution. I just can't imagine such a limited 2ch unit like this being very interesting to begin with unless you have some weird 2ch fetish perhaps.
 
T

Tuckergur

Audiophyte
Call me crazy it you want, but for $2500.00 they could have offered you the ability to use it in a 2.2 set up if you wanted to.
 
C

Curtdr

Enthusiast
No, but I've experienced better gear, an integrated amp is just a compromise for a single box to an extent, and depends what it does particularly and how well.....as a simple category rather meaningless. Still a compromise in any case housing both amps and other electronics in a single box. As far as that relative nonsense goes in any case, all depends on design/execution. I just can't imagine such a limited 2ch unit like this being very interesting to begin with unless you have some weird 2ch fetish perhaps.
Well... it's interesting enough to hold your attention, apparently, and to comment on it though you haven't actually experienced it. We all have are particular fetishes, n'est ce pas?

Again, all is well, enjoy your better amps, and maybe someday I'll attain wisdom and graduate to such a level... in the meantime: and again, if somebody else actually has experience with the m40, particularly if you also have experience w the nr1200, I'm interested to hear your take on the matter of discernible, or not, sound quality diffs and in what manner and/or functionality considerations. Thank you very much.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Well... it's interesting enough to hold your attention, apparently, and to comment on it though you haven't actually experienced it. We all have are particular fetishes, n'est ce pas?

Again, all is well, enjoy your better amps, and maybe someday I'll attain wisdom and graduate to such a level... in the meantime: and again, if somebody else actually has experience with the m40, particularly if you also have experience w the nr1200, I'm interested to hear your take on the matter of discernible, or not, sound quality diffs and in what manner and/or functionality considerations. Thank you very much.
LOL I've got plenty of 2ch experience, what I grew up with, and still have a coupla 2ch separate systems. Then again I'd not worry too much about an integrated amp, especially one as limited in feature set as this one. YMMV.
 
S

sterling shoote

Audioholic Field Marshall
I agree that the nr1200 is an incredible bargain. It mates perfectly with Epi/Human speakers, just beautiful.

... I'm wondering how the m40 could be worth more than 3x the cost... ???
I suspect the power amplification between units might be somewhat divergent. Since I am using my NR1200 in a 2.1 preamp/DAC role I have no experience with the unit's power amplification function. I run the unit to Parasound P6 HT bypass, which itself is run to Sony TA-P9000ES multi-channel preamplifier bypass, connected to Sony TA-N9000ES power amp to mains/center/surrounds and a TA-N80ES amp in bridged mode powering my sub. It's convoluted for sure, but as assembled, it's three systems into same power amplification and speakers that permit pleasure from a very wide variety
49727485498_1e01c8e803_c.jpg
of stereo and multi-channel music media.
 
dkershaw92

dkershaw92

Audiophyte
Love aesthetics. Wondering why you would purchase M40 over SR5015 (or SR6015 - closer to price point). Perhaps target audience doesn't want SR form factor? Also, this would have to complete with NAD m10v2 or C399.
 
Last edited:
WookieGR

WookieGR

Full Audioholic
I got a total boner for the MODEL 40n and want to get it for the new music room I am putting together. Then I had a brain fart looking at the features/specs. Why would I spend $2500 on the Model 40 when I could get the SR5015 AVR for $1299? Is there that big a difference in sound quality if only 2 channels and a sub are in use? Even the Denon DRA-800H AV Receiver offers up the same stuff. Seriously, someone set me straight with facts on this.
 
Last edited:
WookieGR

WookieGR

Full Audioholic
No one is able to explain why one would spend more money on a Model 40n or similar vs any standard AVR with all the same features at half the price or better? Is it because there actually is no good reason?
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
No, but I've experienced better gear, an integrated amp is just a compromise for a single box to an extent, and depends what it does particularly and how well.....as a simple category rather meaningless. Still a compromise in any case housing both amps and other electronics in a single box. As far as that relative nonsense goes in any case, all depends on design/execution. I just can't imagine such a limited 2ch unit like this being very interesting to begin with unless you have some weird 2ch fetish perhaps.
Integrated amplifiers started as a way to have the controls and amplification and leave the other sources as options or for choosing something that may better fit the budget. If someone doesn't listen to the radio, why include a tuner and if the stock tuner isn't very good, an integrated amp allowed choosing a better one. The current choices in integrated amps are pretty pale when compared to what was offered in the '70s and '80s WRT inputs/outputs but it's mainly because people don't use as many. Look at preamps and integrated amps- none have as many analog OR digital inputs as an AVR, but I would bet that more people who might use an integrated amp have at least one more digital source than the number of inputs would allow.

I'm not very impressed by most integrated amps for this reason. Obviously, there are ways around this but it seems that the manufacturers don't ask many users about their needs for the systems they have.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
No one is able to explain why one would spend more money on a Model 40n or similar vs any standard AVR with all the same features at half the price or better? Is it because there actually is no good reason?
Hopefully someone who bought one wouldn't tell us. It is 4 ohm rated, but no pre-out.
 
S

sterling shoote

Audioholic Field Marshall
Hopefully someone who bought one wouldn't tell us. It is 4 ohm rated, but no pre-out.
Yeah, the absence of preouts takes me out of the market for one.
 
E

ericdev

Audiophyte
No, but I've experienced better gear, an integrated amp is just a compromise for a single box to an extent, and depends what it does particularly and how well.....as a simple category rather meaningless. Still a compromise in any case housing both amps and other electronics in a single box. As far as that relative nonsense goes in any case, all depends on design/execution. I just can't imagine such a limited 2ch unit like this being very interesting to begin with unless you have some weird 2ch fetish perhaps.
"Separates" alone is no guarantee of superior performance compared to integrated amplifiers and receivers by simple virtue of the fact. Performance specs for receivers and integrated amplifiers have been rivaling those of any number of separates for decades.

The main advantage of separates is the greater flexibility & options for amplifier power so for example if one is in the market for 500w amplification, a integrated unit is pretty much out. But for those with more modest needs, there is no reason a well designed receiver or integrated can't provide every bit the SQ of separates - assuming selection is made with respect to the power requirements of the speakers it's paired with.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
But for those with more modest needs, there is no reason a well designed receiver or integrated can't provide every bit the SQ of separates - assuming selection is made with respect to the power requirements of the speakers it's paired with.
That's my point, flagship or near flagship dac chips and their implementation are relatively cheap and yet most integrated amp manufacturers still put the near bottom chips in their products. And if called out, they will tell you it's implementation that matters not the chips itself. Of course they are right about that, but then why not spend a few dollars more on better chips if so much efforts have been put on implementation.

People don't like to hear what I said about this, but if they pay more attention to the facts of their units they will often find that their integrated amp's can even play DSD256, in some cases not even DSD128 or PCM 24bit/192kHz (yes some can, but many cannot).

Examples of how they cheapened out on the chip:

- If they use the ESS Sabre IC, they tend to pick the lower models ES9006, 9016, or 9026Pro in the more expensive units, but you rarely see them using the ES9018, 9028, 9038 pro. Note: Parasound's latest integrated amp does have the 9018, finally.., capable of playing DSD up to 256 but not 512, still, I won't complain about the P6 except you can buy a $300 external DAC that can play just about anything and just use it with a plain old school style integrated amp and be further ahead of price and quality.

The Yamaha A-S801 has the ES9010K2M, that itself isn't bad but their Asynchronous USB implementation is so "good" that won't let you play DSD higher than 5.6 MHz (that is DSD128), their AVRs such as the entry level A4A can do DSD 256 (11.2 MHz).

It's not even about sound quality, but it's an inconvenience and disappointing feature for those who prefer to buy DSD256, 512 or PCM files with resolution higher than 24bit/192 kHz. Personally I don't believe anything higher than CD quality/16bit/44.1 kHz is necessary, but recording and mastering quality matters much more, and in my experience, it is easier to find files that are from masters of excellent recording/mastering quality.

- Some integrated amps, such as the A-S801, are still using the volume control ICs, that is basically the heart of the preamp section designed for AVRs, even the entry level AVRs. Here again, its not necessarily sound quality will suffer in any significant way but it is a matter of principle that if their marketing brags better sound quality than AVRs, they should invest just a few more dollars on the important volume control chip whether it would make an audible difference. The counter argument that why pay for if you can't hear the difference can of course make sense, but if they use that argument they would hard time justifying the price and they would have to tone down their marketing information that managed to convince a lot of their customers that if they want better sound quality they should use integrated amps instead of receivers and/or AVRs for music listening.

A note on potential cost savings by using cheaper DAC ICs:

Even if we ignore the implementation part but only consider the basic more costly items including the ICs and minimum op amps required, a two channel integrated amp would require a minimum of one two channel IC vs a 7.1 AVR's 4 such ICs, likewise for the OPAs.

So going from the kind of DAC IC they put into such integrated amps to the near flagship ESS or AKM ICs, they may have spend a few dollars to may be $20 in extreme cases such as using the ES9026Pro instead of the ES9006S, that's still a lot less than what it would cost to produce 7.1 AVRs using such premium DAC ICs.

Again, for audiophiles in the market for a good integrated amp with build in DAC, price will likely be important up to a point, but if you ask whether most would be willing to pay $25 to get the same unit but upgraded from the ES9006 that is used in their RX-A1080, to the ES9026Pro that is used in the CX-A5200 and RX-A8A I think the answer will more likely be yes, regardless...
 

Latest posts

newsletter

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