Marantz vs Yamaha Recievers. Which to buy

R

ricks1978

Audiophyte
I keep hearing how Yamahas are so much more "sturdy" and "bulletproof" and all these people with problems with Denon/Marantz/other brands not Yamaha. I owned the RX-V781 and had to return it once and get another one because my first was a lemon and certain channels would not work. Never had issues with any other brands, save for Onkyo (I had handshake issues with the HDMI).

Why is it so far fetched that he heard details he never heard before? I just got the Marantz SR-7012 and have experienced similar. I think it is Multi-EQ XT32 more than anything else, but this made my Emptek towers, surrounds, and center put out sound I never heard before. I thought my Sony STR-DN1070 sounded amazing...until I replaced it with my Marantz SR-7012 and hooked it into my RBH sound and RSL Speedwoofer 10S system. I am also hearing little nuances, little sounds I never noticed before. Not to mention it really made my Empteks come to life.

With this same setup, I have heard the:
Sony STR-DN1070 (owned it for a year) - Sounded very, very good but a step down from the Marantz.
Yamaha RX-A1080 (owned it for 5 months) - Good sound, but could not touch the Marantz for dynamics and raw sound quality. Inferior room correction as well (needed massive tweaking).
Denon X4300 (owned it for 3 months) - More laid back and "colder" than Marantz but up there in sound quality.
Pioneer LX-501 (only had it for 2 days) - Sounded rich and dynamic but not enough time with it.
Onkyo TX-656 (only had it for 2 days) - HDMI handshake issues and lackluster sound made it a non-keeper.

Yamaha, to me, did not sound as good as the Sony, Denon, and especially inferior to Marantz. It sounds good, lots of surround modes and such. But nothing special for sound quality and I can say that the Marantz is on a whole level higher. The Yamaha ran cooler than my Marantz does, but the receivers get plenty of ventilation in my room so a non-issue. I can say the Yamaha was no where near as dynamic and rich, plus not as warm-toned and musical as the Marantz. YPAO with RSC was not as good as hoped either, I had to really tweak it to get it to my liking and often disabled it for critical listening.

All I know is this Marantz SR-7012 is the best receiver for features and sound quality I have ever owned and it was a great buy. Yamaha built better? I disagree, as this is built like a tank (quite heavy as well!). An external amplifier would only increase performance.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Ninja
Hello,
I am still working on my complete install and waiting on cables due this weekend.It seems to me that the Marantz has a crisp or cleaner sound than my old Yamaha. Nothing against Yamaha.We are comparing 500.00 vs. 2000.00? Marantz also happier with 4ohms setting at higher levels. Sure like connectivity of Marantz. Am I correct in thinking can pair an amp on front anolog inputs?
Thx.
I'm figuring that you set the speaker impedance switch to 4 ohms. The expert's recommendation is that you should leave the switch to the 8 ohm position.

What the 4 ohm setting does is reducing the output stage rail voltage. Consequently, the amplifiers power output capacity is decreased and you have less power output available and headroom. You also risk having amplifier distortion clipping with the reduced supply voltage.

https://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/impedance-selector-switch-1
 
Last edited:
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I keep hearing how Yamahas are so much more "sturdy" and "bulletproof" and all these people with problems with Denon/Marantz/other brands not Yamaha. I owned the RX-V781 and had to return it once and get another one because my first was a lemon and certain channels would not work. Never had issues with any other brands, save for Onkyo (I had handshake issues with the HDMI).

Why is it so far fetched that he heard details he never heard before? I just got the Marantz SR-7012 and have experienced similar. I think it is Multi-EQ XT32 more than anything else, but this made my Emptek towers, surrounds, and center put out sound I never heard before. I thought my Sony STR-DN1070 sounded amazing...until I replaced it with my Marantz SR-7012 and hooked it into my RBH sound and RSL Speedwoofer 10S system. I am also hearing little nuances, little sounds I never noticed before. Not to mention it really made my Empteks come to life.

With this same setup, I have heard the:
Sony STR-DN1070 (owned it for a year) - Sounded very, very good but a step down from the Marantz.
Yamaha RX-A1080 (owned it for 5 months) - Good sound, but could not touch the Marantz for dynamics and raw sound quality. Inferior room correction as well (needed massive tweaking).
Denon X4300 (owned it for 3 months) - More laid back and "colder" than Marantz but up there in sound quality.
Pioneer LX-501 (only had it for 2 days) - Sounded rich and dynamic but not enough time with it.
Onkyo TX-656 (only had it for 2 days) - HDMI handshake issues and lackluster sound made it a non-keeper.

Yamaha, to me, did not sound as good as the Sony, Denon, and especially inferior to Marantz. It sounds good, lots of surround modes and such. But nothing special for sound quality and I can say that the Marantz is on a whole level higher. The Yamaha ran cooler than my Marantz does, but the receivers get plenty of ventilation in my room so a non-issue. I can say the Yamaha was no where near as dynamic and rich, plus not as warm-toned and musical as the Marantz. YPAO with RSC was not as good as hoped either, I had to really tweak it to get it to my liking and often disabled it for critical listening.

All I know is this Marantz SR-7012 is the best receiver for features and sound quality I have ever owned and it was a great buy. Yamaha built better? I disagree, as this is built like a tank (quite heavy as well!). An external amplifier would only increase performance.
It makes sense that you prefer the Marantz since it has been good to you. I think there are more Denon/Marantz owners than Yamaha here.

I owned the $7500 Denon AVP-A1HDCI, which is much higher-end than the Marantz SR-7012. I think my Yamaha CX-A5100 sounds every bit as great as my AVP-A1HDCI.

Everyone has a different experience.
 
R

ricks1978

Audiophyte
It makes sense that you prefer the Marantz since it has been good to you. I think there are more Denon/Marantz owners than Yamaha here.

I owned the $7500 Denon AVP-A1HDCI, which is much higher-end than the Marantz SR-7012. I think my Yamaha CX-A5100 sounds every bit as great as my AVP-A1HDCI.

Everyone has a different experience.
I just do not like the mirage that Yamaha is considered "ultra reliable and bulletproof" and every other manufacturer plays second fiddle. I see a lot of bogus comments about Yamaha too, such as "YPAO is better or as good as Audyssey XT32 (major bogus claim!)" and "Yamaha is reliable, the others are not!". It is ironic the first Yamaha I bought, which I jumped on the bandwagon because of so many people claiming they are sonically superior and built better, was defective. I found it futher ironic than the Yamaha RX-A1080 did not sound as good as my expectations, which were based on what I can only conclude was bias.

I found YPAO and Pioneer MCACC very similar, but actually though MCACC advanced did a better job correcting my room than YPAO with RSC did (sounded lifeless with it engaged, tried multiple runs with multi-point measurements). I got the Yamaha sounding good, I just like the Pioneer, Denon, and especially Marantz for sound quality better.

Now on the ultra expensive, high-end level like you are talking? I think you cannot go wrong with any of the offerings from any of the receiver makers. You are going to get top-notch components, build, and the highest-grade power supplies and circuitry. I have never felt the need to have a receiver that expensive, as the point of diminishing returns is present. Even if I was rich, I would likely own some very high end speakers, but I would likely do a Marantz pre-amp with Marantz amp. I am talking the type of receivers that end up in 95% of homes, as not everyone can afford that type of equipment nor would want to.

I personally have always preferred Denon and Marantz, because I have yet to have one fail on me and I love the features and sound quality. I initially hated Audyssey, thought it sucked the life out of some songs and such completely. Now I understand it much better and have tried every other brand, I would say Denon is more features for the same money but Marantz has a higher-level build and component level that is audibly noticeable.

Compared to Yamaha, based on experience.

Pioneer: More powerful sounding even if in the same power range. Front biased sound after auto-setup, I found I always had to turn up the surround speakers a notch or two after running MCACC. Better with dome tweeters due to a slightly colder sound signature.

Sony: Maybe the most powerful for the given wattage; think they sound better than all but the higher leveled Yamahas and compete well with them even (cannot comment on ultra-high end Yamahas but likely not going to compete well). Better with dome tweeters due to neutral sound signature but drive Aluminum tweeters well too.

Onkyo: Best movie sound, but never liked the sound quality for music much. You can get them to sound good but older Accu-Eq was so-so and sounds dull to me. Maybe the higher end would be a bit better? The TX-SR706 was my first HDMI and room corrected (Multi-EQ) receiver, so they will always hold a place with me but sound quality of the low to mid-tier is the lowest (but for movies it shines, for whatever reason). I also had handshake issues with HDMI starting with even my first one. Mid to higher levels are a bit warmer but overall fairly neutral sound signature. Think it can go well with either aluminum or dome, yet better with traditional tweeters.

Denon: Very smooth and laid-back sound signature, yet sounds good for music and movies and is definitely warm (yet cooler than Marantz). Good with either aluminum or dome tweeters, with aluminum having a slight preference. I think musically they are sonically superior to equal or even slightly higher leveled Yamaha receivers. Not as forward but slightly warmer than Yamaha.

Marantz: Owned the SR5010, SR6011, and now the SR7012. Musically, unbeatable in surround, 2 channel, and stereo sound. Warm sound signature with plenty of articulation and dynamics. Good balanced sound, rock-solid reliable, and all built well/heavy. The portal might not be everyone's cup of tea, personally I like it. Modern AVR have a graphical display but I can see some people not liking it. They were engineered to sound good and it is not snake oil, I can hear things I have never heard in songs and movies (might be combination of the sound quality and Multi-EQ XT32 working it's magic, but whatever it is, it is there!). The only con is they are always going to be much more expensive than the Denon equivalent, but still decked out often with mid to high tier Audyssey room correction on-board. The Multi-EQ editor app for Android and iOS is unbelievably awesome, people complain you cannot tweak Audyssey much...now you can!

Colder receivers will sound better on dome tweeters, ribbon tweeters (which tend to sound warmer). Alumimum and horn speakers sound better with warmer sounding receivers. I have come to this conclusion many times after hearing my various receivers.

These are of course all of my opinions, so take them with a grain of salt. But with me trying so many different products over the years, along with now having good speakers to test them on, I would consider my opinion formed over a lot of experience and messing with sound constantly. I also setup a home studio in my house with pro-audio monitors and have a Umik DSP-1 mic and REW, but nothing to do with any of this.

Just a guy who tries to get good gear that is affordable, has the features I really want, and sounds good to my ears. Not biased because it is a "new toy", never been that way. I actually am very critical of my audio gear, hence why I used to buy and often turn around and sell my older gear because I could not get the features or sound I was after with it.
 
Last edited:
Ridire Fáin

Ridire Fáin

Audioholic Intern
Hello,

I am considering a Marantz sr 7011 or a Yamaha rx-a3060. The receiver will be used mainly for music listening. Front speakers are Cerwin Vega CLC-215. 4 ohm, 500 watt rms max., 97db sensitivity.
Thx for any help.

To answer question directly, in my experience I believe the Marantz would be best choice for music. Of the two brands, I always liked the sound of the Marantz better.

That being said, you cannot go wrong with either brand. For me it would be a decision based off of the features you want. Marantz gear tends to have less bells and whistles, than Yamaha. A lot been written about Denon too. I had an Denon AVC 3030 loved the unit when listening to music. Denon is produced by the same company that makes Marantz and I am sure they share parts and technologies. So a receiver from them may be a good fit. However they are not exactly the same.

Denon used to be a separate company on par with Marantz. However when the brand was purchased by Marantz's parent company they are now engineered to be more a consumer grade offering. Primary design goal to be wonderful sounding, cost effective solution. Versus Marantz, which is marketed as a more higher tear product (Think Sony ES and Pioneer Elite) with an more elevated parts standard and finish for shall we say the audio "snobbish".

A Marantz costs a little bit more money than Denon, but you will get a product with great reliability, and sound. I had an B-Stock Marantz 7005 receiver for HT and Casual music listening that ran well for 10 plus years without issue. However, I purchased it from a local dealer that I had been doing business with for 20 years and new they would stand behind it. If you are interested in B Stock make sue you are dealing with a reputable company who will back you up if it turns out to be a lemon.

I like ability to turn it up loud without amp kicking off. He recommended a Pioneer elite sc-ls801 saying it class d amp is more efficient and responds better at high volume without cutout. Thought Marantz had class d also? More confused now than earlier. A web search shows Pioneer was bought out by Onkyo? Read Onkyo has reliability issues these days.

An cautionary note do not get sucked into that Pioneer has an class D amps is producing 200 watts and therefore is somehow can play louder and have more balls thing. Watt ratings or whether or not an amp is Class D, or AB really does not mean a hill of beans. It is how well the technology is implemented in the design of the unit, that will determine the outcome of its sound. Receiver manufacturers use class D because they take up less space do not produce as much heat, and if I remember right (One of the engineers correct me if I am wrong) do not need huge power supplies. Decreasing the overall cost for them to manufacture.

In speaking to Watt ratings. This is sort of con game, so be weary. Your CV speakers are not power hungry monsters they will play louder than what you can stand with either the Yamaha or Marantz unit.

An receiver capable of producing 200 watts versus 125 watts offers no real advantage here. Some would even argue that the Class D amplification used in the Pioneer is more sterile, (plays the notes right but there is no music coming out of the thing) than receivers that use the old school class AB. So be sure to give it a listen before getting serious about it.

In short, watt ratings are not a good indicator whether unit will be able to play loud.

I tend concern myself with the amount of current the amp stages can put out. Is the unit designed with enough power reserves to handle the musical peaks and start and stop the speakers. An example is an 30 watt Tube integrated that puts out a lot of current can drive your CV speakers to play far louder than the 200 watt amplifier that does not have sufficient power reserves to remain in control or push your transducers on loud musical passages.

Neither Marantz or Yamaha are known to fudge their power ratings so again there should be no concern that either would be anemic.
 
Last edited:
Good4it

Good4it

Audioholic Chief
FYI I owned 3 Yamahas a 202, 1050 and a 3080. Units were ok but customer service was not. Your experience may be different.
 
R

ricks1978

Audiophyte
To answer question directly, in my experience I believe the Marantz would be best choice for music. Of the two brands, I always liked the sound of the Marantz better.

That being said, you cannot go wrong with either brand. For me it would be a decision based off of the features you want. Marantz gear tends to have less bells and whistles, than Yamaha. A lot been written about Denon too. I had an Denon AVC 3030 loved the unit when listening to music. Denon is produced by the same company that makes Marantz and I am sure they share parts and technologies. So a receiver from them may be a good fit. However they are not exactly the same.

Denon used to be a separate company on par with Marantz. However when the brand was purchased by Marantz's parent company they are now engineered to be more a consumer grade offering. Primary design goal to be wonderful sounding, cost effective solution. Versus Marantz, which is marketed as a more higher tear product (Think Sony ES and Pioneer Elite) with an more elevated parts standard and finish for shall we say the audio "snobbish".

A Marantz costs a little bit more money than Denon, but you will get a product with great reliability, and sound. I had an B-Stock Marantz 7005 receiver for HT and Casual music listening that ran well for 10 plus years without issue. However, I purchased it from a local dealer that I had been doing business with for 20 years and new they would stand behind it. If you are interested in B Stock make sue you are dealing with a reputable company who will back you up if it turns out to be a lemon.

I like ability to turn it up loud without amp kicking off. He recommended a Pioneer elite sc-ls801 saying it class d amp is more efficient and responds better at high volume without cutout. Thought Marantz had class d also? More confused now than earlier. A web search shows Pioneer was bought out by Onkyo? Read Onkyo has reliability issues these days.

An cautionary note do not get sucked into that Pioneer has an class D amps is producing 200 watts and therefore is somehow can play louder and have more balls thing. Watt ratings or whether or not an amp is Class D, or AB really does not mean a hill of beans. It is how well the technology is implemented in the design of the unit, that will determine the outcome of its sound. Receiver manufacturers use class D because they take up less space do not produce as much heat, and if I remember right (One of the engineers correct me if I am wrong) do not need huge power supplies. Decreasing the overall cost for them to manufacture.

In speaking to Watt ratings. This is sort of con game, so be weary. Your CV speakers are not power hungry monsters they will play louder than what you can stand with either the Yamaha or Marantz unit.

An receiver capable of producing 200 watts versus 125 watts offers no real advantage here. Some would even argue that the Class D amplification used in the Pioneer is more sterile, (plays the notes right but there is no music coming out of the thing) than receivers that use the old school class AB. So be sure to give it a listen before getting serious about it.

In short, watt ratings are not a good indicator whether unit will be able to play loud.

I tend concern myself with the amount of current the amp stages can put out. Is the unit designed with enough power reserves to handle the musical peaks and start and stop the speakers. An example is an 30 watt Tube integrated that puts out a lot of current can drive your CV speakers to play far louder than the 200 watt amplifier that does not have sufficient power reserves to remain in control or push your transducers on loud musical passages.

Neither Marantz or Yamaha are known to fudge their power ratings so again there should be no concern that either would be anemic.
Actually, a few years ago Yamaha was running about half the rated wattage they advertised, with 5 speakers enabled. This is only a volume difference of a few decibels but for the sake of pointing out facts it was present.

Mid to higher leveled Pioneers have a lot of oomph, I am not suckered by D3 amps vs conventional A/B, but D3 are more efficient by design. But my old 100 WPC Pioneer VSX-518 was louder than my Yamaha was, even with the Yamaha having a slight wattage advantage according to written materials. I noticed the non-Elite Pioneers (after they switched to D3) used to be very cold sounding, but the newer LX and Elite are much warmer and richer sounding. So I used to agree with your assessment but not the newer ones. They are around the same "warmth" as a Yamaha or a lower end Denon model. Class D is very efficient, so the claims that under volume is believable.

I may sound like I am against Yamaha, but I am really not. I just find that people buy into their equipment and seem to think it is the holy grail of receivers when I have found it anything but. I had to really work at it to get it sounding good, something I have not had to do with my Denon, Marantz, and Pioneer models. Adding an external amp helped tremendously, which makes total sense, but I also noticed I had to crank up my Yamaha a little higher to get to "normal" listening volume for me, which is just under loud (to try and describe it). Enough to where louder parts of the sound sound dynamic, yet subdued when it should be.

Yamaha was found by me to have about half of their stated power output with 7 channels driven, Onkyo barely took a hit, and Marantz and Denon just under Onkyo. Magazines have reflected this, not sure about the newer units now but for sure my former RX-V781 was like this. I also do not like that Yamaha does things to make users think it is heavier and higher quality than it really is, such as adding a 5th leg and putting unnecessary weight in it. They say it decreases vibrations, but I say it is a false way of getting that "wow, this thing is a tank!" feel to it when it is simply added weight.

I also see a lot of people saying Yamaha can do all sorts of things that it cannot. Especially saying YPAO with RSC is better than Audyssey Multi-Eq XT32, which I found the biggest bologna ever! YPAO had a heck of a hard time with my room, causing my system to sound like I put it in a straw. I had to rerun it multiple times and tweak it massively to make it sound good, but I was able to get it to sound rich and great. Yet nothing I did could get it to approach my Marantz and Denon receivers for music sound quality. What I did like about the Yamaha was the DSP modes, they are good and plentiful and the MP3 restore was good on it as well. And it doe not EQ the subs either, I think it is closest to MCACC but I like MCACC better and felt it did a better job with my room also.

The first thing I do with a Marantz or Denon is shut Dynamic EQ off, turn up the sub a bit to taste using the volume knob on the sub (usually 2-3 dB),and turn up the surrounds/surround backs +1 each. I used to run music with it on, with some songs it sounds awesome and others it wrecks the playback. I would only use Dynamic EQ is playing at very low levels and it does keep the surround mix, but I run it 100% off. Do this and your Denon and Marantz will sing after running Audyssey. I also try and run my Emptek towers higher than the 40 crossover that Audyssey sets them at. You can always go up but should never go down where Audyssey sets it. But even without tweaking it and shutting off Dynamic EQ, it sets my speakers better than any other room correction has.

With YPAO, to get it to sound good I had to use REW to set my subwoofer correctly, had to set speaker distances and volume with a sound meter, and had to basically redo everything YPAO did. After seeing how "superior it was" according to users on forums, I had to hear it to believe it and my first reaction was "Where did the life of the sound go?" It totally set all of my speakers wrong as well, no matter how many times I ran it. Defective setup mic maybe? It happens but so much for the "Yamaha is built better" I keep seeing over and over. Not to mention my first RX-V781 was a dud!

This is why I go by reviews and word of mouth, but see for myself. If going by what I read in forums, nothing can touch Yamaha in any category so I would have never tried anything else. They are supposedly the best sounding, most reliable, most feature filled, and heads above every other manufacturer in every category. They do make some loyal fans I guess, hence the snake oil I read constantly. But in reality, I wanted to like it much more than I did.
 
Last edited:
Ridire Fáin

Ridire Fáin

Audioholic Intern
This is why I go by reviews and word of mouth, but see for myself. If going by what I read in forums, nothing can touch Yamaha in any category so I would have never tried anything else. They are supposedly the best sounding, most reliable, most feature filled, and heads above every other manufacturer in every category. They do make some loyal fans I guess, hence the snake oil I read constantly. But in reality, I wanted to like it much more than I did.
I am sorry to hear that Yamaha is fudging its output ratings, they used to be conservative in their rating not all that long ago. :( Well given my age a long time ago now. :eek:

I for the most part agree. I am loathe to say Marantz or Yamaha is better of the two choices because of the reviews and attention they both receive. In terms of my opinion I have formed it from owning both makes. Of the two I tend to like the sound of Marantz gear over Yamaha.

Class D is very efficient, so the claims that under volume is believable.

I agree. My point was because and amp can produce 200 watts does not necessary mean it will be able to play louder than a 125 watt system that uses class AB. Nor that class D amplification is superior technology to class AB. Class D components can sound really good, but IMHO it really depends if the equipment is engineered to take advantage of its strengths and weaknesses versus a way to cut corners.

Not all in the industry are like Bel Canto in the development and use of Class D technology to be as musical sounding as it possibly can. There are far too many that use it because it keeps production costs down and increases that producer's profit margin.
 
X

Xrazor77

Audiophyte
Yamaha does have a similar feature to Audyssey Dynamic EQ fwiw, called YPAO Volume. Don't know how they particularly compare, tho. Personally haven't owned a Yamaha, and not a Marantz receiver since the 70s/early 80s, currently have a few Denons (Marantz' sister brand) so I'd also include a Denon model like the 3400/4400.

Have you used an spl calculator before? Try this http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html
Keep in mind the sensitivity figure could be a bit overstated, too.
I use an SPL meter it’s very easy to use I followed this video.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I use an SPL meter it’s very easy to use I followed this video.
The spl calculator is more about estimating the potential spl based on the power of your amp, the sensitivity of your speakers, and your distance from them. The spl meter can be useful in initial setup of your speakers for levels, tho.
 
Kingnoob

Kingnoob

Audioholic General
I’d go denon honestly, real shame that modern avrs getting less powerful . Onkyo is dying they had some very powerful avrs ... rip



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

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