Power Amp With Marantz SR5001 or new AVR?

[mbny1975]

Hi

I currently have a Marantz SR5001 AVR and since getting it a couple of years ago I have been disappointed with the stereo output for my music. It just lacks some umph / a bit weak / not enough bass.

I use to have a Nad C370 which I sold once I moved to a 5 channel set up, which I much preferred. I'm pretty happy with the sound for movies, but I don't have room for a second set of speakers to run a dedicated separate 2 channel set up.

The rest of my kit is:
Kef Q55.2 fronts (planning to upgrade next year)
Monitor Audio Radius center and rear.
PS3, Nad C540, but mainly play flac files from my PC for music on the above set up.

I was thinking of getting a power amp such as the Nad M25 and use the SR5001 as the pre amp. If I use the pure direct mode on the SR5001 for my music I was thinking the SR5001 wouldn't really be used, just as a pass through, so could end up sounding pretty nice.

Is that the case or will the Pre in the Marantz still affect the sound by much?

I like the idea of upgrading different components (power this year, speakers next etc), so in a couple of years I'll have a kick *** set up. Just can't afford to buy everything new now.

But will a M25 be a bit wasted / not make that much difference as I'll still be using the SR5001?

The alternative might be to get something like the Nad T785 or Arcam AVR600. But Arcam is pretty much double the price of the M25 and there seems to be complaints about loud pops with the T785. Buying the Nad T175HD would also double the price and how much difference would the T175 make over the SR5001 if I'm using both in pure direct mode anyway for stereo??

Has anyone done something similar / just upgraded their power amp section on a similar lower end AVR? If so what were the results?

Any other suggestions / thoughts?

Cheers

Martin

 

[cfrizz]

Hi. Yes I had a 110wpc Denon receiver & when I added a Parasound 1500A 205wpc 2 channel amp my speakers came alive. Adding a separate power amp will show you what your speakers are truly capable of.

Don't box yourself in with just a Marantz amp. Get as much power as you possibly can. I always recommend at least a 200wpc amp. This is enough power to drive just about any speaker to its full potential.

Good brands to look at are, Rotel, Parasound, Outlaw, Emotiva, Nad, Adcom, B & K & Sunfire. You can get more bang for the buck getting a used one on Audiogon.

 

[j_garcia]

Yes, and amp will help a lot, but most of the sonic signature still comes from the pre section of the receiver; that's where the signal is processed. As you can see, I use amps with mine and it comes with 120w My speakers are all 4 Ohm and my room is a bit on the large side, but the main reason is becasue I listen loud

 

[PENG]

If I use the pure direct mode on the SR5001 for my music I was thinking the SR5001 wouldn't really be used, just as a pass through, so could end up sounding pretty nice.

Is that the case or will the Pre in the Marantz still affect the sound by much?

You are right, in pure direct mode the prepro of the SR5001will not affect the sound much. Not quite a pass through, but almost. In other modes with sound processing the Marantz will affect the sound in more significant ways.

 

[skers_54]

I have a Marantz 4001 (which should be similar to your 5001) and just ordered an amp to power my sub. I'll hook up the amp to my pre-outs and see how it compares to the receiver's amps when it gets here in a week or so. My speakers are bookshelves so it won't be driving 2 woofers, but my speakers are ~3dB less sensitive than yours.

 

[skers_54]

I got my amp (Behringer A500) today and played around with it a bit. I used mostly Blue Man Group's The Complex at ~75 dB to compare the receiver and amp. I also threw in a couple rock songs for the hell of it. This is in no way blind and is purely subjective, so take it with a grain of salt.

I would say that the amp and receiver sounded much more the same than different. No timbral changes that I could detect, no differences in soundstage or imaging. With the HPF set at 100 Hz, there was a small difference in some busy passages with a lot of drums/bass. The sound was a little bit cleaner and more effortless with the amp.

I played a few songs with my fronts set to large (disabling my sub). I didn't use Pure Direct because it disables the level adjustments I needed for quick switching. My impressions were similar those with the sub, though a bit more pronounced. Some small improvements in power-hungry passages but overall very similar.

I don't think that I could tell a difference between my receiver and the Behringer amp blinded at my usual listening volumes. What does this mean for the OP? If he listens at loud levels in pure direct mode, he might benefit from an amp. It won't suddenly make the bass weightier, but it could improve the impactfullness and clairity. Not enough to make me spend a handful of $100's on, though.

 

[jinjuku]

I got my amp (Behringer A500) today and played around with it a bit. I used mostly Blue Man Group's The Complex at ~75 dB to compare the receiver and amp. I also threw in a couple rock songs for the hell of it. This is in no way blind and is purely subjective, so take it with a grain of salt.

I would say that the amp and receiver sounded much more the same than different. No timbral changes that I could detect, no differences in soundstage or imaging. With the HPF set at 100 Hz, there was a small difference in some busy passages with a lot of drums/bass. The sound was a little bit cleaner and more effortless with the amp.

I played a few songs with my fronts set to large (disabling my sub). I didn't use Pure Direct because it disables the level adjustments I needed for quick switching. My impressions were similar those with the sub, though a bit more pronounced. Some small improvements in power-hungry passages but overall very similar.

I don't think that I could tell a difference between my receiver and the Behringer amp blinded at my usual listening volumes. What does this mean for the OP? If he listens at loud levels in pure direct mode, he might benefit from an amp. It won't suddenly make the bass weightier, but it could improve the impactfullness and clairity. Not enough to make me spend a handful of $100's on, though.

What speakers were you driving? I think the harder to drive speakers are the ones that benefit from external amplification.

 

[lsiberian]

I personally like the idea of having an external amp. It's mental/emotional effect can't be denied. I realize scientifically it may not help much, but this isn't a waste of money either IMO. I do suggest you get one with a 12v trigger though. Makes turning off and on easy as snap.

 

[j_garcia]

At normal listening levels you might not notice it at all, as well you probably shouldn't. At elevated levels, it should be quite apparent providing you were pushing the limits of the capabilities of the receiver's amp section. If the receiver isn't straining, then the difference will only be noticeable when you crank it up to the point where the amp runs out of steam and the amp does not.

 

[JerryLove]

I currently have a Marantz SR5001 AVR and since getting it a couple of years ago I have been disappointed with the stereo output for my music. It just lacks some umph / a bit weak / not enough bass.

I suggest going into the equalizer and increasing the bass boost (if you have a sub, just set it +3db or so, or turn up the gain).

In fact, if you ran auto-calibration, it may have deliberately lowered your bass.

 

[JerryLove]

Hi. Yes I had a 110wpc Denon receiver & when I added a Parasound 1500A 205wpc 2 channel amp my speakers came alive.

You gained about 3db of sound.

 

[skers_54]

What speakers were you driving? I think the harder to drive speakers are the ones that benefit from external amplification.

I was driving a pair of Behringer B2030s for most of the tests. Not the most difficult load, especially crossed over. I couldn't push the amp too hard as my neighbors were home (apartment) and I would probably go deaf before my receiver's amps quit. I got the amp to run my Kappa sub, and the difference is much more noticable in that application. Probably due to greater overall power demands, transients and a more complex phase angle. What I got out of this little experiment is that Marantz puts d**n good amps in its receivers and will work as good as anything until they run out of juice.

 

[heavyharmonies]

I am a bigtime proponent of using AVRs with a beefy external 2-channel amp for the mains. Not only does the deep well of power for the fronts usually extend the bass and soundstage, but you're also taking a load off of the receiver so it's not working as hard when driving your center and surrounds.

You can get serious bang for the buck with vintage stereo amps, 200-400 wpc. In my HT rig I'm using a Carver M-4.0t to power my mains, and in my secondary setup the outboard amp I'm using is an old Phase Linear 400.

Good stuff. I won't buy an AVR without preouts.

 

[lsiberian]

I am a bigtime proponent of using AVRs with a beefy external 2-channel amp for the mains. Not only does the deep well of power for the fronts usually extend the bass and soundstage, but you're also taking a load off of the receiver so it's not working as hard when driving your center and surrounds.

You can get serious bang for the buck with vintage stereo amps, 200-400 wpc. In my HT rig I'm using a Carver M-4.0t to power my mains, and in my secondary setup the outboard amp I'm using is an old Phase Linear 400.

Good stuff. I won't buy an AVR without preouts.

I think it really depends on your system needs.

Many AVRs have very good amps for 2 channel stereo needs.

 

[j_garcia]

I've always been pleased with the power output of Marantz receivers, which is why I've owned at least 5 or 6 of them over the years.