Receiver choice: Pioneer, Denon, Marantz ... other?

[Crusader]

I’m replacing a Denon AVR-2803 receiver to gain the advantages of HDMI switching and several features (auto setup!)available on the newer designs. The system will support a Panasonic plasma television and use satellite, blu-ray, Apple TV, and a media computer for main inputs (all HDMI). I have an NHT 6.1 speaker system with superzero’s, supercenter and SW-2 sub. I’m not a audio junkie (although I had a Rabco arm in the vinyl days), I just want solid video and sound for movies and music.

I’m considering the Pioneer Elite SR-61, Marantz SC-5007 and Denon AVR-2313ci all of which are available on line in my preferred price range. All meet my needs for power, needed features, and bells and whistles. It gets down to reliability (it appears some brands have an infant mortality rate of 10% or more) and ease of use. Any recommendations? Cautions? Alternative choices?

Thanks, Crusader

 

[Stump909]

How important is the auto-setup to you? Are you looking for a simple speaker distance and level-match system, or one that takes into account room reflections and such? I believe both the Denon and Marantz use Audyessy XT which is better than Pioneer's propriety option. Audyssey (XT/XT32), YPAO RSC, ARC, and Trinnov seem to be the only ones worth considering for the most part.

 

[Crusader]

Auto-setup is important, especially after the hassle of manual setup with my current receiver (measuring distances and using sound-meter). While MCACC and Audyssey do essentially the same thing, Audyssey appears the better (AKA the enemy of good enough) because it samples 6 (or 8) listening positions in the calibration process. OTOH, Audyssey seems to be all or nothing, while MCACC can be adjused later to taste (less treble, more bass, etc). I can find no A/B comparisons, just subjective comments pro or con, often without hands on experience.

Auto-setup is outweighed by day-to-day convenience. My Denon occasionally decides to go from Dolby to a DSP Movie mode without user input; that's frustrating. Top on my list is reliability. My pre-Chinese-manufacture Denon has no other flaws other than that mentioned ... almost ten years of service! Numerous complaints about Onkyo took it off my list. Not so sure about these three, but Pioneer seems to have an edge at the moment.

In the end, it may be a dice roll; show-stopper, send-it-back, failures seem to run nearly 10% for these things.

 

[fuzz092888]

Auto-setup is important, especially after the hassle of manual setup with my current receiver (measuring distances and using sound-meter). While MCACC and Audyssey do essentially the same thing, Audyssey appears the better (AKA the enemy of good enough) because it samples 6 (or 8) listening positions in the calibration process. OTOH, Audyssey seems to be all or nothing, while MCACC can be adjused later to taste (less treble, more bass, etc). I can find no A/B comparisons, just subjective comments pro or con, often without hands on experience.

Auto-setup is outweighed by day-to-day convenience. My Denon occasionally decides to go from Dolby to a DSP Movie mode without user input; that's frustrating. Top on my list is reliability. My pre-Chinese-manufacture Denon has no other flaws other than that mentioned ... almost ten years of service! Numerous complaints about Onkyo took it off my list. Not so sure about these three, but Pioneer seems to have an edge at the moment.

In the end, it may be a dice roll; show-stopper, send-it-back, failures seem to run nearly 10% for these things.

My personal preference is the Marantz, although it and the Denon will be very similar. Audyssey is superior in many ways and you can adjust the treble and bass with audyssey. You cannot see your exact FR like with MCACC, but audyssey is definitely superior. I've sampled both and in my experience there's no comparison. Just like there is no comparison to tuning the system oneself, compared to audyssey and the like.

Onkyo gets a bad rap, but as long as you aren't buying the cheaper models you're good. I have a 3009 and the thing is a tank. I'm extremely happy with it.

 

[Travis T]

Numerous complaints about Onkyo took it off my list.

I'm with you on this unfortunately. I had an Onkyo 807 that had the HDMI board go out pretty much just out of warranty, seemed to be a really common issue on that generation of Onkyo receivers. Definitely spoiled me on future purchases of Onkyo products for a while.

 

[GregLee]

I've had an Onkyo 3008 for two years, using Audyssey, and previously had 3 Pioneer AVRs, using MCACC. MCACC is better, in my opinion, and since my Onkyo just broke (probably the HDMI board), I'm going back to Pioneer. I've noticed that people preferring Audyssey to MCACC usually quote manufacturer hype (equalizes subwoofer) or the process of calibration (requires you to do 6 microphone measurements) rather than the actual sonic results of calibration. I think MCACC gives better results.

 

[fuzz092888]

I've had an Onkyo 3008 for two years, using Audyssey, and previously had 3 Pioneer AVRs, using MCACC. MCACC is better, in my opinion, and since my Onkyo just broke (probably the HDMI board), I'm going back to Pioneer. I've noticed that people preferring Audyssey to MCACC usually quote manufacturer hype (equalizes subwoofer) or the process of calibration (requires you to do 6 microphone measurements) rather than the actual sonic results of calibration. I think MCACC gives better results.

There are pages and pages of documented sonic benefits to audyssey over other brands and the subwoofer cal done by subEQ for two subwoofers would blow MCACC out of the water given two subs. Then you end by saying you think MCACC gives better results after criticizing others for not providing any proof of sonic results or benefits. I have no great love for audyssey, but I've experienced both, measured both and while I hate that audyssey doesn't let you manipulate the target curve or actually see anything, it has been consistently better than MCACC in my subjective and objective experience.

 

[rnatalli]

Both the Marantz and Denon use MultEQ XT. Although both are made by the same parent company, I always felt Marantz had better build quality.

 

[fuzz092888]

Both the Marantz and Denon use MultEQ XT. Although both are made by the same parent company, I always felt Marantz had better build quality.

That's always been a point of some contention. Yes their owned by the same parent company, but actually made was never quite clear. AKAIK they use similar or identical parts for the majority of their units, but have their own factories. I also think that some of the parts are exclusive to their respective brands, but I admittedly have no proof.

As to the lower end models of both, they probably are nearly identical, but my assumption, right or wrong, is that as you go up the line they start to differ a bit more. Unfortunately I don't have enough money to buy a few of each to compare

 

[PENG]

I have owned models of both brand and am happy with their reliability.

 

[3db]

I would say listen for yourself to the different receivers with the room corrections at play and judge "by ear" and not by paper which sounds better. Lietne to them with room correction engaged and disengaged preferably with speakers that are best match to what you use. There are a few members here now that leave room correction totally turned off because to them it sounds worse with it on.

There are a few things to consider to especially with multipoint sampling. Mulitpoint averages across the the number of listening positions so no one spot gets the "best" tailored sound. That may not be bad thing if the listening positions are similar in sonics. However, if you are the person that views movies and listens to music a majority of the time by yourself, chances are you already have your favourite sweet spot so the multipoint isn't really advantageous. Multipoint is also not beneficial (also not detrimental) if your listening area is fairly narrow. Mutlipoint sampling is advanatgeous only if the room gets used alot by others than you and that the listening positions are spread across a wide area. Its not the utopia that people make it out to be.