Which should i get? The Marantz SR7001 or the NAD T-763.
From what i hear the NAD has better sound and it can handle a larger variety of speakers (down to 2 Ohm). However it has no HDMI and is only 6.1. I really tend to like 7.1.
The marantz has all the bells and whistles from 7.1 to hdmi upconversion. However will only handle loads down to 6 Ohms and supposedly dosent sound as good.
I don't have to make a decision right now but i really don't know which to get... My boss says the NAD just because it has better sound. but i expect to keep this thing for the next 5+ years so i want it to be compatible.
Personally, I'd go for the NAD - even though I like Marantz as well. The NAD has true to spec power and HDMI as far as I'm concerned should go straight from source to display anyway. But if 7.1 (heaven forbid) is that important to you, well . . .
I dunno how extremely important it is, i just want it to last for a good while. I suppose 6.1 isent so bad, and i think that NAD is replacing some of it's line so i may just wait and see what happens there.
I don't know anything about NAD (never heard one) and I have a Marantz SR 8400 which, for my use, sounds great (movies,concert DVDs and FM radio).
I think 6.1 or 7.1 is a minor issue. How many titles, if any, do you have recorded in those formats? Besides, the surround speakers handle maybe about 10-15% of the sound (reverberations, movement effects of bullets, helicopters, cars etc, audience claps and so on).
I'm most happy with 5.1 (in a small room), even though my receiver handles 7.1.
You'd probably like to define the speakers first and then audition both the NAD and the Marantz with them, to find out which combination sounds best to your ears, before chosing.
I don't understand why so many people fuss over the 7.1 thing.
There aren't any DVD's out there with 7.1 channels of sound so why would not having 7.1 be the dicding factor in anyone's purchase.
There aren't even too many titles as of yet with 6.1 channels recorded.
As for NAD vs. Marantz. I have a NAD T763 powering Paradigms and I love the sound but I would recommend you try to listen to both receivers with your brand of speakers and then decide.
The 8 series Marantz recievers and above are in a different league and I would have a tough time choosing between those and NADs. While I have a SR-7300 and think it does a splendid job, I think the NAD recievers in the comparable price range are better musically. Personally 5.1 is enough for good surround though larger (and longer) rooms for larger audiences could possibly benefit with a 7.1 movie set-up or more.
as said before, no movie is made for 7.1 and most still are not in 6.1 either. both ways the reciever fudges the surround sound not to mention the differences in DTS and DD. both are great companies but i know that NAD has been having a long history of problems with their AVR units though i dont know if they have fixed their problems. i'm sure you know M.R. but NAD is not the only company with true to spec ratings especially not compared with Marantz. Marantz is just as reputable if not modest. i have marantz and love them. as said before, HDMI should not be a deciding factor. in many cases component with digital coax or optical works better. learn the technology before making it a deciding factor on several hundred dollar equipment. you will probably be surprised with your findings, such as pitfalls of HDMI and 7.1
Christopher - Marantz only guarantee that with all channels driven, their recievers will reach at least 70% of their stated output. NAD amps and receivers are usually on the money or over their stated outputs. That doesn't mean Marantz receivers don't reach their stated output some models do some don't. Yes, the NAD receivers have had lots of problems and I don't know if this has been totally addressed yet. I've been told Marantz recievers have had their share of problems too. I know Denon have had quite a few with theirs also. Many theatres have more than 5.1, 6.1 etc some have 10.1 and so on. It's just copying a couple of the surround channels for the effect range over a large audience. My opinion is as yours, most home theatres don't need the extra channels - except they can be used for multi-room set ups.
i was never aware about the %70. what kind of issues has marantz been having over the years? anything like the hum problem NAD has? my only issue would be since i bought an older av pre it does not marry digital inputs to a certain input. that and the remotes just suck majorly.
I don't think Marantz receiver problems are localised or in the same numbers as those of NAD's. The Marantz SR7200 for example rated about 29wts per channel with all channels driven under bench tests (they were published here some time back). I think it was a big wake up call for them hence they got their act together with the following models.
