|
Creed | well, i have this receiver and now i have a great chance of selling it to one of my friend without losing much, i am thinking about upgrading, but i just want a more powerful receiver, for me the SR4300 looks a bit underpowered but i am very satisfied with the sound quality of it...actually what is the real difference between a SR4300 and 5300, will 10watts more per channel make a big difference in sound's output.?. http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=1878 this link stated that the SR5200 seems to be underpowered due to using a single power supply to power all 6 channel...and it even drop to just 35watts when drive with 6 speakers...so is the 5300 using separate amp for each channel.?.how about my SR4300.?. would you think the upgrade from 4300->5300 is wise.?.i knew there is much more better product but my budget is stress and i just can get receiver under 400 us dollars...don't recommend me NAD coz my country don't have it... i would really appreciate if there is someone here tested both the 4300 and 5300 before and tell me what is the real differences between these two models...before using the 4300 i am using a receiver borrowed from my friend, the Yamaha RXV440, i feel that the yamaha is much powerful when we talk about the volume, but sound quality i stil think Marantz is slightly better...if you all have used 4300 or 4200 before, mind to tell me normally when you want to crank the volume during DVD watching, what level u all turn it to.?. i don't know until what level is safe for the receiver and i don't wish to spoilt my speaker as well, because i was told that using a lower powre receiver drive hard will damage the speaker easily, any ideas here...thanks... sorry for tonnes of questions but i really wish to know their answers..regards |
|
Creed | anyone may lends a helping hand to me.?. |
|
Anonymous | How are the marants and rotel integrated stereo amps? |
|
Hawk | Creed: You raise some interesting questions and I think I can answer all of them, so bear with me. First, you like the sound of the Marantz--that is important because all of these receivers have an indetifiable sound and you should stick with what you like. Now, it is true that the 4300 is not the most powerful thing out there, but for what you paid, what can you expect? Lest you think it is a poor value, I would point you to the test Sound & Visoin did of the Onkyo 900, a THX certified $1700US receiver that is rated at 120 wpc x 7. However, S&V determined that it could only do 52 wpc when all channels were driven. So even the big boys labor to put out some serious power. Second, you will not hear the difference of 10 wpc. It just isn't enough of a power difference that the human ear can distinguish. However, what you can hear is that it will sound cleaner, which allows you to drive the amp harder, thus it will seem more powerful. It will also seem more powerful because it has a bigger power supply and larger capaictors which will have more power available when the music program material demands it, so it won't be clipping nearly as much. Also, the pre/pro section is much better and cleaner sounding, allowing you to drive the receiver harder. Although you may not conciously hear something and say-"hey, that is distorting", your ears will pick up the distortion as an amp is beginning to clip on a sub-concious level and you will instinctively turn the volume down or just keep the volume at a lower level than you otherwise might all without conciously knowing it. Hence, a perception that the receiver lacks power. In a sense it does because it lacks "usable power." With a 5300, you will have more "usable power." Third, as for the article from HiFi Choice, they have correctly identified the fact that the 5200 was a very underpowered receiver. For whatever reason, someone at Marantz arranged to switch to a cheaper power supply for the x200 series of receivers. Sound & Visoin tested the 100 wpc x 6 Marantz 7200 and discovered it could only hit 27 wpc! That is pretty poor and quite a come-down as the previous generation Marantz 7000 was a quite good receiver and well regarded (there was no 7100 to my knowledge). It would appear that Marantz learned its lesson as I have heard the 7300 and it definitely sounds much more powerful and realsitic thant the 7200. I think that the seriously underpowered Marantz's are limited to the x200 series of receivers and you should not draw any conclusions about your situation from the earlier line of receivers. Now, you haven't told us about your speakers and that can make a big difference. What speakers do you have, what is their impedence, and most importantly, what is their rated sensitivity? If you have speakers with a sensitivity of 85 db/W, I don't think moving up to the 5300 will improve things much. However, if they are a more typical 89 db/W or higher, moving to the 5300 will make a difference. Finally, I have heard both receivers and compared them. When driving either NHT SB-2s or KEF Q-1s, I could definitely hear an improvement when using the 5300 over the 4300. The signal to noise ration of the 4300 is only 92 db, but in the 5300 it is 105 db, which works out to about 4 times less noise in the 5300. The 5300 also has better DACs (192/24s versus 96/24s in the 4300) and the 5300 has less distortion at its rated power. Again, a sign of more usable power. With the factors of the bigger power supply and capacitors, it all adds up to a more usable power amp that will allwo you to drive it harder and use more of its rated 90 wpc. No, I am not saying it can actually do 90 wpc as very few receivers priced under $1000US can. But whatever power it does have, there will be more. Whether it is enough for your speakers cannot be determined at this time. Let me know if you can find out what your speaker's sensitivity rating is. Good luck. |
|
Creed | well, a very detail explanation u got me here, i appreciate it a lot... My speaker as follows : 1. Mission M74 (8ohms 91db 150watts) 2. Acoustic Energy Aegis One (8ohms 89db 120watts) 3. Klipsch Synergy SC.5 (8ohms 91db) 4. Mirage BPS150 Dual 8inch 150watts subwoofer sometimes i need to turn my SR4300 to nearly 0db level to gain the volume i need it to be, and its max is at +15db i think, would running the amp at 0db (considering the max is +15) is too stressful, but i still never heard distortion tough...only i think when i turn the volume quite high, i feel that my sub can't handle the bass heavy scene...its time for me to change one sub i guess... |
|
mark | Hawk, please explain the actuall calculation for understanding why the 105 db signal to noise ratio has 4 times less noise than the 92 db ? |
|
mark | Hawk, sorry for sounding too demanding :-) I'll apreciate if you take the time to explain to me the above. Cheers |
|
Hawk | Creed: I hope I didn't overload you with info! I apologize as I sometimes go into too much detail on some issues (as my kids tell me all the time!). BTW, I really like those Missions! An interesting combination of speakers, in fact. I have not heard the AE Aegis One, but I have seen them. I would appreciate your observations of that product. I don't know your sub, at all, so I cannot comment. In your case, I think you would appreciate the improvement offered by the 5300. You should hear a difference, not only in volume, but in the cleaner signal, too. |
|
Hawk | mark: The way it has been explained to me, the measurement in decibels is a logorithmic calculation. Every 3 db improvement in the signal to noise ratio represents a cut in the noise floor by half. So, going from 92 to 95 db in the signal to noise ratio represents half the noise. Cutting it again by another 3 db (to 98 db) would cut it in half again, and so forth. You know, I was tired when I posted that. I now think it is a 16 fold improvement, rather than four-fold improvement. |
|
Creed | Hawk: actually the Acoustic Energy Aegis One forms a very good stereo setup when combine with my old Pioneer A402 stereo integrated amp, but when i bought the Mission M74 i plan to go for HT setup, that is why i move the Aegis One as the rear speaker...since i like the Aegis and i don't wish to sell it, and it will be a waste if i just leave it there and purchase another rear speaker, so i just used it as rear...for my subwoofer, its one of the best subwoofer in the price range i have heard, i like it a lot and the only thing i dislike it is when came to home theatre setup, it sometimes seems to be can't handle the heavy bass scene in some dvds...for example the starwars episode 1 the pod race scene, i felt the subwoofer like too stressful when i turn the volume to around -5db on my marantz...but i think its stil ok, this sub is a pretty good one in music, never overwhelming...may be you will knew the subwoofer's newer version, the Mirage OM200 is its new version, still with 2 8inch driver tough... the subwoofer is great for music but not-so-great for the dvd bass heavy scene...in the manual it stated go as low as 25hz...i don't understand why it can't handle those bass scene anyway...may be i will add another sub in near future... anyway thanks for your help...i'll change my receiver if i have enough money in next month i suppose...hopefully it does bring some improvement to my system...thanks a thousands... |