|
| I've narrowed an upcoming receiver purchase down to either the Marantz 5300/5400 of the NAD T742/T743. I've run an entry-level JVC receiver for 10 years, the last five or so with Infinity Reference 2000.5 mains with Infinity Reference 2000.3 bookshelfs. I'm on a budget (as you can likely tell with the speaker choice) due to other expensive hobbies, so I won't be getting new speakers soon. But it's definitely time to upgrade the receiver for HT use with my TV and DVD player, though most of what I'll use the new receiver for is music. My questions: - Which receiver will make these speakers sing?The Infinitys are articulate and clear with mids and highs (especially for their price) but are a little lacking with lows; that's OK, since most of my music isn't bass-dependent (rock, metal, alternative, jazz) - Why is the cabinet on the Marantz so huge -- especially compared with the NAD -- yet it weighs about 5 pounds less than the NAD? - Are the remote controls programmable to run other components from other brands? - According to NAD's spec sheet for the T742, it runs 90W x 2, while the Marantz claims 90W x 6 for the SR5300/5400. Yet many say that NAD's power reserves are much greater, resulting in cleaner sound, even though both receivers use dedicated amps for each channel. What gives? I've read many of this forum's threads regarding the pros/cons of both Marantz and NAD. What I'm looking for is some definitive direction as to which receiver will make my current setup work better. I live in the Dallas area, so dealer access isn't an issue (no, I haven't auditioned either model yet; that's coming up this week). Many thanks for the input in advance, folks! |
|
Hawk | VifferMike: You ask the most intelligent questions I think I have ever seen on this board. I will try to answer them as best I can: 1. NAD will do a better job of making your speakers "sing" largely because it does have greater power reserves and it has a better pre/pro section. Not long on features, but the sound quality is more high priced separates rather than receiver, in sound quality. NAD has sunk its money into really high quality DACs and the DSP, which will provide for greater resolution and separation between the channels. 2. The Marantz cabinet is larger because they put all of their receivers in the same chassis, up to a certain point in their line (the 8300, I think). This provides for savings in the manufacturing as they can negotiate a better price for a larger production run of a single chassis. The NAD weighs more lagely because it has a bigger power supply and larger heat sinks. 3. Both receivers have a "learning function" which allows them to memorize the command functions of another brands remote and then be used to control the components from another brand. 4. Based upon my empirical observations, I would agree that the NAD has more real power than the Marantz. You are understandably looking at the specifications of both receivers and asking how can this be. Well, it comes down to how they rate power. They don't measure it the same way. Marantz follows the FTC rule of driving two channels into an 8 ohm resistor to derive their power figures (a method presribed by lawyers, not engineers). NAD uses a more scientific method (best described on their website) that results in a much more conservative rating, but the NAD will provide more current (rated in amps, not watts) to the speakers and currrent is the more important value, not the watts. The larger power supply is one factor and although both use a discrete amplifier design, the NAD output transistors have a higher output rating. In a way, this is like the rating of horsepower in cars. Japanese cars, American cars and German cars all have their horsepower rated differently because the repective government agencies (JIN, SAE, and DIN) use a different formula to rate horsepower. The German is the most conservative and the Japanese formula is the most generous. But if you had a 200 hp German engine, it would have about 22% more power than a 200 hp Japanese engine (as I recall). The American SAE standard is just about halfway between the two other standards. Both the Marantz and the NAD are excellent receivers and provide a very good value for the money. I would recommend that you take your mains into the stores and audition each receiver with your speakers. I have done this myself several times. If you go when the store isn't busy, I am sure they will accomodate you. Enjoy! |
|
| Hawk, Thanks for the compliment on the questions. I'm a journalist, so I suppose it's second nature (most of the time) ... ... and the comparison between power ratings and horsepower measurements is an apt one, and one I understand since one of those "other expensive hobbies" of mine is motorcycles (I have an Aprilia and a Honda VFR, and recently parted ways with a KTM). I suspected the cabinet-size explanation you supplied, too, and am glad to hear the remotes can control other brands of gear. I have another concern based on some research (and posts on this board): if the NAD feeds so much current to the speakers (44 volts, I believe), is there a danger of frying the speakers? I would think the Infinitys (essentially mid-range speakers when introduced in 1999) would be able to handle the load (the 2000.3s are rated at 10-125W at 8 ohms, the 2000.5 are 15-150W at 8 ohms), but apparently some can't. Then again, I've read about Marantz receivers doing the same thing ... ? One more query: if Marantz is driving 90W into 6 channels (as stated on their spec sheet), and the FTC standard is driving power into 2 channels, does that mean the effective power rating of the Marantz into 2 channels would be lower or higher (I suspect lower, but I'm not certain since it supposedly uses 6 discrete power supplies, as does the NAD)? Shoot ... maybe I should sell the Aprilia and get a Sunfire Ultimate Receiver and some Jamos ... damn, where'd I put that winning lottery ticket? |
|
Hawk | VifferMike: I think that was a troublesome Marantz that was feeding 44 volts to fry a speaker, not an NAD. No, current is measured in amps (not to be confused with "amps" meant to be short for an amplifier), and the NADs are capable of producing 40-45 amps of power to the speakers. This is also the rating of several H/K receivers, and should present no problem for most speakers. I think the Infinitys would be a very good match for the 742. You are also correct in supposing that the Marantz rating will be lower when driving five, six or seven channels instead of two. Here is a link which compiles all of the Receiver Equipment Test Reports done by Sound & Vision magazine through April of this year: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/3401/ratevsac.htm You will note how few receivers can come even close to their rated power when driving more than two speakers. This undescores what I am saying about watts not being a particularly reliable indication of real power. |
|
Hammersmith Unregistered guest | That's a great link.. bookmarked it. thanks Hawk. And thanks to the person who pulled it together! |