|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.70.79.191
Deciding between these integrated amps, will be paired with Focal 905 in a 10 x 11 listening area. System includes a Technics 1700mk2. Any opinions or input would be appreciated.
Follow Ups:
For what it's worth, I own the Marantz PM8003 which is a couple generations old now. I -think- it was in the $1000 MSRP class (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I bought it new on closeout so I paid significantly less.We used it as our 2-channel integrated amp in the family room mainly for the TV with streaming music services and movies. Plain ole 2-channels. No sub, no surrounds. The Marantz was driving my Tannoy S8LR bookshelf speakers which are not very difficult to drive.
I always felt the sound from the Marantz was a little soft, possibly slightly veiled, with not a lot of top end. I confirmed this when I bought my used Ayre AX-7e integrated which is in my office setup. I compared the two and the Ayre was in a totally different league and much better than the Marantz. I chocked it up to the big price difference and Ayre's reputation in the audiophile community.
But wait, there's more to this story!
After accumulating more "AV stuff" like the Sony blu-ray player, AppleTV box, Amazon Fire TV, etc., I decided I needed a cheap AV receiver mainly for it's HDMI switching capabilities so I could route all of the devices into the AV receiver and have just one HDMI cable going up to the wall mounted TV. I didn't want to spend a lot and all I really needed was 2-channels. I pulled the trigger on a low-end Sony 5.2 ch AV receiver keeping my fingers crossed that it would sound half decent, in addition to offering the HDMI switching. The bonus would be the Sony's remote control compatibility with my Sony TV and the Sony blu-ray player.
The low-end Sony STRDH550 5.2 Channel AV receiver [I'm only using 2 channels] at $200 actually sounds more open and extended and overall just "better" than the $1000 Marantz integrated in this setup. I am baffled.
We did this "upgrade" only a couple months ago. Maybe I just don't like the Marantz sound or maybe this is typical for entry level Marantz and not their higher-end stuff ??? I don't know.
The $200 Sony STRDH550 for our TV setup [I paid $145 on sale around the holiday]
The Tannoy S8SL speakers. Not my photo, but just like my pair
The Marantz PM8003
Edits: 01/17/17 01/17/17
I found the same thing with my PM8004. The top end would drive me nuts!!!
What I finally ended up doing was cranking up the treble 100% and the midrange up a few notches. Helped but didn't cure the problem. I'm baffled that they voiced this amp like this.
Look inside. They used all very high quality parts. SO whazz up?
Not all the parts are high quality inside the PM8004. There's a bunch of el cheapo NJM2068 IC opamps used as buffers and in the preamp circuits. The 2068 is a decent opamp with low noise but it is a dated design known for dull sound. There are plenty of better and faster opamps out there that Marantz should be using in a $1K amplifier. I hope the newer PM8006 has them.
Edits: 03/28/21 03/28/21 03/28/21
It's not a bad amp but I was surprised that I liked the inexpensive Sony better. I cranked up the treble on my Marantz too which helped but having to do that always bugged me. I thought it was me being picky and something I would just get used to. And then I compared it to a couple other amps. Hmm.
I'm going to do some surgery on it this summer.
I already redid all the caps in the signal path. So I'm going to start looking into different value caps. I'll let you know what happens.
I have a feeling the problem lies in one of the feed back loops.
The marantz will have a softer top end but more of a bold midrange.
The Yamaha will have a cleaner top end but not much in the way of midrange.
About the same in the bass department.
The marantz does have a higher quality sound but again, are you good with a softer top end.
Pick your poison.
Thanks....Been also considering the NAD 356BEE as well
That's also a very VERY good amp. It does have a very light midrange. But that is how it's voice intentionally. But GREAT otherwise.
How reliable are the NAD?, have read some issues with quality control and some owners having issues with reliability.
NAD went through a period where they had a terrible QC problem. They have since started to over see their operations and restore proper QC.
I have several fairly newer NAD pieces and never had a problem with either of them.
But as with ANY!!!!! electrical component there is a chance you could get a problem one. Make sure if you buy it new that it has a guarantee, like from Crutchfield.
If you are buying it used MAKE SURE you find out about any previous repairs!!!!!!
The NADs are quite good. I'm a Marantz man and if I had to pick one it would be the C356BEE
Read where some feel the NAD 326BEE was a better sounding amp than the 356BEE, dont know why this would be, same components but more watts.
I have both the Marantz PM8004 and NAD C326BEE and use them in my workshop.
I like them both and it's one of those I can't decided which one I like more deals.
The Marantz clearly has a more "class" sound. More robust some detail but a "classy" sound.
The NAD is not bright or edgy at all! It does have a wonderful amount of detail, VERY accurate and again not bright! beautiful imagining and wide sound stage. But it does lack a certain amount of midrange "umph". That is the only area were the Marantz pulls ahead.
But yes, the humble 326 is a clear winner in audio. And I plan on keeping mine for as long as I can use it in my shop. It's not my main system stereo nor will it ever be a main system type stereo. But it is a great entry level stereo.
I forgot - I have an email friend with a 356bee and he never was really over the moon with that stereo???
Thanks for all the feedback...very helpful in decisions...I dont think the NAD 326 would have any issues driving the Focal 905 in a 10 x 12 living space. No dealers in my area to demo NAD.
My old NAD 3150 is very good and found to be better than my friend's two new Marantz amps. It is better than my old huge and heavy Harmon Kardon. I played Elac B6 thru my NAD and my friend's Marantz. There was a marked improvement in sound played thru my NAD.
I am planning to get a new amp and I think I will opt for either NAD 326BEE or NAD 316BEE. I have heard that the latter is an outstanding amp.
All the best
Bill
It should drive it OK.
I have the NAD 326BEE. I consider it the best bargain in integrated amps that I know of. It replaced $4000 worth of Bryston as I was downsizing and I expected to replace the NAD in a short while. Hasn't happened yet. I'm using $2000 speakers.
The only real advantage of the 356 is that it has a phono input and dual speaker outputs. The increased wattage is really fairly minimal and you have a small room.
The newer NAD'S have digital inputs etc. ( check the website ). If you need or want all the new stuff it offers then that would be a better choice but if you don't then the 326 is a screaming good deal.
NAD recent additions hybrid digital integrated amps , C338/C368/C388, not many reviews, Anyone can comment on performance between the NAD C338/C368 compared to the NAD C 326BEE and C 356BEE. Their new hybrid digitals especially the C368 looks to be a good performer, but wonder if thier is any sound difference compared to the 326/356BEE amps.
How does the Outlaw RR2150 compare to the NAD 326BEE. I know the Outlaw is a receiver not an integrated amp, but heard the amp section in the Outlaw is very good. Any comments in regard to the Outlaw RR2150?
Thanks
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: