-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
Marantz SR7000
- Thread starter Acdcpsp
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
The older stereo receiver, or the newer 5.1 surround receiver?
I worked on a stereo SR-8000. Not so good , IMO.
Rob
KrisM
Lunatic Member
I guess it depends on what you are used to.
I bought one new in 1999/2000 and like it and like how it sounds. It has been rock steady from day one. I use it to drive a pair of PSB Stratus Silvers plus a Stratus center and in-wall PSB rears, and it does a pretty good job. I also have a Harman/Kardon PM660 driving another pair of the the Silvers in my living room. I think it does a better job than the Marantz, but not by a huge margin.
It also depends on what sources you are going to feed it. It digitizes all of the analog inputs(for bass-management, tone controls, etc), so if you are going to run analog sources keep that in mind if it bothers you. There is a 5.1 analog input that by-passes the digital section.
The only other home theater receiver that I compared it with directly was a Pioneer. I bought the Pioneer first and really didn't like it, hated it actually. The Marantz was better in every way. I forget the model number of the Pioneer, but it was the top of the line before you got into the Elite series.
I can't see myself ever getting rid of mine. The only downsides(for my needs) are not as much power as I'd like for the speakers I'm using, and no HDMI switching. It has pre-outs, so I can work with the power issue, so the HDMI thing is the only real downside for me.
I bought one new in 1999/2000 and like it and like how it sounds. It has been rock steady from day one. I use it to drive a pair of PSB Stratus Silvers plus a Stratus center and in-wall PSB rears, and it does a pretty good job. I also have a Harman/Kardon PM660 driving another pair of the the Silvers in my living room. I think it does a better job than the Marantz, but not by a huge margin.
It also depends on what sources you are going to feed it. It digitizes all of the analog inputs(for bass-management, tone controls, etc), so if you are going to run analog sources keep that in mind if it bothers you. There is a 5.1 analog input that by-passes the digital section.
The only other home theater receiver that I compared it with directly was a Pioneer. I bought the Pioneer first and really didn't like it, hated it actually. The Marantz was better in every way. I forget the model number of the Pioneer, but it was the top of the line before you got into the Elite series.
I can't see myself ever getting rid of mine. The only downsides(for my needs) are not as much power as I'd like for the speakers I'm using, and no HDMI switching. It has pre-outs, so I can work with the power issue, so the HDMI thing is the only real downside for me.
KrisM
Lunatic Member
Try it out before you buy a DAC. The DAC might be a waste of money. Unless you are going to use the 5.1 input, everything analog that you run into the unit will be converted to digital and then converted to analog again. The 5.1 input is pure analog, but you lose the ability to use the tone controls, though.
I'm not up to date on how to get digital out of a laptop. If you can get digital out as either optical or coax, I would try that first and let the receiver do the DAC conversion. Try it out before you commit more money on a new DAC.
I hope all that made some sense.
I'm not up to date on how to get digital out of a laptop. If you can get digital out as either optical or coax, I would try that first and let the receiver do the DAC conversion. Try it out before you commit more money on a new DAC.
I hope all that made some sense.
