-
Please note that there are a few updates and clarifications made in the Audiokarma Rules, mostly relating to advertising and the addition of the new "Paying it Forward" & "Giving back" forums in the AudioKarma Audio Marketplace section.
onkyo vs. marantz vs. rotel vs. emotiva vs. nad
- Thread starter M1chael
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
ggregg
Super Member
One person's opinion.
Onkyo: Sold it for years. Many people love them, I thought they were OK but not much different that anything else, unless your talking their higher end power amps, which are excellent.
Marantz: Pre 1978 great, but you do pay for it. Whether it's worth it or not is up for debate. I have a few nice pieces but I didn't pay through the nose for any of them. The older the better. After 1980, wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, until you get into the 2000's. Not familiar with the new gear but has a good reputation.
Rotel: Never owned any personally but any I've heard sounded great, older and newer. Seems to be a great value for the dollar.
NAD: Sound quality excellent. Build quality not so much. Some of the newer pieces are supposed to be much better. Sold it in the eighties. Probably the best sounding and least reliable brand we sold.
Onkyo: Sold it for years. Many people love them, I thought they were OK but not much different that anything else, unless your talking their higher end power amps, which are excellent.
Marantz: Pre 1978 great, but you do pay for it. Whether it's worth it or not is up for debate. I have a few nice pieces but I didn't pay through the nose for any of them. The older the better. After 1980, wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, until you get into the 2000's. Not familiar with the new gear but has a good reputation.
Rotel: Never owned any personally but any I've heard sounded great, older and newer. Seems to be a great value for the dollar.
NAD: Sound quality excellent. Build quality not so much. Some of the newer pieces are supposed to be much better. Sold it in the eighties. Probably the best sounding and least reliable brand we sold.
Last edited:
The last thing I want is go with the "least reliable" brand. Have they not cleaned up their act with their later models?
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
ggregg and I concur exactly.
bradfro
Active Member
NAD established themselves in the early 80's by making great performing amps with great designs but using cheap parts. This has worked for them, but has given them a reputation that is hard to shake. If I were looking for a brand new amp, I would look at NAD first because their new stuff is as reliable as any other. I would look at Rotel second. I've always liked Rotel equipment. 3rd would be Onkyo. This is just my opinion, but the new Marantz equipment always seems overpriced. I don't know anything about Emotiva
Thanks for the message. Someone somewhere on here said that they thought that NAD was good back in the 90's but that today Emotiva is better at a better price. I'm still reading up on the many different brands and trying to come up with a final choice. Emotriva is definitely priced better and most people who own them here on AK seem to really like them so it may be a case of NAD and Emotiva both being good and any differences in sound being very minor and really just a function of personal preference.
I owned Rotel separates back in the 90's and I thought they sounded great however, Rotel was really my first experience with HIFI so the only thing that I had to compare it to at the time was mass produced receivers purchased at the big box stores that are mostly junk by way of comparison.
For the money I don't know that I will be able to necessarily improve on the overall sound quality of Rotel gear, but since I already owned that brand I want to try something different. Word on the street is that the new Emotiva XPA Gen3 300 WPC amp is a quite nice. And at $899.00 that's a pretty good dollar per watt ratio. If I were going to pull the trigger today, that is probably the amp that I would buy.
M1chael
I have a love / hate relationship with NAD. I have owned 5 pieces and 2 of them failed just out of warranty. I also recently purchased a new NAD C356BEE integrated amp which developed issues within the first couple of days.
It should be noted that NAD has had the biggest reliability issues with surround Receivers and CD players. Both of my components where a CD player and surround receiver. (NAD T751 and NAD C541i). I have never had an issue with an integrated amp up until the C356BEE which is probably a fluke since the NAD integrated amps have been reliable from my understanding and experience.
Rotel IMO is probably a safer bet when it comes to reliability and build quality. However some may not like Rotel's slightly forward sound signature over NAD's warmer sounding signature.
I have owned 3 Onkyo products and all three died literally just outside of warranty by less than 1 month. I'm dead serious. I will never by another Onkyo product again.
It should be noted that NAD has had the biggest reliability issues with surround Receivers and CD players. Both of my components where a CD player and surround receiver. (NAD T751 and NAD C541i). I have never had an issue with an integrated amp up until the C356BEE which is probably a fluke since the NAD integrated amps have been reliable from my understanding and experience.
Rotel IMO is probably a safer bet when it comes to reliability and build quality. However some may not like Rotel's slightly forward sound signature over NAD's warmer sounding signature.
I have owned 3 Onkyo products and all three died literally just outside of warranty by less than 1 month. I'm dead serious. I will never by another Onkyo product again.
What was the issue with your C356BEE?
It would shut off after power up.
ScooterMcTav
I know less than I think
Owned all of the above (both old and new in 3) except Emotiva and I'd rank them:
Rotel
Marantz
Nad
Onkyo
The Rotel has what I can best describe as lush sound. Just full of dynamics. Both vintage and modern Marantz pieces I've had have been superb, and I currently am using a Marantz AVR in my home theatre system. Nad have a nice sound, but I have also been a victim of quality issues, found sound quality variable in 1980's models (some stellar and some ok), and was unimpressed with the last AVR I had from them. And hey, Onkyo is good too, though is a step down from the other 3. Interested to hear how the Emotiva stacks up.
That being said, I listened to a modern Marantz integrated in a sound room the other day, and was tempted to peel 900 bills out of my pocket for it.
Rotel
Marantz
Nad
Onkyo
The Rotel has what I can best describe as lush sound. Just full of dynamics. Both vintage and modern Marantz pieces I've had have been superb, and I currently am using a Marantz AVR in my home theatre system. Nad have a nice sound, but I have also been a victim of quality issues, found sound quality variable in 1980's models (some stellar and some ok), and was unimpressed with the last AVR I had from them. And hey, Onkyo is good too, though is a step down from the other 3. Interested to hear how the Emotiva stacks up.
That being said, I listened to a modern Marantz integrated in a sound room the other day, and was tempted to peel 900 bills out of my pocket for it.
ScooterMcTav
I know less than I think
Thank you, as was yours
This is interesting. I'm surprised that you put NAD that far down on the list. I've heard many opinion state that the NAD sound is superior to Rotel. Also interesting your perspective on hearing the Marantz. Some audiophiles say newer Marantz is nothing compared to their Vintage stuff.
I've owned Rotel and never had a problem with their build quality or any reliability issues. It seems many on the forum have had reliability issues with NAD. Doesn't say a lot for the brand. Since I have already owned Rotel, I am ready to try something else. Perhaps I'll have a hard time finding something else that competes sufficiently at that price point.
ScooterMcTav
I know less than I think
I've ranked NAD below Marantz for two reasons.
In my vintage pieces, the Marantz piece I've owned had been unfailingly reliable. Had a 2552b that needed a deox once the entire time I owned it. Tuner, phono stage, everything sounded wonderful on this stealthy beast of a receiver. Hated to part with it, but it was leveraged into some good sounding speakers. In comparison, I had an equivalently good sounding NAD 7400pe that lost the tuner, and had incredibly fussy switches and pots (clean multiple times a year if not used daily). Still have a NAD 7125 being used in my daughter's dance studio. Tuner dropped, intermittent speaker drop issues (at the connector), and the thing turns to pure mush when hooked up to good quality speakers.
In my modern pieces, I had a NAD 748 AVR - it's room EQ was poorly implemented, and it always sounded as it was straining. The subwoofer preout jack fell off when removing a cable. I was disappointed as it almost sounded a step down from the H/K 1600 it replaced (and it was not a great piece either). After hating it for two years, I replaced it with a Marantz SR5007, which easily surpasses it in build and sound quality. I also mentioned the sweet integrated I listened to a few weeks ago.
So my NAD experience has been mixed, it sounded good and broke, or it didn't sound that good. Marantz has always sounded good, and has not broken. Advantage Marantz.
I'd also be surprised in someone picking NAD over Rotel. I've always considered Rotel the top of the "mid-fi mass-market" brands, and it can often be found in true audio shops as their entry level. Where I live, Rotel is only available through one specialty shop. NAD can be purchased at the ghastly mass-marketer, Visions electronics. And I still have yet to see equipment (in this price range) generate the superb dynamics that Rotel does.
But as always, YMMV. Not every system produces sounds that suit all ears.
In my vintage pieces, the Marantz piece I've owned had been unfailingly reliable. Had a 2552b that needed a deox once the entire time I owned it. Tuner, phono stage, everything sounded wonderful on this stealthy beast of a receiver. Hated to part with it, but it was leveraged into some good sounding speakers. In comparison, I had an equivalently good sounding NAD 7400pe that lost the tuner, and had incredibly fussy switches and pots (clean multiple times a year if not used daily). Still have a NAD 7125 being used in my daughter's dance studio. Tuner dropped, intermittent speaker drop issues (at the connector), and the thing turns to pure mush when hooked up to good quality speakers.
In my modern pieces, I had a NAD 748 AVR - it's room EQ was poorly implemented, and it always sounded as it was straining. The subwoofer preout jack fell off when removing a cable. I was disappointed as it almost sounded a step down from the H/K 1600 it replaced (and it was not a great piece either). After hating it for two years, I replaced it with a Marantz SR5007, which easily surpasses it in build and sound quality. I also mentioned the sweet integrated I listened to a few weeks ago.
So my NAD experience has been mixed, it sounded good and broke, or it didn't sound that good. Marantz has always sounded good, and has not broken. Advantage Marantz.
I'd also be surprised in someone picking NAD over Rotel. I've always considered Rotel the top of the "mid-fi mass-market" brands, and it can often be found in true audio shops as their entry level. Where I live, Rotel is only available through one specialty shop. NAD can be purchased at the ghastly mass-marketer, Visions electronics. And I still have yet to see equipment (in this price range) generate the superb dynamics that Rotel does.
But as always, YMMV. Not every system produces sounds that suit all ears.
Pretty much a total crap shoot.
It ALL depends on the actual piece you get.
I've seen EVERYTHING fail and I've seen poor abuse beat to **** stuff work perfectly.
I prefer vintage since it actually CAN be worked on and fixed.
Remember, everything dies, eventually.
It ALL depends on the actual piece you get.
I've seen EVERYTHING fail and I've seen poor abuse beat to **** stuff work perfectly.
I prefer vintage since it actually CAN be worked on and fixed.
Remember, everything dies, eventually.
