home theater processor suggestions?

I will see if i can audition the marantz.

thanks
Bill

Really, check out the Marantz AV7005. Read the reviews. Check with a local dealer. See if you can take one home to audition. The products in the Marantz line that use their HDAM modules are price/performance overachievers.

Oh, and the AV7005 has balanced outputs and all the lossless surround decoding schemes your 2003 AV receiver does not.

Thanks for the suggestion but i was looking for the balanced outs and the anthem p5 has true balanced inputs.

thank you for the suggestion though,
Bill

Cerrot,

Bill already has a multichannel amp(Anthem P5) so he really only needs a pre/pro ala NAD T187 but neither has balanced connections which is one of his requirements. But I do agree with the NAD receiver(I think you meant T785) if he was doing a one box solution. I still own the mid 2000's predecessor T773 and it is a 52.8 pound behemoth receiver with dual toroidal transformers and a seperates-like amp section.

With a powerful amp like the Anthem Statement P5, I think the wonderful onboard amps of the T785 would be wasted sitting idle.

Bill

Ill look into it.

Barnowski, take a listen to the NAD AV receiver, T875. totally blows away marantz, onkyo, pioneer elite (I had the same AV receiver as you). $3,000 and that was all I needed. If you want top of the line performance for a not top of the line price, this is the ticket.

Kennyt - can you give some more details? My limited experience (Yamaha) is that room correction is applied to the pre-outs. I believe that typically the pre-outs are just the signal that goes to the on-board amps.

I would warn you also about using a receiver as a pre/pro as some/many do not use room correction for their preamp outputs.....

Sorry, it does not have XLR connections.

Bill

I can not seem to find much information on the nad. does it have all the requirements that i have listed at the op?

also, i.understand the possible difference in sound that a processor would have do to there not being an amp that would add heat to the circuits. if i just use the pre outs on my elite there would not be heat either.... would that make the sound better since there is not heat in there now either?

Bill,

I can't say enough about how pleased I am with NAD gear especially my new T175HD preamp/processor. Very musical with 2-channel and multichannel audio(SACD's and BD concerts) and wonderful detail and channel seperation with movies. IMO, a very neutral sound signature.

http://app.audiogon.com/listings/nad-t175hd-preamp-processor-with-manufacturer-s-warranty--8

My T175HD is a factory refurb like the one in the link and it has performed flawlessly.

Bill

Johnnyb53 - I use 2 Yamaha receivers as pre-amps. They are both noted for running hot as receivers, but as pre-amps, they run very cool. That begs the question as to how much influence the power amps and transformers have on the sound when using the pre-outs. I agree with you in principle, but I think it really depends on how the power sections work when using pre-outs. My guess is that the design of the pre-amp sections and the room correction will be more important than the power amps on the Pioneer. But, I am not sure you can really tell the effect of the power amps, unless the Pioneer outperforms the Marantz, which would be a real surprise.

Pioneer Elite has the reputation of being bright, but that may come from the power amps. Marantz typically is a more balanced sound. But again it depends on the pre-amp section of the Pioneer. You'll probably hear more of a difference with 2 channel music than with movies. I would use that as a comparison, even if you primarily use the system for movies. The room correction may also make a difference. Good luck.

08-04-12: Baranowski
I guess i need to get my hands on the marantz to listen to it. i would assume that i would have to hear a difference between it and my elite. the both decode the same and both have room correction... i just wonder will i notice a difference at all.

Given that the Marantz doesn't have the Pioneer's 7x130w amplification onboard with its attendant large transformer and the vibration and heat such a power section would generate, I'd be *really* surprised if the Marantz doesn't sound significantly cleaner with a lower noise floor. If my audition of Marantz's giant-killing PM8004 integrated amp is any indication, I suspect that the HDAM-equipped Marantz components have a leg up on the competition as far as clean gain, clarity, bandwidth, and s/n ratio, all of which translate into cleaner sound, better low level detail, and wider dynamic range. I'll be interested to read what you find out.

I guess i need to get my hands on the marantz to listen to it. i would assume that i would have to hear a difference between it and my elite. the both decode the same and both have room correction... i just wonder will i notice a difference at all.

thanks again,
bill

Thank you. i guess beside the anthem those are the other choices.

Here's Kr4's review of the Marantz AV7005 in Stereophile and here's Mike Fremer's review for Home Theater.

8' is a short connection and there should be no advantage for XLR.

My pre to my amp is 8 foot rca, shelded. my biggest upgrade was the p5 amp that i got used at an amazing low price. what set off all of the upgrading was the purchase of the b&w 804"s" and htm4"s". now i was thinking about the processor but so far i am not all that impressed with what is out there.

is 8 foot shelded rca bested by xlr?

The balanced/XLR connection is great at noise rejection. If you are doing longer runs, balanced connections are the way to go. If you have very short runs from your processor to the amp, then you will be just fine with RCA (unbalanced) runs. Picking up noise on the cables depends on a number of factors including where you live.

From all the posts, it sounds like you're planning a big upgrade to your system.

Besides the xlr connection what will i be gaining?
what exactly does the xlr provide over rca connections?

Baranowski,

Anthem, Marantz, and Integra are the likely units for you to narrow down to. The Anthem out of the box has the best room correction. The Integra will be on par if you upgrade to Audyssey pro. Marantz has the older Audyssey. I haven't seen reviews or heard the emotiva to comment. I use an a-100 emotiva amp for my zone2 audio. It's just fine but no experience other than that. I have had Anthem pre-pros for years and I love the 2-channel and multichannel capabilities. Kal has reviewed both the Anthem and Integra in Stereophile and Michael Fremmer has reviewed the Marantz. All get high marks for audio. My hunch tells me that the Anthem (i admit my bias) and then the Integra are probably a class above, but I haven't heard the Integra or Marantz to be able to tell you definitively either way.

Would the sound be a step up from what i am running now?

The Anthem MRX line delivers much of the performance of their dedicated processors at a much lower price point. I use the MRX300 as a pre/pro. No XLR though. Great piece for $1k.

Perhaps a used/refurbished/"B"stock Integra 80.2 or Onkyo 5508? Fits all your needs, afaik, and might be attractively priced. Current models, 80.3 or 5509, might be available advantageously if their successors are announced at CEDIA.

Thoughts or suggestions?

I am currently running a pioneer elite 92 txh but just using the rca (no xlr ) pre outs.... how would the marantz or onkyo match up to it? am i really missing out not using the xlr?

thanks
Bill

07-29-12: Sidssp
Marantz AV7005

This, $1599 list. Even Outlaw Audio gave up trying to come up with a good
follow-up pre/pro and simply sell the Marantz AV7005 as their top line HT
pre/pro. The Onkyo PR-SC5508 pre/pro cost $600 more at $2199.

The Marantz's exclusive HDAM feature seems to give it some advantages in
the areas of bandwidth (10-100KHz) and therefore rise time (translating into
clarity) and very low noise. S/N ratio is 102-105 dB. Low noise is essential to
good dialog clarity.

I am defiantly not in the 30k range... i am really looking for the performance of an anthem statement d2v or mva 50v at a lower cost.

thanks again
Bill

I also would be wary of the Emotiva, they don't have a history of making a good processor, quite the contrary! Most of theirs don't work right at all!

The D2v and AVM50v are good units, the Marantz is nice for a lower price, if you have the funds you can go to the Meridian models but they use a two box solution now, Krell makes some great ones (wish I still had my Evo 707!) but it costs $30k.

I think for now technology has sort of settled out and almost ever processor has replaceable HDMI boards so they can be updated (I did this with my Classe SSP-800) so they do hold value much better than before....

I would be wary of the emotiva, I owned their umc 1 and it never worked right despite numerous software upgrades, their amps are a great value, but I would definitely avoid their prepro's.

I 2nd the Emotiva recommendation. They have a new prepro due out very soon, the XMC-1, that has everything you need. And the projected price, $1595, makes it the best deal out there. Google it...

-RW-

I'm seeing a lot of interest in the Emotiva products these days. I'm going to give them a go in the Home Theatre room in our new place that's under construction. I've auditioned most of the dominant brands and can't see spending thousands when the technology is moving so fast. Seems to me that the goals are somewhat different between a serious 2 chan system and the 5.1/7.1 arrangements that I've seen. If a person has the luxury of separate rooms for each, I'd say spend the big $$$ on 2 chan and look for best 'bang-for-the-buck' A/V and be willing to flex as the technology matures.

I run a blu ray player to my processor via hdmi.
i then run from my processor to my front projector via hdmi.
nothing else so all digital.

i want to run xlr instead of rca from my processor to my amp.

hope that is more clear. sorry for not putting that in my original post.

Bill

Marantz AV7005.

What do you mean you plan on running digital out?

Also, you say you don't need analog input, but you need XLR? You need to explain.