Marantz versus Denon

Buy the Onkyo 805. I does it all and with great sound.

The Marantz8001 does have the Audyssey circuit. As does the Onkyo 805 which may the best of three from early reports, and a lot less expensive than the Marantz. I looked at Arcam but passed on it due to a number of people describing it has having the dry English sound. Something I would rather avoid.

Blockerbrothers is correct. If you are after audio and video performance the Arcam 350 is the one to beat according to the Hi-Fi reviews.

Oppo's new player will be able to send dsd and dvda via hdmi.

Nobody mentioned the Marantz SR8001 has a toroidal transformer vs. the standard-issue power supply unit in the 4306. I don't know if that's what made the difference, but the Marantz had a much easier time providing great dynamics with hard-to-drive speakers.

I performed a direct comparison between the two and the Marantz, subjectively, had a much more dynamic sound. As far as bells and whistles go, I haven't compared the 4306 and the 8001 specifically, since they are in different price ranges where I live.

However, compared with the 3806, the SR8001 was somewhat equal, with some advantages and some drawbacks, the main one being no real way to send DVD-Audio and SACD signals digitally to the 8001, whereas the 3806 has a Denon Link input. You do have to use an expensive Denon DVD player to use that feature.

Thanks--the local Marantz dealer is going to let me demo the SR8001 for a few days in my living room.

I liked Denon more than the Marantz.

Personally, having sold both lines over the years, and having owned products from both, I perfer the Denon line as a whole. You mix that with the Audyssey MultEQ in the Denon's, the anouncement of 1.3 HDMI capability, and the warm, full bodied sound of the Denon, and I think it's hard to go wrong...as far as receivers go, personally.

The Marantz is better for audio is my opinion as well. Also, the Marantz warranty is 3 years.

Blockerbrothers wrote: I had the Denon 4306 and now have the AVR350 and the differences as far as HT processing and audio in general are not subtle!

Could you describe the differences. I doubt you could compare any 2 AVRs and *NOT* have a difference.

/Lokie/ did describe the differences, though briefly, but sufficient for me.

I have a new 4306 and am very content. I know there are other options, though I am just curious what the perceptions are. The speaker pairing is also important if the amp is being judged on sonics. to put my comments in context, I have a very neutral set of tetras on my 4306. I mostly listen to music in 2.1 (though) have a 5.1 set up.

I had the Maranzt SR 7000 and enjoyed it thouroughly. I went to seperates and decided to go back to one box. I ended up w a Underwood Modified Denon 3806 for around $2000. The feature set on the 3806 was perfect for what I needed and the sonics, after the mod, are surprisingly good. I used this reciever for my two channel pre for a couple of years and was compleltely happy. I had a Mac stereo amp for the left and right fronts and the amps in the reciever for the center and the two backs. I zoned the remaining amps to the outdoor speakers on my back porch and to inwall speakers in the kitchen.
Sonically I think both are pretty close w the Marantz maybe a touch warmer and the Denon a little more dynamic. That's a generalization so take that w a grain of salt (I haven't heard the specific models you mentioned).

If your after all the toy's, get the Denon. As far as one box solutions go they are hard to beat.

The Marantz 8001 is a great receiver also and if you spend more time listening to music then you do watching movies, it may be worth a look. The best thing to do if at all possible is to try them both.

My best suggestion would be to spend a little more and get the Arcam AVR350 and even the older AVR300. Not as many bells and whistles as the two mentioned above but both of the Arcam's are in a different class all together. I had the Denon 4306 and now have the AVR350 and the differences as far as HT processing and audio in general are not subtle!