An audition

[chebby]

I wish Marantz could address the fit and finish of their units. They feel cheap and plasticky in real life. I could live with the design but the fit and finish really needs work. When I had the Marantz stack next to the Yamaha stack in the showroom I was stunned how much better the Yamahas were. Like battle ships compared to portable toilets.

And I wasn't alone in this impression. My friend, also an audiophile, was with me and had the same reaction of disappointment. Like looking at the photos of food at McDonalds and then getting the actual food on your tray. :doh:

Soundwise they are OK, nothing to lose sleep over. Marantz is always kinda borring and sweet. There is power but you never feel like its there. I kinda liked my old 90's PM-80 mkII better, not to mention the built like a tank PM-84 or PM-94.

Saul Marantz must be turning in his grave.

My guess is that you've just caught up on the OP's earlier reference to his preference for the Marantz PM8005 over the Kandy

 

[Covenanter]

I wish Marantz could address the fit and finish of their units. They feel cheap and plasticky in real life. I could live with the design but the fit and finish really needs work. When I had the Marantz stack next to the Yamaha stack in the showroom I was stunned how much better the Yamahas were. Like battle ships compared to portable toilets.

And I wasn't alone in this impression. My friend, also an audiophile, was with me and had the same reaction of disappointment. Like looking at the photos of food at McDonalds and then getting the actual food on your tray. :doh:

Soundwise they are OK, nothing to lose sleep over. Marantz is always kinda borring and sweet. There is power but you never feel like its there. I kinda liked my old 90's PM-80 mkII better, not to mention the built like a tank PM-84 or PM-94.

Saul Marantz must be turning in his grave.

My guess is that you've just caught up on the OP's earlier reference to his preference for the Marantz PM8005 over the Kandy

:rofl:

 

[Vladimir]

My guess is that you've just caught up on the OP's earlier reference to his preference for the Marantz PM8005 over the Kandy

I'm sharing my experience from my auditions few months ago. I am a Marantz fan more than a Yamaha fan but that doesn't cloud mu judgement.

I'm an audiophile since I was 12 y/o.

 

[Vladimir]

The faceplate is plastic http://www.evmag.fr/images_audio/Marantz-PM8005/marantz-PM8005-intern.jpg. The top tin cover resonates when you tap it. Last time I saw wire links on a PCB it was a £240 Pioneer.

Compare it to its ancestors like Marantz PM-84 or 1060.

The Marantz reputation and heritage stands on build quality, fit & finish and warm unfatiguing sound. I fear the first two are getting lost in these entry level units.

 

[GCE]

Yam as 500 in direct comparison with Marantz pm 6004 shows more dry, although more diffuse

and detailed high frequencies, similar bass punch, but more fatiguing listening overall, for me.

I tested this AS 500 for a week at home , but then I changed with Marantz PM 6004 .

Yam AS 500 is a very complete amp, but doesn't meet my preferences for a warm sound

with my B&W; is a beautifull vintage looking amp, with a lot of features,

but no good vol, tone, inputs, ecc, knobs ( no ergonomic)

and a delicate front plate for fingerprints when you touch;

btw 8005 is very well built and way more ergonomic...

here some reviews and pictures of

a portable toilets >>> http://www.evmag.fr/site.php?page=audio415

http://www.whathifi.com/images_audio/Marantz-PM8005/marantz-PM8005-intern.jpg

a beautiful amp >>> http://www.roksan.co.uk/assets/2brochure-a-lite.pdf

 

[Vladimir]

Roksan Kandy K2 series is not beautiful. It's art deco odd and only an eccentric would like it. The Marantz is aimed to the general consumer and is more appealing than the Kandy, no doubt about that. Unless you are me.

As for the innards, I see no wires flying arround in the Kandy, on a single PCB, which means more efficient design with no afterthoughts. Clean and pedant, for a MOSFET amp that is quite an achievment. The Marantz just looks messy.

 

[Cypher]

Who cares for what's inside the amp ? As long as it works and the amp sounds good that's all that matters.

 

[Esra]

Who cares for what's inside the amp ? As long as it works and the amp sounds good that's all that matters.

Well I would rather have a proper na engine in my car than a maxed out downsized turbocharged 4 cylinder with even or maybe better performance than a inline six or v8.

 

[Freddy58]

Chris, would it be fair to say that the 700's were more 'open' (generally) than the 500's?

 

[CnoEvil]

Chris, would it be fair to say that the 700's were more 'open' (generally) than the 500's?

Chris will no doubt answer for himself, but I didn't find them more "open". The R700s had more scale, impact and authority, which gives music that requires these attributes, more realism....better balanced if you will, as more of the frequency range of the music is covered.

With classical music for example, it portrays a full blown orchestra with more authenticity....they are big speakers, which require a larger room than the R500s.

 

[Freddy58]

Chris, would it be fair to say that the 700's were more 'open' (generally) than the 500's?

Chris will no doubt answer for himself, but I didn't find them more "open". The R700s had more scale, impact and authority, which gives music that requires these attributes, more realism....better balanced if you will, as more of the frequency range of the music is covered.

With classical music for example, it portrays a full blown orchestra with more authenticity....they are big speakers, which require a larger room than the R500s.

That's one of my concerns, the size. My listening room is aound 14ft x 12ft, probably a bit too small?

Trouble is, I saw them in piano gloss black, they're gorgeous!

 

[CnoEvil]

Chris, would it be fair to say that the 700's were more 'open' (generally) than the 500's?

Chris will no doubt answer for himself, but I didn't find them more "open". The R700s had more scale, impact and authority, which gives music that requires these attributes, more realism....better balanced if you will, as more of the frequency range of the music is covered.

With classical music for example, it portrays a full blown orchestra with more authenticity....they are big speakers, which require a larger room than the R500s.

That's one of my concerns, the size. My listening room is aound 14ft x 12ft, probably a bit too small?

I suspect you should be alright provided you can give them room to breathe......can you get a home dem?

 

[Freddy58]

Chris, would it be fair to say that the 700's were more 'open' (generally) than the 500's?

Chris will no doubt answer for himself, but I didn't find them more "open". The R700s had more scale, impact and authority, which gives music that requires these attributes, more realism....better balanced if you will, as more of the frequency range of the music is covered.

With classical music for example, it portrays a full blown orchestra with more authenticity....they are big speakers, which require a larger room than the R500s.

That's one of my concerns, the size. My listening room is aound 14ft x 12ft, probably a bit too small?

I suspect you should be alright provided you can give them room to breathe......can you get a home dem?

Probably, yes. The thing is, as I said in my thread, I currently have the MA GX100's and KEF R300's on home demo. I'm finding that the MA's are quite bright sounding, but detail and bass are very good, whereas the KEF's are much more mellow, but in some ways easier to listen to. I tried the R500's in the shop, and they were similar to the R300's, but with greater scale, imo. A bit brighter/more open would have been perfect, hence my question.

 

[CnoEvil]

Probably, yes. The thing is, as I said in my thread, I currently have the MA GX100's and KEF R300's on home demo. I'm finding that the MA's are quite bright sounding, but detail and bass are very good, whereas the KEF's are much more mellow, but in some ways easier to listen to. I tried the R500's in the shop, and they were similar to the R300's, but with greater scale, imo. A bit brighter/more open would have been perfect, hence my question.

We all hear things slightly differently, and that combined with describing what you are hearing to someone else, means that you can't take it as gospel.

Do your dem and let us know how it goes.

 

[Freddy58]

We all hear things slightly differently, and that combined with describing what you are hearing to someone else, means that you can't take it as gospel.

Do your dem and let us know how it goes.

I'll probably try a comparison in the shop, and take it from there. Thanks for your input

 

[CnoEvil]

We all hear things slightly differently, and that combined with describing what you are hearing to someone else, means that you can't take it as gospel.

Do your dem and let us know how it goes.

I'll probably try a comparison in the shop, and take it from there. Thanks for your input

No problem......it will be interesting to see if Chris has a similar perspective.