Best for Stereo: Marantz SR8500 (home theater) or PM7000 (stereo)

[Scritch]

Hello! And thanks for any insight!

Will soon replace my 50 watt amp (Marantz NR1501) with something more appropriate for some super nice Tidal Little Piano tower speakers I recently acquired.

I'm finding two great options at low prices near me: a Marantz SR8500 AV receiver, or a PM7000 stereo integrated amplifier.

I will use the amp exclusively for listening to music through the towers and a nice 15" powered sub.

I was ready to buy the SR8500 but then read about how stereo amps can perhaps sound better than AV receivers, but wonder in this specific comparison.

What do you think will sound better?

Thank you!

 

[plastic penguin]

Hello! And thanks for any insight!

Will soon replace my 50 watt amp (Marantz NR1501) with something more appropriate for some super nice Tidal Little Piano tower speakers I recently acquired.

I'm finding two great options at low prices near me: a Marantz SR8500 AV receiver, or a PM7000 stereo integrated amplifier.

I will use the amp exclusively for listening to music through the towers and a nice 15" powered sub.

I was ready to buy the SR8500 but then read about how stereo amps can perhaps sound better than AV receivers, but wonder in this specific comparison.

What do you think will sound better?

Thank you!

Hello and welcome.

Do you have any plans to use the amp for films? If not a stereo amp is all you need. Really a multi channel receiver will play at good levels for 2 channel playback, but pointless in buying a multi channel amp if it's not being used for surround sound.

If you plump for a stereo make sure it has connectivity for a sub woofer or power amp.

What speakers do you currently use?

 

[Scritch]

Hello and welcome.

Do you have any plans to use the amp for films? If not a stereo amp is all you need. Really a multi channel receiver will play at good levels for 2 channel playback, but pointless in buying a multi channel amp if it's not being used for surround sound.

If you plump for a stereo make sure it has connectivity for a sub woofer or power amp.

What speakers do you currently use?

Thank you plastic penguin.

I'll only use the amp for music, no movies. The main reason I am considering the AV receiver is because it has so many watts/channel, quite a bit more than the stereo amp. And that model was their flagship, so presuming some higher end componentry, like it has a torroidal transformer.

About the speakers, I have a pair of Tidal Little Piano. It's a little known brand from Germany, super high-end.

 

[landco]

then read about how stereo amps can perhaps sound better than AV receivers

It is a myth. On the contrary, an AV receiver is a much more intelligent device than a traditional stereo amplifier - it has an audio processor, many fine settings, and many connection interfaces

 

[landco]

but pointless in buying a multi channel amp if it's not being used for surround sound.

You forgot that the receiver has powerful software sound correction capabilities, this is important for setting up the speaker system for the room. The sound processor works not only in multi-channel mode, but also in stereo.

 

[manicm]

You forgot that the receiver has powerful software sound correction capabilities, this is important for setting up the speaker system for the room. The sound processor works not only in multi-channel mode, but also in stereo.

With the exception of a few specialist AV amps like NAD, at the same price level AV amps will not sound as good as a stereo amp, because it's simply cheaper to achieve and tune adequate movie sound. Regardless of processing - which is biased towards movies, and is often to the detriment of stereo music playback.

Yes many AV amps come with things like Audyssey. But better options like Dirac either come in limited versions - where an additional purchase will be needed to unlock more functionality, or on higher-end AV amps.

Generally if you're only interested in stereo listening then get a stereo amp.

To the OP, on paper AV amps may appear more powerful, but at also higher rated distortion. And when using all channels that power is greatly reduced. One wonders why they don't use class D amps in AV receivers - my guess is cost.

 

[abacus]

One wonders why they don't use class D amps in AV receivers - my guess is cost.

Some do, and have done for years.

Bill

 

[12th Monkey]

Stereo every time. Assuming you have a set budget, why choose an amp with 7 or more channels of amplification when you will only use two? You won't be using all the inputs, outputs, processing software etc etc, but you'll have paid for them. The budget will be spread more thinly in an AV amp as a result.

I'm not saying AV amps can't sound good (even very good indeed), but there's a clear and logical reason why they start at a disadvantage when used for two channels alone in comparison with a similarly-priced stereo amp. So it's obviously not a myth.

 

[manicm]

Some do, and have done for years.

Bill

May you give a few examples? Just for my own knowledge. I know McIntosh has just launched a new class D multichannel integrated amp, NOT receiver - it dispenses with streaming/tuner/bluetooth etc.

 

[abacus]

It's only the entry/lower mid AV amps that have a limited music performance as there is only so much a manufacture can spend on components etc. to meet a price point.
Room correction is great to finish off the sound, but Audessy is one of the worst out there, requiring masses of manual adjustment to get a passable result.
If the stereo amp has a rec In/Out, or separate pre out/power in, then you can get external Dirac units for room correction.

Bill

 

[abacus]

May you give a few examples? Just for my own knowledge. I know McIntosh has just launched a new class D multichannel integrated amp, NOT receiver - it dispenses with streaming/tuner/bluetooth etc.

Off the top of my head, Pioneer & NAD stick out, although there are others.

Bill

 

[landco]

With the exception of a few specialist AV amps like NAD, at the same price level AV amps will not sound as good as a stereo amp, because it's simply cheaper to achieve and tune adequate movie sound. Regardless of processing - which is biased towards movies, and is often to the detriment of stereo music playback.

You are simply repeating audiophile myths that a receiver is worse than a stereo amplifier. The level of distortion is below the hearing threshold, the power is sufficient for any household tasks, especially since the low-frequency section (subwoofer) has its own amplifier.

Signal processing in a sound processor does not harm sound reproduction if configured correctly. The main source of sound problems in home audio is the room, not the amplifier. Correcting the shortcomings of your room using a parametric equalizer, which is Audyssey, Dirac, etc., is an effective way to improve the sound.

 

[landco]

Stereo every time. Assuming you have a set budget, why choose an amp with 7 or more channels of amplification when you will only use two?

As I already said, the main advantage of the receiver is the presence of a Dirac-type sound processor. Of course, you can buy a stereo amplifier with a built-in sound processor, but such a product usually costs more.

 

[12th Monkey]

Because they are usually (though not exclusively) higher end. But with customary certainty you seem to be ignoring the disadvantages...

 

[landco]

higher end

This is a marketing concept, not a technical one.

 

[plastic penguin]

Thank you plastic penguin.

I'll only use the amp for music, no movies. The main reason I am considering the AV receiver is because it has so many watts/channel, quite a bit more than the stereo amp. And that model was their flagship, so presuming some higher end componentry, like it has a torroidal transformer.

About the speakers, I have a pair of Tidal Little Piano. It's a little known brand from Germany, super high-end.

Personally, as @12th Monkey correctly pointed out, it's pointless buying any amp that has features you are not going to use. I wouldn't buy any amp with a built-in phono stage if I didn't have vinyl.

Room correction facility I wouldn't bother with if the speakers are a good match with the amp.

Regarding watts, if the stereo amp has a pure current it's how it delivers. My 80 watt amp powers a 4 ohm and 86db speakers without any issue.

If you are UK-based pop into dealers such as Richer Sounds and test your theory.

 

[plastic penguin]

You forgot that the receiver has powerful software sound correction capabilities, this is important for setting up the speaker system for the room. The sound processor works not only in multi-channel mode, but also in stereo.

Why would you need great software with a stereo amp? I've never relied on such facilities.

 

[12th Monkey]

This is a marketing concept, not a technical one.

Are you suggesting that all products sound the same, regardless of budget? Perhaps using the term high end wasn't appropriate, but surely you don't believe that a bigger budget can't provide at least some benefits (assuming the buyer chooses carefully)?

 

[daytona600]

Marantz make 2 channel AV receivers

STEREO 70s - Slimline Stereo Receiver with 75W, 8K and 6 HDMI Inputs | Marantz - UK

Slimline Stereo Receiver with 75W, 8K and 6 HDMI Inputs

www.marantz.com

 

[manicm]

Marantz make 2 channel AV receivers

STEREO 70s - Slimline Stereo Receiver with 75W, 8K and 6 HDMI Inputs | Marantz - UK

Slimline Stereo Receiver with 75W, 8K and 6 HDMI Inputs

www.marantz.com

This is nothing new, Yamaha et al are doing it. But I have been looking at it. Also note its 2 channel power is greater than its multichannel sibling - the Cinema 70s. No guesses which will sound better in 2 channel, ain't it so???

 

[landco]

I've never relied on such facilities.

This is a big mistake.

 

[12th Monkey]

In your (less than humble!) opinion. If he's happy with how his system sounds, it's utterly irrelevant what anyone else thinks, or whether it could be more accurate from a technical perspective.

 

[Al ears]

This is a big mistake.

In your opinion, it would seem. If he doesn't need these facilities it is senseless to pay for them.

 

[landco]

In your opinion, it would seem. If he doesn't need these facilities it is senseless to pay for them.

I have the impression that you did not read my previous comment about the importance of the influence of the room on the sound, and about the means of correcting these shortcomings

 

[daytona600]

This is nothing new, Yamaha et al are doing it. But I have been looking at it. Also note its 2 channel power is greater than its multichannel sibling - the Cinema 70s. No guesses which will sound better in 2 channel, ain't it so???

#Marantz do make bigger ones 15.4 channel monster
for stereo 2 will suffice
#