marsilians
Well-Known Member
I think even 70-75db will cause damage over a extended periods. so be careful on that respect too.
CA 640V2 VS Marantz PM7003
- Thread starter Sumit
- Start date
I think even 70-75db will cause damage over a extended periods. so be careful on that respect too.
well if your main issue is that your marantz runs out of steam (and assuming that the marantz stereo will be similar in characteristics to that of your avr) then its a safe option that you could lean towards the marantz for your upgrade. in saying that if you can, go out and listen to your other options. many a time we think that we like something due to not knowing better. its happened to me as well. as for the mp3 music, its a recording quality issue - nothing to do with your amp. you'll need to look at other options to sort this out
are u sure the price of CA640v2 is 28k taught it was like 23k.
anyway about av recievers vs integrated amplifier,yes the difference is night and day.notice the power consumption of integrated amplifier like lets say CA640Av2 consumes a max of 515 watts it can output only 75watts @8ohms x 2channels where as the CA340R a/v reciever consumes only 650watts of power and has to give 80watts x 2channel or 50watts x 5channels@8ohms and additionaly tuner+decoder+lcd display also consumer power.so the integrated amplifier consumes lots of power and can give power to speakers continously and have much better transformer compared to AV recievers.
anyway about av recievers vs integrated amplifier,yes the difference is night and day.notice the power consumption of integrated amplifier like lets say CA640Av2 consumes a max of 515 watts it can output only 75watts @8ohms x 2channels where as the CA340R a/v reciever consumes only 650watts of power and has to give 80watts x 2channel or 50watts x 5channels@8ohms and additionaly tuner+decoder+lcd display also consumer power.so the integrated amplifier consumes lots of power and can give power to speakers continously and have much better transformer compared to AV recievers.
psychotropic
Well-Known Member
Let me clarify what i meant. An I have gone through that AVR v. Amp thread, and I am restating the points put forward by cranky and Asit on that thread.
The fundamental logic is this. A 5.1 channel receiver that costs (say) 15,000 bucks will have far inferior components than a 2 channel amplifier that costs (say) 35,000 (i am taking this large gap to account for minor variations). Inferior does not mean crappy, it just means less good.
I am company X, i need to build two things, an AVR and a Stereo Amp. In my AVR i have to put in technology to amplify 6 channels, technology to decode 6 channels, handle video and audio (including licensing fees to be paid to companies like Dolby Labs), scads of inputs and outputs and connections. IN my stereo amp i need to put in technology to amplify two channels, and some inputs, and two speaker outs.
I agree that pricing has multiple factors going into it, but a Marantz would be stupid to put the same amplification technology into a 5.1 AVR at 15k, as the stereo amp at 35k, and this will without doubt be reflected in the sound. Marantz has to spend a good chunk of that cost of that 15k AVR on things other than amplification, whereas a larger chunk of the cost of 35k amp can be spent purely on amplification. Would anyone ream of suggesting that in such a scenario, marantz would use similar amplification technology in both?
I've heard the SR5001 but not the PM7003, but with the information that I have now, I can bet my shirt that the PM7003 will do a significantly better job of 2-channel sound reproduction than the SR5001 and that the PM7003 will have superior components on the inside.
If it did not work this way, then why the heck would anyone spend the premium to buy a PM7003??? Everyone should buy the SR5001, listen to stereo music on it and laugh at people who've spent anything more on a stereo amp.
Like I said, "inferior" i didn't mean crappy....i just meant less good...so while a marantz may not be stupid enough to put crappy technology in the SR5001, they would also not be stupid enough to put technology that features in their significantly more expensive products....so the technology inside the SR5001 will no doubt be good, but the technology (and therefore the sound) in the PM7003 will be superior.
The fundamental logic is this. A 5.1 channel receiver that costs (say) 15,000 bucks will have far inferior components than a 2 channel amplifier that costs (say) 35,000 (i am taking this large gap to account for minor variations). Inferior does not mean crappy, it just means less good.
I am company X, i need to build two things, an AVR and a Stereo Amp. In my AVR i have to put in technology to amplify 6 channels, technology to decode 6 channels, handle video and audio (including licensing fees to be paid to companies like Dolby Labs), scads of inputs and outputs and connections. IN my stereo amp i need to put in technology to amplify two channels, and some inputs, and two speaker outs.
I agree that pricing has multiple factors going into it, but a Marantz would be stupid to put the same amplification technology into a 5.1 AVR at 15k, as the stereo amp at 35k, and this will without doubt be reflected in the sound. Marantz has to spend a good chunk of that cost of that 15k AVR on things other than amplification, whereas a larger chunk of the cost of 35k amp can be spent purely on amplification. Would anyone ream of suggesting that in such a scenario, marantz would use similar amplification technology in both?
I've heard the SR5001 but not the PM7003, but with the information that I have now, I can bet my shirt that the PM7003 will do a significantly better job of 2-channel sound reproduction than the SR5001 and that the PM7003 will have superior components on the inside.
If it did not work this way, then why the heck would anyone spend the premium to buy a PM7003??? Everyone should buy the SR5001, listen to stereo music on it and laugh at people who've spent anything more on a stereo amp.
Like I said, "inferior" i didn't mean crappy....i just meant less good...so while a marantz may not be stupid enough to put crappy technology in the SR5001, they would also not be stupid enough to put technology that features in their significantly more expensive products....so the technology inside the SR5001 will no doubt be good, but the technology (and therefore the sound) in the PM7003 will be superior.
psychotropic
Well-Known Member
oh absolutely.....i am nowhere near suggesting that the improvement in quality you get is worth the difference in price.....it most usually is not....all i am saying is that it's there!!
Oh sure, it's the principle of diminishing returns.
I have a Nad c325bee amp bought a couple of years ago for about 25K. I also do have a 20 year old HK amp (HK6300) which cost me just under 1K German Marks in 1989. I'd think the HK to be equivalent to a modern amp around 70K. Although the nad and the HK have very different sound signatures, you clearly see improvements in the HK with respect to transparency and cleanliness of the sound, more dynamic headroom (the HK can provide currents upto 38 Amps). But then, you can ask if the improvement would be worth the price difference?
Actually, if you look at my recent amp thread, you will find that my objective was to determine what is the minimum I need to spend if I want significant improvement over my Nad amp. Now after so much of discussion, my budget is around 1L for the new amp. Well, I can probably get something around 75K (like the Arcam FMJ A 28 or Roksan Candy L III) to see some significant improvement (just like my HK), but if I keep a greater flexibility of my future speaker update (speakers are also 20 years old) and so on in mind, it's better if I spend at least around a lakh.
So now you see, you got to believe that it takes a lot to upgrade all these amps upto say about 30-35K. In fact, dinyaar in my amp thread recently wrote that even if somebody has a budget of 10L, he starts with some compromises. Call me mad or a maniac, I have decided to make this 'upgrade' with an expenditure of around 1L.
Comparing an AVR and a stereo amp is also a similar story. It's actually true that, contrary to what Venkat has said above, a stereo amp would have more expensive components especially with respect to the power supply and would be a more careful with respect to isolation of channels and EM interference, it's ultimately a very personal decision and also something that people develop tastes of with time.
That's why even in that AVR vs AMP thread I told magma to make his own decision based on his taste and budget, although my recommendation for music would always be a stereo amp. I even watch movies in it, and although I do not get the surround effect, I get the bass slam because my speakers go down to 22 Hz. But for many people, for whom movies are very important, my arrangement would be a serious compromise. That's why I understand (but myself would not want to follow the path) what Venkat wants to convey in many of his posts, he is perhaps ready to make the compromise the other way because you get only incremental benefits with more money and the 2-channel music can be 'good enough' if you were careful enough to select a decent AVR in the first place.
I have a Nad c325bee amp bought a couple of years ago for about 25K. I also do have a 20 year old HK amp (HK6300) which cost me just under 1K German Marks in 1989. I'd think the HK to be equivalent to a modern amp around 70K. Although the nad and the HK have very different sound signatures, you clearly see improvements in the HK with respect to transparency and cleanliness of the sound, more dynamic headroom (the HK can provide currents upto 38 Amps). But then, you can ask if the improvement would be worth the price difference?
Actually, if you look at my recent amp thread, you will find that my objective was to determine what is the minimum I need to spend if I want significant improvement over my Nad amp. Now after so much of discussion, my budget is around 1L for the new amp. Well, I can probably get something around 75K (like the Arcam FMJ A 28 or Roksan Candy L III) to see some significant improvement (just like my HK), but if I keep a greater flexibility of my future speaker update (speakers are also 20 years old) and so on in mind, it's better if I spend at least around a lakh.
So now you see, you got to believe that it takes a lot to upgrade all these amps upto say about 30-35K. In fact, dinyaar in my amp thread recently wrote that even if somebody has a budget of 10L, he starts with some compromises. Call me mad or a maniac, I have decided to make this 'upgrade' with an expenditure of around 1L.
Comparing an AVR and a stereo amp is also a similar story. It's actually true that, contrary to what Venkat has said above, a stereo amp would have more expensive components especially with respect to the power supply and would be a more careful with respect to isolation of channels and EM interference, it's ultimately a very personal decision and also something that people develop tastes of with time.
That's why even in that AVR vs AMP thread I told magma to make his own decision based on his taste and budget, although my recommendation for music would always be a stereo amp. I even watch movies in it, and although I do not get the surround effect, I get the bass slam because my speakers go down to 22 Hz. But for many people, for whom movies are very important, my arrangement would be a serious compromise. That's why I understand (but myself would not want to follow the path) what Venkat wants to convey in many of his posts, he is perhaps ready to make the compromise the other way because you get only incremental benefits with more money and the 2-channel music can be 'good enough' if you were careful enough to select a decent AVR in the first place.
square_wave
Well-Known Member
I do not understand why sometimes people compare a budget AVR to a quality stereo amp in the first place.
Both are designed for a different purpose.
One can make lots of clear sound. The other can make music. These are two different animals. Making clear sound is easy and inexpensive. Making music is expensive.
Both are designed for a different purpose.
One can make lots of clear sound. The other can make music. These are two different animals. Making clear sound is easy and inexpensive. Making music is expensive.
lol. this puts the argument in perspective
Gentlemen, a little pause please. If you read all my postings, I have repeatedly said that a two channel amplifier cannot be compared to an AVR, and that when it comes to pure music, a CDP plus a two channel amplifier will beat the hell out of an AVR any day. When audio and video is combined, audio is invariable relegated to second position as the eye is more immediate and reactive.
I have always maintained this position, and whenever somebody gets confused, I try to reason with the person to move towards two channel amplification if his leanings are more towards music. Nobody can deny that a well constructed 2 channel amp has circuitry and parts designed to optimize the delivery of music. I have never said that an AVR and a two channel amp have similar designs for amplification.
Personally for me, music and HT are completely independent.
My only arguments (if you may call it that) for AVRs are that it is wrong to say that the internal parts are bad and that they cannot deliver music at all. Yes, as you say, when you listen to music on an AVR you are making a compromise, just as you make a compromise when you see a movie on a two channel system. One of the main reasons AVRs are inexpensive is that they have a larger market. Again, that does not mean they are comparable to a two channel system from the same manufacturer for delivery of music.
If HT and AVRs had not become so popular, you would yet be looking at AVRs costing $10,000 or more. If you see the specification of budget AVRs today (such as room correction, THX etc.) these were restricted to the flag ship models just a few years ago. Why? simply because an AVR around 1000$ has become a commodity item today and sells in huge numbers. It is simply market economics that is driving the prices of these units. Manufacturers sell more and make more profit, They spend more on design and add newer features year after year.
But, remember, there are a lots of people out there who cannot identify the subtle nuances of music the way you and I may do. When someone, after my initial postings, leans towards an AVR as he wants to have the 'best' of both worlds, I try to advise on the best available options suiting his requirement and budget.
AGAIN, you will never see me saying that an AVR will deliver music as well as a two channel system. Similarly, when a person is interested in only music, you will never see me recommending an AVR.
I have never compared an AVR to a stereo amp, leave alone a budget to a quality one. All I have been saying is that if your leaning is towards movies, and you 'also' want to listen to music, you need not despair.
My question to all of you is this. Should we enclose ourselves into a small group of people who shoo away others who always wants to enjoy music? Should we tell them either spend this amount or you are dammed, or should we open out hearts and welcome them and help them the best way we can?
This confusion is not only in HiFiVision. It is all over the world. Read the following articles, where Stereophile is increasingly under pressure to review music deliver by multi-channel systems.
Stereophile: Home Theater <I>vs</I> High-End Audio
Stereophile: Home Theater <I>vs</I> High-End Audio
I think Corey Greenberg says this very well indeed and I quote, "All it takes is this first listen to a really good system to awaken the general public to the virtues of high-end audiosomething the High End has traditionally been largely unable to do. Home Theater is bringing new potential customers into the tent, and anyone in the High Endwhether a dealer, manufacturer, or magazinewho ignores this growing consumer segment has got his or her head in the sand".
Let us widen our arms and welcome more people to the beauty of music.
Cheers
moserw
New Member
Disclaimer - I am not talking about multi-channel AVR vs. Stereo here. Only talking about the links Venkatji has provided.
Makes for very interesting reading Venkatji. Totally agree with Corey Greenberg. Ken Gould (pardon me everyone I mean no offense) comes across as the record executive who is worried he is losing his millions because of MP3s, torrents and illegal d/l, and what he says just does not strike a chord. I mean all the guy talks of is high-end and selling to the high-end customer as evidenced in his statement "The continued vitality of our industry relies upon a delicate "music triangle" of high-end designers, high-end stores, and high-end listeners". What about the common guy? Just because he is poor does not mean he should not listen to music right?
If anything innovation is taking place in the area of the Home Theater. From Dolby Digital to DTS-HD MA it has been growing and that's why its winning one can say. The audio industry has not bettered the Red Book format, if going by audiophiles even the Red Book is no good with the LP being better. Yes, I have heard of SACD, DVD-Audio, etc. but tell me where are they mainstream and affordable to the common man. On the other hand in a year or so Blu-Ray will be mainstream, will be common and will be affordable too. So what has the audio industry done that they should continue wanting to rake in their millions. All they give is the same 2-channel sound at 16-bit that is sampled at 44,100 Hz. Have they even tried to better/improve on this? Nah, instead the guys want to make better equipment (make that more expensive equipment) that plays the same old format and yet want to charge us more. The PC/Software industry is better with at least trying out oversampling, going with 24-bit, etc. My vote is all for the Home Theater segment, at least they are improving going from stereo to 5.1 to 7.1 to even 11.2 and for sure I'll part with my money for such innovation.
Makes for very interesting reading Venkatji. Totally agree with Corey Greenberg. Ken Gould (pardon me everyone I mean no offense) comes across as the record executive who is worried he is losing his millions because of MP3s, torrents and illegal d/l, and what he says just does not strike a chord. I mean all the guy talks of is high-end and selling to the high-end customer as evidenced in his statement "The continued vitality of our industry relies upon a delicate "music triangle" of high-end designers, high-end stores, and high-end listeners". What about the common guy? Just because he is poor does not mean he should not listen to music right?
If anything innovation is taking place in the area of the Home Theater. From Dolby Digital to DTS-HD MA it has been growing and that's why its winning one can say. The audio industry has not bettered the Red Book format, if going by audiophiles even the Red Book is no good with the LP being better. Yes, I have heard of SACD, DVD-Audio, etc. but tell me where are they mainstream and affordable to the common man. On the other hand in a year or so Blu-Ray will be mainstream, will be common and will be affordable too. So what has the audio industry done that they should continue wanting to rake in their millions. All they give is the same 2-channel sound at 16-bit that is sampled at 44,100 Hz. Have they even tried to better/improve on this? Nah, instead the guys want to make better equipment (make that more expensive equipment) that plays the same old format and yet want to charge us more. The PC/Software industry is better with at least trying out oversampling, going with 24-bit, etc. My vote is all for the Home Theater segment, at least they are improving going from stereo to 5.1 to 7.1 to even 11.2 and for sure I'll part with my money for such innovation.
square_wave
Well-Known Member
I agree in principle to the good intentions in your post Venkat.
But Horses for courses
Even people into Multi-channel music do not use an AVR for doing it. If music is priority, they go for separates. A multichannel power amp and a pre/processor. I know seasoned audiophile/music lover in Bangalore who is a multi channel music lover with a super expensive Theta pre/processor and multichannel amplifiers. While listening to 2-channel music, he switches to a stereo tube preamp. Mix and match clearly do not work unless you are ready for compromises.
Moserw The common man also is taken care of. All you have to do is open your mind to small niche manufacturers who are there in all countries. They are low cost but high quality. From my experience and also discussion with people who have been into this for ages, it is these small (often a bit eccentric) designers who can give you far better stuff than these super hi-end, glossy, glam, boutique brands who fuel these useless magazines.
Your vote is for the home theatre segment because your priority is home theatre
But Horses for courses
Even people into Multi-channel music do not use an AVR for doing it. If music is priority, they go for separates. A multichannel power amp and a pre/processor. I know seasoned audiophile/music lover in Bangalore who is a multi channel music lover with a super expensive Theta pre/processor and multichannel amplifiers. While listening to 2-channel music, he switches to a stereo tube preamp. Mix and match clearly do not work unless you are ready for compromises.
Moserw The common man also is taken care of. All you have to do is open your mind to small niche manufacturers who are there in all countries. They are low cost but high quality. From my experience and also discussion with people who have been into this for ages, it is these small (often a bit eccentric) designers who can give you far better stuff than these super hi-end, glossy, glam, boutique brands who fuel these useless magazines.
Your vote is for the home theatre segment because your priority is home theatre
Last edited:
moserw
New Member
Your vote is for the home theatre segment because your priority is home theatre
Not really. I listen to music anywhere from 6 to 10 hours a day. In fact prior to marriage would have it blasting all through the night too even when asleep (sadly not anymore). Might watch a movie or max 2 a week and those too mainly for the sound FX and not really the PQ (even here sound is important is what I am alluding to).
Even I believe in separates and know for sure that you cannot enjoy music on a multi-channel AVR hence have separate units for music and movies.
This I don't agree with. If anything I've had a lot of mid-fi units that had an integrated amp, AM/FM Tuner, Tape and also a CD player thrown in, but these were never low cost high quality. The high quality also were high cost and I've used such high-end CDPs too. No offense here so please don't take any, but if you can give pointers to any such low cost high quality units please do, cause enough guys on this very forum are looking for such setups/units but not able to find any. I can make lots of recommendations for HT systems for most budgets if not all, but I'm at a loss when it comes to music especially for those with a limited budget. In the HT segment lots of entry level systems exist which give very good bang for the buck and give a great experience to those who are starting out in the HT segment like the Philips 4750, Onkyo 3100/3105 all under 20K as any user of these entry level HT units will vouch for. No way a unit with speakers/amp/player i.e. an all inclusive package even exists for the audiophile or even a non-audiophile but music lover. Even for units that cost up to 50K you can just forget about the sound quality. In the HT segment these under 20K units compare very well against others and at 50K enough "separates HTIBs" exist which will rock just about everybody's boat.
Your vote is for the home theatre segment because your priority is home theatre
Once again my vote is for the HT segment because -
1. They are innovating and growing from SD to HD and from plain old stereo to DTS-HD Master Audio. No such thing with the audio club!
2. The HT segment is reaching out to new people and looking to add new members by at least churning out entry level HTIBs. Nintendo too did this with the Wii and look how they were rewarded. The Wii absolutely beat both the PS3 and XBOX by huge margins and only because they reached out with a $250 system. What's more my dad, my sister and my wife play games on the Wii and enjoy them i.e. new additions to the gamers club. The HT segment too is doing something like this and getting rewarded. Almost everyday someone on this forum buys an entry level HT system and I can bet he's hooked to the HT system for life. As time goes on he/she will graduate up the ladder and go in for higher end systems in the HT segment. I see the music industry headed the other way. They don't have any entry level offerings so how will newcomers come in and get hooked. If anything like all record executives say music is dying and only digital content that will be played on the PC will remain. No more CDs and no more h/w that goes into playing a CD. I can only guess how things will be say 20 years from now.
i think its more of a personal preference than anything else. so all arguments, from its own perspective, would be correct. for instance i lean heavily towards stereo and dont mind compromising on ht. there are others that see it the other way around. what would be ideal would be to have separate dedicated set ups each for ht and stereo. but ideal is not always realistic. theres always a compromise. i for one wont give an inch of space from stereo to ht
when we recommend set ups to new users, each of our own personalities / preferences come out. for instance for a budget set up i always recommend a 2.0 / 2.1 instead of a 5.1. some other members lean towards the 5.1. and the reason i dont mind recommending a 2.0 is because i know there will be someone else routing for surround sound. so the person looking for advice gets both sides of the argument and then its up to him / her to decide which way to go. the important factor being getting them to go listen to various set ups to help them make up their mind.
is there one correct option for someone using their system both for ht and stereo - no. its always a compromise and each to his / her own compromise
when we recommend set ups to new users, each of our own personalities / preferences come out. for instance for a budget set up i always recommend a 2.0 / 2.1 instead of a 5.1. some other members lean towards the 5.1. and the reason i dont mind recommending a 2.0 is because i know there will be someone else routing for surround sound. so the person looking for advice gets both sides of the argument and then its up to him / her to decide which way to go. the important factor being getting them to go listen to various set ups to help them make up their mind.
is there one correct option for someone using their system both for ht and stereo - no. its always a compromise and each to his / her own compromise
square_wave
Well-Known Member
As I had said earlier, Making clear sound is easy and inexpensive. Making music is expensive.
In 2-channel audio the first kind of equipment will not survive so you do not have equivalents of bang for the buck HT and cheap HITB equivalent gear. So no recommendations there. It is a specialized segment so drawing comparisons is not a good idea. Of course there are better alternatives to boutique brands at 1/4th the cost. But these are not the equivalent of HTIBs or 50k HT gear. Sorry.
People with low budgets can of course do DIY and get good sound. There are no shortcuts.
As far as drawing comparisons to technology, these are my thoughts:
1. With music there needs to be only two channels. Anything else is a gimmick.
2. High definitions 2-channel is already there. SACD and Dvd- audio. They are available in 2-ch and multi-ch. Studio masters in super high bit rate are also available for down load.
3. Music industry is also reaching out to the masses with mp3 and i-pods. They of course cannot reach out by making cheap gear because they will only make clear sound and not music. The cheap HTs are already making lot of such sound. Why add to the cacophony ?
4. Record executives do not say that music is dying. They only say that the business model of the industry will change. Tomorrow it will be high quality downloads instead of conventional cds. These will be played using pcs or other audiophile grade H-Disc based playback devices with a suitable interface. It will still be played 2-channel using music making gear.
5. With HT, all the advancement of technology has to do with enhanced playback of movies. I do not understand your comparisons of such advancement with 2-channel. A bicycle is a bicycle
If you add another wheel it becomes a tri-cycle
If you add an engine it becomes a motor-cycle. It is no longer a bicycle. If you want to know more about bicycles you may need to do more research in that area. You actually get bicycles costing more than 2 lakh for enthusiasts..Mostly ridden by enthusiasts and racing specialists..
moserw
New Member
Oh well I just give up and quit.
BTW I do know the difference between a bicycle, tricycle and a motorcycle having used a cycle and a geared cycle (as a kid), a tricycle (as a very young kid), and a Honda CBR as a young man.
Anyways let's leave it at this. Like I said no offense meant so don't take any.
BTW I do know the difference between a bicycle, tricycle and a motorcycle having used a cycle and a geared cycle (as a kid), a tricycle (as a very young kid), and a Honda CBR as a young man.
Anyways let's leave it at this. Like I said no offense meant so don't take any.
As I had said earlier, Making clear sound is easy and inexpensive. Making music is expensive.
In 2-channel audio the first kind of equipment will not survive so you do not have equivalents of bang for the buck HT and cheap HITB equivalent gear. So no recommendations there. It is a specialized segment so drawing comparisons is not a good idea. Of course there are better alternatives to boutique brands at 1/4th the cost. But these are not the equivalent of HTIBs or 50k HT gear. Sorry.
People with low budgets can of course do DIY and get good sound. There are no shortcuts.
As far as drawing comparisons to technology, these are my thoughts:
1. With music there needs to be only two channels. Anything else is a gimmick.
2. High definitions 2-channel is already there. SACD and Dvd- audio. They are available in 2-ch and multi-ch. Studio masters in super high bit rate are also available for down load.
3. Music industry is also reaching out to the masses with mp3 and i-pods. They of course cannot reach out by making cheap gear because they will only make clear sound and not music. The cheap HTs are already making lot of such sound. Why add to the cacophony ?
4. Record executives do not say that music is dying. They only say that the business model of the industry will change. Tomorrow it will be high quality downloads instead of conventional cds. These will be played using pcs or other audiophile grade H-Disc based playback devices with a suitable interface. It will still be played 2-channel using music making gear.
5. With HT, all the advancement of technology has to do with enhanced playback of movies. I do not understand your comparisons of such advancement with 2-channel. A bicycle is a bicycle
psychotropic
Well-Known Member
hey venkat, this is exactly what i was trying to clarify, if i can now link to my original statement, that considering the price points, the components used in the SR5001 are very likely to be (significantly) inferior to that of those used in the PM7003. At no point of time did i say that the components int he SR5001 are bad or poor or cheap or incapable of delivering music.
All I said was that having listened to the SR5001 may not be a good enough guide to judge the merits of the PM7003, as the PM7003 is likely to have significantly superior components, considering their respective price positions. I got the impression that you disagreed with this point of mine, which is why i felt it appropriate to clarify. Peace!
All I said was that having listened to the SR5001 may not be a good enough guide to judge the merits of the PM7003, as the PM7003 is likely to have significantly superior components, considering their respective price positions. I got the impression that you disagreed with this point of mine, which is why i felt it appropriate to clarify. Peace!
Hi Sumit,
IMO u need a bigger amp than both these to really get the most out of your PSB 55. If u were to simply choose between the above then i would always go for the marantz. (have not heard this new marantz though) Consider some Nad too(used Nad C372 etc) for this speaker as its a decent amp for the money. Can look at some used SS power amps too. The CA is a complete NO NO for anything but small bookshelves for me.
Rgds
IMO u need a bigger amp than both these to really get the most out of your PSB 55. If u were to simply choose between the above then i would always go for the marantz. (have not heard this new marantz though) Consider some Nad too(used Nad C372 etc) for this speaker as its a decent amp for the money. Can look at some used SS power amps too. The CA is a complete NO NO for anything but small bookshelves for me.
Rgds
square_wave
Well-Known Member
Dear Psychotropic,
It is not just the quality of parts that make the music. It is only one criterion. There are lots of other design criteria which make a huge difference in sound. Most of these are just not possible in an all-in-one box called AVR.
It is not just the quality of parts that make the music. It is only one criterion. There are lots of other design criteria which make a huge difference in sound. Most of these are just not possible in an all-in-one box called AVR.
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Walnut finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.
