Denon AVRX1400H vs Marantz NR 1607/1608

[bsridharmail]

Hi guys,
Initially I wanted to buy Denon AVRX1400H receiver. I have seen Marantz NR 1607 and Marantz NR 1608 receivers in Hifimart. They look nice, slim and easily fit in my tv cabinet. Are there any drawbacks of using slim receivers? I think, spec wise both are same?

Could you please let me know which receiver is better in the above list? 50% music and 50% movies.

 

[reachkalyan.kr]

Hi,
Personally i had hands on experience on Denon X1100 for a while
i feel like it is bit plasticky for the price we are paying.IMO Denon looks like cheaper product appearance wise.
Basically denon starting from 2XXX series slightly looks OK not great compared to Marantz NR series.
Have you seen those models appearance?Try to see it if possible.
As you mentioned Marantz NR model look wise it is slim so that it will fit in your TV cabinet but make sure you are giving enough ventilation to the same to extent the life of the equipment.

Finally your ears have to decide
All the best

 

[Kumar442244]

Hi guys,
Initially I wanted to buy Denon AVRX1400H receiver. I have seen Marantz NR 1607 and Marantz NR 1608 receivers in Hifimart. They look nice, slim and easily fit in my tv cabinet. Are there any drawbacks of using slim receivers? I think, spec wise both are same?

Could you please let me know which receiver is better in the above list? 50% music and 50% movies.

Hello Bsrisharmail,

Have been using NR1607 for almost 8 Months now and I couldn't be satisfied more with the amount I paid for this receiver. Shifted to NAD lately for pure stereo setup but NR1607 still doing video bit quite efficiently.
A stereo amp is any day better for music, however, NR has served me for Video: Music:: 50:50 for 7 months and was quite happy with its stereo capability.
It's quite an efficient amp with all the connectivity options which makes it future-proof.
Don't be fooled by its modest 50 wpc. I have driven Dali Z3, Z7(borrowed), Tannoy Mercury (Short-Lived, although one of the best at the price point) and Wharfy 230 FS (owned by a friend who wanted to listen to it with NR1607). Never felt short of power and it filled my modest size room of 22*14" living room.
Don't think 1608 is worth paying an extra buck as there is hardly any additional feature that one would use more often than not.
Anyday Marantz > Denon (personal opinion).
having said all these, would suggest get an audition and take a final call, and yeah, happy hunting..!!

 

[elangoas]

Hi guys,
Initially I wanted to buy Denon AVRX1400H receiver. I have seen Marantz NR 1607 and Marantz NR 1608 receivers in Hifimart. They look nice, slim and easily fit in my tv cabinet. Are there any drawbacks of using slim receivers? I think, spec wise both are same?

Denon x 1400 has Audyssey Multi EQ XT, which is a higher version of Audyssey found in Marantz NR 1608 that has Audyssey Mutli EQ..

Could you please let me know which receiver is better in the above list?

Denon x 1400.. But, if you wish to consider Marantz, then SR 5012 as it is equivalent version of Denon x 1400 and has Audyssey Mutli EQ XT..

 

[bsridharmail]

Thank you for your replies. Marantz SR 1502 is expensive and out of my budget. I should select either Marantz NR 1607 or Denon AVRx1400h. Both are in same budget.

 

[bsridharmail]

Hi,
Personally i had hands on experience on Denon X1100 for a while
i feel like it is bit plasticky for the price we are paying.IMO Denon looks like cheaper product appearance wise.
Basically denon starting from 2XXX series slightly looks OK not great compared to Marantz NR series.
Have you seen those models appearance?Try to see it if possible.
As you mentioned Marantz NR model look wise it is slim so that it will fit in your TV cabinet but make sure you are giving enough ventilation to the same to extent the life of the equipment.

Finally your ears have to decide
All the best

Thank you. Mine is open cabinet. No glass door. Ventilation is available. But Denon does not fit due to more height.

 

[insane79]

Thank you for your replies. Marantz SR 1502 is expensive and out of my budget. I should select either Marantz NR 1607 or Denon AVRx1400h. Both are in same budget.

what are your speakers? if they are power hungry then get the denon as it has more juice compare to the marantz slim models.

 

[efernand1]

Hi guys,
Initially I wanted to buy Denon AVRX1400H receiver. I have seen Marantz NR 1607 and Marantz NR 1608 receivers in Hifimart. They look nice, slim and easily fit in my tv cabinet. Are there any drawbacks of using slim receivers? I think, spec wise both are same?

Could you please let me know which receiver is better in the above list? 50% music and 50% movies.

Hi,

You can refer to the Owner threads of Marantz and Denon which are present with actual feedback and comments and even experiences of these AVRs....

Denon and Marantz are built by same company - D & M Holdings.....difference is built quality....multi Eq setup in my honest opinion is not a big difference...its only a calibration tool....most of us tweak our AVRs manually after auto setup to suit our rooms and ears...everyone has their specific listening tastes....the EQ frequencies on any AVR, including tonal controls will always remain the same and one needs to tweak it to full advantage...

As already stated above, the NR series of Marantz can easily drive Dali Zensor 7 towers, Pulz Audio Concerto series speakers etc.....very efficiently...

Marantz is 50 wpc at 8 ohms load and 70wpc at 6 ohms load continuous....if you are using good sensitivity speakers (88 and above) I don't think you will have any challenges...

Your call now....

 

[argentum246]

Marantz if you prefer Music and Denon for movie and others. Marantz was warm and clear music and denon excels in loud punch for movies

 

[codwapeace]

50 w or 100 w is not much different in sound output. Choose whichever has the features you want.

 

[insane79]

Thank you. Mine is open cabinet. No glass door. Ventilation is available. But Denon does not fit due to more height.

if you have a space issue, get the marantz 1607/8 then. The denons get hot & need good ventilation. Are you pairing the avr with 100w or under speakers? if yes the the Nr series marantz show be decent enough.

 

[mshifi]

both are capable receivers. You could go with marantz if placement is an issue.

 

[insane79]

Manufacturers spoil sport displaying watts of 1 channel driven only but actual fact is a 100 watts amp get into 30 to 40 watts when all channels driven. But the case is different in marantz Slimline series where 50 Watts would be delivered on all channels driven as per them.

http://www.safeandsoundhq.com/blog/...amplifier-power-ratings-wattage-is-overrated/

The marantz slimline series is only for satellites speakers, i m sure they will only churn out 30watts MAX when all channels are driven or could be even lesser. Its an entry level marantz avr for people who don't have space in their HT setups. The real Marantz avrs start from Sr series not NR.

Cheers.

 

[sunand777]

I agree that Marantz SR series is more powerful than NR series, but here is comparison between Denon AVRX1400H vs Marantz NR 1607/1608, i can say that Marantz NR 1608 is far better than Denon 1400 and 2400 too.. the real power of Denon starts from 3300/3400 ...

 

[insane79]

Not sure if you auditioned NR series if you auditioned you will change your statement. As per Marantz it chunks 50 watts equal power to all channels. Where as same Manufacturers Denon which we compared here Denon 1400 never is the same when all 7 channels are driven.

hahah, dunno if you are joking or serious. The avrs that have 50/60 watts on all channels are like the NADS 7 series or Anthems. Marantz never disclose their all channel rating only stereo as if they do all channels it will be seem less.(its called marketing my friend)

The avrs that give 60/80 watts at all chanels are like the NAD T 758 v3 & Anthem 520 etc, these guys proudly display their watts at all channels unlike other brands & before u ask the NAD & Anthem avrs are above 1.5 lacs to begin with

The NR series is compromised cause of the size, i mean see the power supply its freaking tiny & your are saying it gives out 50 watts at all channels????

Didn't mean to offend you, just don't like people giving wrong information in forums.


Cheers.

 

[Naturelover]

https://www.cnet.com/products/marantz-nr1607/review/2/

 

[efernand1]

Well for starters I am a MARANTZ user for the last 6 years or so....been using the 1402 then 1601, 1504 ..the 1606..the SR5008 , SR 6008 and now the SR6009.

I have used a variety of AVRs over the years ...Yamaha, HK, NAD, Denon, Pioneer etc and not found any of them closer to the optimal performance a Marantz delivers.....sound quality and its refinement does matter to me a lot (since I was an active DJ in the past) and hence was on the look out for the ultimate AVR which meets my expectations and suits my needs, wallet etc. Marantz has discrete power amps for each channel.....nothing coming from a single Transistor or STK IC which then gets divided to 5 or 7 channels....like most hifi systems (Sony/Philips).

The NR series may seem to pump 50 watts continuous power at 8 ohms and there are ample members on this Forum who have used the NR series with Dali tower speakers (basis audyssey setup) and are quite happy. Quality and power does matter as long as it does not sound unpleasant or lacking to ones needs. The slim footprint helps in blending in if you have limited place.....yes it does need its ventilation,,,,,,

We have dedicated Owner forums which help as guidance to those seeking what to buy.....(Check Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, Yamaha forums).

These are my views as an ACTIVE user of Marantz although some may beg to differ based on what information is available.

Thats the reason i always like to try out different systems when i can.....example....i brought a Denon X1200 and threw it back within 7 days......the NR1606 did better justice,,,,

 

[sunand777]

hahah, dunno if you are joking or serious. The avrs that have 50/60 watts on all channels are like the NADS 7 series or Anthems. Marantz never disclose their all channel rating only stereo as if they do all channels it will be seem less.(its called marketing my friend)

The avrs that give 60/80 watts at all chanels are like the NAD T 758 v3 & Anthem 520 etc, these guys proudly display their watts at all channels unlike other brands & before u ask the NAD & Anthem avrs are above 1.5 lacs to begin with

The NR series is compromised cause of the size, i mean see the power supply its freaking tiny & your are saying it gives out 50 watts at all channels????

Didn't mean to offend you, just don't like people giving wrong information in forums.


Cheers.

My Friend first audition nr 1608 then comment, they are clearly said that it in their site 50 watts PER CHANNEL...did you see that,??? its marketing gimmick? Dont under estimate that you are un awrare about true things..

 

[reachkalyan.kr]

Just Knowledge sharing.
IMO we cannot compare 1:1

 

[insane79]

I see that you are spreading wrong information on products. As I said it is said by Marantz not by me. And 1.5L Receiver did you personally measure the watts? How sure are you it produces what they put on papers? I don't want to put you down it is not correct to comment without doing auditions mate. I have Marantz NR1608, Denon X1400 and Pioneer LX302 which I personally use them in different rooms. I have done a side by side comparison on them. So please audition and then provide your valuable comments.

See the benchmark done of the Sr5009 marantz here-
https://www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-sr5009-av-receiver-review-test-bench

Marantz rates this at 100w per channel, go READ what the rating falls at when 5 & 7 channels are used, for 5 channels it drops by 30 percent & more when 7 channels are used. So for the Nr1609 with all channels used will drop by 30% of the 50watts marantz mentions on their site. Its 50 watts per channel for STEREO, man i can't believe this is an audiophile forum.

Cheers.