Marantz Cinema 50 installed

[peng]

Why would you pay 1,700 Euro for the Cinema 50 when it costs 2,500 dollars in the US?

I agree 100%, the Cinema 50 is a 1,700 Euro and $1,700 dollar AVR. At $1,700 it's actually a pretty good AVR and of course not on par with the 8015.

Someone was telling me recently how they purchased the 7015 new in Europe for $1,500 while it goes for $3,000 in the States. It's crazy. You can get 2 7015s in Europe for the price of 1 in the States.

To say that Marantz is hating on the US market would be an understatement of the century. By the way, I wish I had a 20-25% income increase.

Keep in mind price do change with time and location. About 2-3 years ago, the Marantz SR7013 was on sale at Bestbuy.ca and Amazon.ca for under US$1,000, even cheaper than the Denon AVR-X4500H at the time. That was only in Canada (C$1,099 to C$1,199 if I remember right). I almost bought one for spare. At that time, the unit was still selling for at least US$1,399 even for the Denon, and I have never seen Marantz selling for less than Denon's except that time.

Found one link but it wasn't at the lowest point, that one I could not find any more:

[Best Buy] Marantz SR7013 Receiver $1199 (Save $1800) - RedFlagDeals.com Forums

Pretty good deal. https://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/ma ... r/13185758

forums.redflagdeals.com

Another way to look at this is, the margin for AVPs/AVRs are very high, probably as much as 0.6 or better so dealer can really deal if they are willing and know how to do it without being blacklisted.

 

[techsamurai]

Keep in mind price do change with time and location. About 2-3 years ago, the Marantz SR7013 was on sale at Bestbuy.ca and Amazon.ca for under US$1,000, even cheaper than the Denon AVR-X4500H at the time. That was only in Canada (C$1,099 to C$1,199 if I remember right). I almost bought one for spare. At that time, the unit was still selling for at least US$1,399 even for the Denon, and I have never seen Marantz selling for less than Denon's except that time.

Found one link but it wasn't at the lowest point, that one I could not find any more:

[Best Buy] Marantz SR7013 Receiver $1199 (Save $1800) - RedFlagDeals.com Forums

Pretty good deal. https://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/ma ... r/13185758

forums.redflagdeals.com

Another way to look at this is, the margin for AVPs/AVRs are very high, probably as much as 0.6 or better so dealer can really deal if they are willing and know how to do it without being blacklisted.

We haven't seen a sale in the US in a while but we've seen triple price hikes for all models jumping up 30-40%. The 8015 went from $3,200 to $3,700 to $4,000.

Let's look at the Cinema 60 and its history. The Cinema 60 started out as the 5002 and it cost $500 when I bought mine - the Cinema 60 now costs $1,700. It has the same number of channels (7) so it's not like the Cinema 60 is competing with the Trinnov Altitude in channels. Granted, a dollar in 2002 is worth $1.6 dollars today and no one expects to pay $500 for a Cinema 60. Based on inflation, the unit's price should have increased at least to $800 and you may argue $1,000-$1,200 for perhaps additional processing like Atmos although 7 channels and Atmos are a bit difficult to accomplish. We should also note that the new unit is 10-15% lighter which is considered a bad thing for Class AB AVRs so there have been savings in material cost for Marantz including a less complicated rear panel with fewer connection as component, toslink, digital, s-video, rca are less common today that are not being passed down to the consumer. In terms of value, we've seen Monolith 7x deliver a 93lb super amp for $1,500 (6 years later it's $1,850) which is in line with the Cinema 60's price that weights 24 lbs.

Of course, Marantz can charge anything they want and no one is arguing that.

But that doesn't mean that existing Marantz customers especially in the US where their units sells at a premium compared to other countries aren't being taken advantage of.

 

[peng]

We haven't seen a sale in the US in a while but we've seen triple price hikes for all models jumping up 30-40%. The 8015 went from $3,200 to $3,700 to $4,000.

Let's look at the Cinema 60 and its history. The Cinema 60 started out as the 5002 and it cost $500 when I bought mine - the Cinema 60 now costs $1,700. It has the same number of channels (7) so it's not like the Cinema 60 is competing with the Trinnov Altitude in channels. Granted, a dollar in 2002 is worth $1.6 dollars today and no one expects to pay $500 for a Cinema 60. Based on inflation, the unit's price should have increased at least to $800 and you may argue $1,000-$1,200 for perhaps additional processing like Atmos although 7 channels and Atmos are a bit difficult to accomplish. We should also note that the new unit is 10-15% lighter which is considered a bad thing for Class AB AVRs so there have been savings in material cost for Marantz including a less complicated rear panel with fewer connection as component, toslink, digital, s-video, rca are less common today that are not being passed down to the consumer. In terms of value, we've seen Monolith 7x deliver a 93lb super amp for $1,500 (6 years later it's $1,850) which is in line with the Cinema 60's price that weights 24 lbs.

Of course, Marantz can charge anything they want and no one is arguing that.

But that doesn't mean that existing Marantz customers especially in the US where their units sells at a premium compared to other countries aren't being taken advantage of.

I understand your points but there are things on their side that would encourage them to adopt more aggressive pricing policy such as:

- they successively convinced their customer base as well as newly attracted new followers that the brand is about more musical sound (because of the use of HDAMs as an example/physical evidence etc.), and the use of soundmaster to tune the sound). The more technical oriented people might see through those things but the vast majority probably would likely be tempted.

- modernized look, and more use of plastic, gold plated connectors, toroidal transformers, and fans that all help lowering the weight and shipping cost.

It is a good strategy, to imply to their potential customers that if you want to pay less, go with Denon for the more punch but not as musical/warm sound. They understand the "say it enough times and people will believe" principle very well. A lot of people don't mind paying a lot more for AVRs/AVPs for better sound quality because it is still much cheaper, easier, quicker to get better sound quality this way, than to upgrade their speakers and/or their room acoustics. And it works well to thanks to bias and Placebo effects. I digressed..

 

[slacki]

Why would you pay 1,700 Euro for the Cinema 50 when it costs 2,500 dollars in the US?

no idea, i asked the dealer* if something can be made on the price and instead of 2000 EUR it was 1700 i paid. who pays the recommended retail price? i always ask if there can be something made

in the States.

but this is vice versa for different products, iirc SVS was quiet cheap in the US but its not in the EU. or some other brands that are mainly located in the US.

*) btw. i wrote to about 10 dealers or so and took the cheapest price

 

[techsamurai]

no idea, i asked the dealer* if something can be made on the price and instead of 2000 EUR it was 1700 i paid. who pays the recommended retail price? i always ask if there can be something made


but this is vice versa for different products, iirc SVS was quiet cheap in the US but its not in the EU. or some other brands that are mainly located in the US.

*) btw. i wrote to about 10 dealers or so and took the cheapest price

I agree, even if you had paid the full price of 2000 Euro, $2,500 would have been 25% more expensive for the exact same product and you have access to the silver version. All my Marantz AVRs are black as I don't have access to the better finishes.

 

[techsamurai]

I understand you points but there are things on their side that would encourage them to adopt more aggressive pricing policy such as:

- they successively convinced their customer base as well as newly attracted new followers that the brand is about more musical sound (because of the use of HDAMs as an example/physical evidence etc.), and the use of soundmaster to tune the sound). The more technical oriented people might see through those things but the vast majority probably would likely be tempted.

- modernized look, and more use of plastic, gold plated connectors, toroidal transformers, and fans that all help lowering the weight and shipping cost.

It is a good strategy, to imply to their potential customers that if you want to pay less, go with Denon for the more punch but not as musical/warm sound. They understand the "say it enough times and people will believe" principle very well. A lot of people don't mind paying a lot more for AVRs/AVPs for better sound quality because it is still much cheaper, easier, quicker to get better sound quality this way, than to upgrade their speakers and/or their room acoustics. And it works well to thanks to bias and Placebo effects. I digressed..

I agree with you but I also feel that Marantz has always had a musical sound but it does come at the expense of surround sound dynamics. I don't think it needs to carry a premium for that warm sound. That's their musical tone that they've had for 40-50 years. They've had the HDAMs since the 6011 which retailed for $1,400 and was reviewed 6 years ago by Audioholics so the HDAMs are not what caused the hike.

The Cinema 50 with HDAM retails for $2,500 in the black only version in the US.

We are not even talking warranty here as the Cinema 50 at $2,500 comes with half the warranty of the $500 5002 from 2002. All my 8000 series AVRs came with 5 year warranties. That's another $200 extra the average owner will pay as the repair out of warranty will run $1,000 if you're lucky assuming 1 out 5 AVRs fail between years 3 and 7.

 

[peng]

I agree with you but I also feel that Marantz has always had a musical sound but it does come at the expense of surround sound dynamics. I don't think it needs to carry a premium for that warm sound. That's their musical tone that they've had for 40-50 years. They've had the HDAMs since the 6011 which retailed for $1,400 and was reviewed 6 years ago by Audioholics so the HDAMs are not what caused the hike.

The Cinema 50 with HDAM retails for $2,500 in the black only version in the US.

We are not even talking warranty here as the Cinema 50 at $2,500 comes with half the warranty of the $500 5002 from 2002. All my 8000 series AVRs came with 5 year warranties. That's another $200 extra the average owner will pay as the repair out of warranty will run $1,000 if you're lucky assuming 1 out 5 AVRs fail between years 3 and 7.

There are no technical explanation for the claimed sound though. You can compare schematics and parts used with Denon's, and ASR's detailed measurements, there are just no evidence. It has been the case since shortly after SU owned the two, and since then they have been using much of the same design and components in the preamp/dac and the power amps are virtually identical.

HDAMs cannot explained it as Amir said in an interview, the Marantz models doesn't have high enough distortions. Think about it, if they are as transparent as others, and actually have more higher order off harmonics than Denon's (just an example), then what caused the claimed warm/musical sound.

Again, in a way it seems that we are in agreement, people are willing to pay premium for that claimed sound regardless.

 

[techsamurai]

There are no technical explanation for the claimed sound though. You can compare schematics and parts used with Denon's, and ASR's detailed measurements, there are just no evidence. It has been the case since shortly after SU owned the two, and since then they have been using much of the same design and components in the preamp/dac and the power amps are virtually identical.

HDAMs cannot explained it as Amir said in an interview, the Marantz models doesn't have high enough distortions. Think about it, if they are as transparent as others, and actually have more higher order off harmonics than Denon's (just an example), then what caused the claimed warm/musical sound.

Again, in a way it seems that we are in agreement, people are willing to pay premium for that claimed sound regardless.

I'm not sure I agree that people are willing to pay a premium for a Marantz over Denon. This is Marantz's own claim that Denon is like an Audi and Marantz like a Porsche and now are charging Porsche level prices and in the case of separates heading into McLaren territory at $14,000.

But they were clearly selling those Porsches for 60% of the price in 2017 and had been doing so since 2000.

The Marantz going back 20 years to my 1st 5002 was warmer. I've only owned one Denon and it was the cheapest AVR but it gave my bookshelf speakers a workout that no Marantz has given them - I wanted to make a video of the drivers dancing. It's possible that Denon has been neutered/downgraded since SU took over and they are not what they used to be.

My preference has always been towards Marantz in terms of sound. I'd take Sansui over it but then again all of us would and they are no longer around

 

[shuvadeep]

did you do a blind-test or is this with knowing which one is playing?

Listened to both of them back to back with the Polk R700s.
The SR8015 provides a wider sound stage and bass sounds tighter.
I am not saying the Cinema50 was bad, but felt a bit restrictive in the sound stage. The pitch and tone of the singers voice seems a lot more natural with the SR8015.

 

[peng]

Listened to both of them back to back with the Polk R700s.
The SR8015 provides a wider sound stage and bass sounds tighter.
I am not saying the Cinema50 was bad, but felt a bit restrictive in the sound stage. The pitch and tone of the singers voice seems a lot more natural with the SR8015.

Back to back is good but slacki asked if it was a blind-test, so was it? I am curious too, because in most if not all blind tests, the results weren't consistent oe way or another for electronics such as amps, preamps, dacs. Even for speakers comparisons, people's preference could change in blind tests vs sighted tests. Regardless, if I were to choose, I would take the SR8015 even for $500 more.

 

[shuvadeep]

Couldnt do a blind as I need my eyes open to change the banana plugs between the avrs. The test was done in my bed room where I have the whole setup. So feedback is based om room.accoustics as well (room has no accoustic treatment with concrete wall)

 

[techsamurai]

Listened to both of them back to back with the Polk R700s.
The SR8015 provides a wider sound stage and bass sounds tighter.
I am not saying the Cinema50 was bad, but felt a bit restrictive in the sound stage. The pitch and tone of the singers voice seems a lot more natural with the SR8015.

If you had to give a rating just in terms of sound what would you rate the Cinema 50 and the 8015 out of 10 with 2 channel?

Not sure why the bass would be different. I would expect the Cinema 50 to have enough power in 2 channel to generate bass. Do your bass woofers dance with either or just vibrate with any visible excursion?

 

[techsamurai]

Just out of curiosity - when we deconstruct an AVR's purpose, it's meant to handle both video and sound. Just curious when it comes to video, is the video handling of the SR8015 ($4,000) the same as the Cinema 50 and 70 ($1,200)?

We're not talking about counts of HDMI 2.1 ports and the comedy surrounding that.

 

[slacki]

I would expect the Cinema 50 to have enough power in 2 channel to generate bass.

It has. I have 2 Tannoy XT8F as FL/FR and it produces the same amount of bass like any other amp that can drive those speakers. If not, then something is interfering (e.g. Audyssey) or the speakers are broken.

tbh: i guess if this would be measured in REW, there would be no (hearable) difference in SR8015 and Cinema 50.

regarding video processing: what should it do other than moving the hdmi signal to the screen? the only thing that it "adds" is the ability to move 8k/arc or special frequencies etc., but besides that, there is nothing it can do

 

[techsamurai]

It has. I have 2 Tannoy XT8F as FL/FR and it produces the same amount of bass like any other amp that can drive those speakers. If not, then something is interfering (e.g. Audyssey) or the speakers are broken.

tbh: i guess if this would be measured in REW, there would be no (hearable) difference in SR8015 and Cinema 50.

Well, the SR8015 has a toroidal amp. Hearing is about nuance so measurements will never detect what our ear can hear and ultimately what our brain will interpret as pleasant or unpleasant. Case in point - heavy metal music. Some people's brains interpret that as music - we don't have to argue if that's right or wrong but it is one of the mysteries of mankind.

Measurements can provide a baseline and show major problem areas. If the problems were so evident, then every reviewer should be able to detect a speaker's or amp's response simply by listening to it. Okay, the 100hz-200hz is a bit higher, the treble spikes at 3k hz-4k hz. Oh man, I just measured it and it spiked at 2,950hz - damn, I was off by 50hz. I'll get it right next time

The fact that we need to benchmark them means we are not able to discern its strengths and weaknesses just by listening to it which is why listening is the #1 thing to the music you like and in the space.

 

[slacki]

Hearing is about nuance so measurements will never detect what our ear can hear

This is just so wrong. If something can not be measured, it is not there. Thats why people that buy unicornhair-lithium-gas-filled-highend-audio-cables for 1000$/mt. don't want their cable to be measured, because they want to believe. And here we are.
This has nothing to do with pleasant or not. If i have a wave, i can measure it. If it has the same behaviour and look from another device, it is the same, period.

just by listening to it which is why listening is the #1 thing

Yes, but unbiased. Thats why in science we have double blind study.
I'm out of this discussion.

 

[techsamurai]

I like this kind of questions. The thing is, he bought it so it is more likely he likes it better than the 6700, for the features, look etc., but if it if for sound quality that some people would want to know, whatever answer he may give will be interesting but not very useful. When I bought my first Maranta AVP to replace my Denon AVR, I like the sound quality better but before long I realize it was just the effects of DEQ (enabled by default) that the Denon AVR-4308 did not have, though it got FW updated to have it later after I gave it away. Then I replaced the AV7005 with the AV8801 and though there was no change in sound quality, and then I replace the AV8801 with the Denon AVR-X4400H and thought the Denon sounded better, and then I did some AB comparison listening tests between either with my "separates" in stereo and thought they all sounded the same, so I basically could not believe what I heard, better, or not, or same.. Anyway, can't wait to hear from SupremeAV.

Lol, so you went from Denon to Marantz and that sounded better, then from Marantz to Denon and that sounded better but when you did AB comparisons, you thought they sounded the same.

I'm very surrpised that the AV8801 did not sound better than the half-priced 4400H but then again I had a similar experience with Marantz separates and my 8002 when I auditioned them.

I started with a Marantz SR5002, jumped briefly to a Denon entry level, then to a Marantz SR8001, then SR8002. I've stuck with the SR8002 until there are clear advancements in quality and sound.

The 5002 was great and the sound it produced with the B&W 601 S3 playing Diana Krall - WhatHiFi used the words "voice coils of the gods" and I have to agree. It was quite an experience for a $1,000 stereo/$2,000 surround system.

The Denon lasted a week - I was watching a show on Verizon FIOS and it started playing "Sympathy from the Devil". I went up, removed the grilles and checked the drivers because they were moving back and forth in a way I'd never seen them before so the dynamics of the entry level Denon were astounding in cable and movies BUT it didn't capture me and I knew I was missing something from the 5002.

So I went to the 8001 and that was clearly a different sound - very composed, detailed. It was better overall but the voice had become less important. I upgraded my speakers to B&W 703s and was smart enough to bi-amp as they need power and while the 8001 had 180 watts in 2 channel, bi-amping appeared to clear both low and high frequencies. I got a 8002 which is identical to the 8001 but had support for Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master HD. Same sound as the 8001.

So my experience was similar in that I believed that things were better every time I upgraded except for the Denon but at the same time I auditioned the Yamaha RZ11 (it was $5,000 discounted to $2,500) and I thought it was great but not necessarily a clear upgrade at least in the few songs I auditioned. Same with Marantz separates. I think the 8002 was so close to the high-end under $10,000 that you couldn't get much better without going over that price and not much existed really. 2 reviewers were using it as their reference AVR when they were auditioning more expensive units to compare.

 

[techsamurai]

This is just so wrong. If something can not be measured, it is not there. Thats why people that buy unicornhair-lithium-gas-filled-highend-audio-cables for 1000$/mt. don't want their cable to be measured, because they want to believe. And here we are.
This has nothing to do with pleasant or not. If i have a wave, i can measure it. If it has the same behaviour and look from another device, it is the same, period.


Yes, but unbiased. Thats why in science we have double blind study.
I'm out of this discussion.

Yeah but you listen to music on them and movies are essentially glorified music soundtracks, right? Your intepretation of sound is all that matters. If your ears can't hear beyond 15khz, what does it matter if the speaker has a flat response between 20 and 30khz?

I'm all for the science but if it was so apparent, you'd be able to tell immediately. All the measurements won't change that. It's like food - you're given pasta that's soft, I don't think you need to measure the resilience of the pasta to understand if it's been overcooked. Just call me over or fed ex me a sample and I'll let you know. From the first bite, you should be able to tell that it's not properly cooked. When it's al dente, you can tell if it's also properly cooked. My point is you should be able to hear the measurements before you measure it just like you can taste food.

I found a copy of the famous japanese movie Shall We Dance? on DVD and we watched it yesterday. What a fantastic movie! It was a 2 channel 0.1 mbps presentation and music is important since there's a bit of dancing. The measurements from my Panasonic Blu-ray suggested that it could not compete with a Dolby Atmos soundtrack but it was an amazing movie and at no time did I feel that the sound was not adequate. I was actually in shock how good it sounded in DTS Neo cinema given the 0.1 mbps presentation.

I recently had to bring up my 8001 which could only process DTS (just 1.5mbps) for a short while to check it. Well, I got curious and we watched No Time To Die and Top Gun 3d. The intro to No Time To Die sounded so good that my daughter who never says anything and has grown up listening to high res formats stopped and said "That was incredible!" and I looked at her and I was equally enthralled. In Top Gun, I nearly jumped out of my seat and took cover when they switch to planes flying and the the sound of the jet enginges panned from left to right. I've done a lifetime of listening to the 8000 series and to hear the old res format impress the entire family who were unaware of the differences between the 8002 and 8001 was a surprise. I've been re-evaluating all of my assumptions since then. I suppose vinyl may sound better than CD.

 

[slacki]

If your ears can't hear beyond 15khz, what does it matter if the speaker has a flat response between 20 and 30khz?

you are comparing apples and pears. it does not matter what you can hear or not, or what you can feel/taste/smell whatever. this is about scientific measurements. when you focus on 20hz-20khz and you get the same result, it is equal. when you focus on 0-20hz and you get the same result, it does not matter if you can hear it or not, it is equal. thats the thing u dont want or can't understand. same applies to _anything_. in short: what you hear can be measured, period. and if you have 2 measurements and they are equal, it must sound equal, otherwise you stepped into the voodoo-hifi-region where unicornhair-cables are important. i did not want to reply to this sort of discussion as its useless. but i thought i give it a try, maybe it works now. if you want to discus about this, pm me.

 

[techsamurai]

you are comparing apples and pears. it does not matter what you can hear or not, or what you can feel/taste/smell whatever. this is about scientific measurements. when you focus on 20hz-20khz and you get the same result, it is equal. when you focus on 0-20hz and you get the same result, it does not matter if you can hear it or not, it is equal. thats the thing u dont want or can't understand. same applies to _anything_. in short: what you hear can be measured, period. and if you have 2 measurements and they are equal, it must sound equal, otherwise you stepped into the voodoo-hifi-region where unicornhair-cables are important. i did not want to reply to this sort of discussion as its useless. but i thought i give it a try, maybe it works now. if you want to discus about this, pm me.

But the assumption that you're making is that our aural senses give equal importance to frequencies and measure them the same way that equipment does. I do agree that measurements will provide insight into a speaker's performance. My point is that if they are the only thing that matters, what do you need the measuring equipment for? You already have all the measuring equipment you need and should be able to plot it without measuring it.

If a TV is hitting 2,000 nits, your eyes should tell you it's 2000 nits. I measured my laptop OLED and it hits 900 nits a lot of the time even though it's just SDR - I already suspected it was in the 1,000 nits as I know by heart what 500 nits looks like from using an iPad. In fact, I can probably calculate nits better than most equipment can just by looking at the screen. I recently got a Lenovo and it was rated at 360 nits and my immediate reaction was "in your dreams". I was right of course and used my other Lenovo at 400 nits to compare and measure it. I decided to return it and get another one which was 50% brighter from the millisecond the screen appeared.