2. home-theater
  3. 1058939109

Inexpensive HT Receiver - NAD vs Marantz

I am looking to buy a receiver this weekend ... I have recently purchased NHT ST-4 speakers, along with SC-1 center, SW10 sub, and SB-1 rear surrounds.

I am looking at either Marantz 7300 or NAD T752. Price is a constraint ... I can only spend around $700-$800. I will use the system probably 60% for stereo, 40% for tv.

I like the sound from both of the receivers, but have heard that the NAD will do a better job of powering the ST-4's (despite being rated at 80W as opposed to the Marantz 105W).

I also like the possibility of using the Marantz to do multi-zone, a feature lacking in the NAD T752.

So, what do you all have to say about these two products/brands ... any strong opinions about which product to buy? Thanks in advance for helping me with this decision.

-Ben
blachoff42d3
rar1's avatar
rar1
1,769 posts
 
Ben:

Given that your NHT SW10 sub is a powered one at 150 watts, receiver power should not be much of an issue. Also, the Marantz 7300 was designed for "high current" power, so it should be able to drive the NHT ST4's.

Both the NAD and Marantz generally get high marks for musicality, with the Marantz usually getting the edge in the British press.

You may wish to break out those CD's that have complex and/or unusually fast passages (Mark O'Connor's "In Full Swing" and Mahler's 2nd Symphony come to mind) and listen to both receivers again.

I have owned both brands and consider them both a cut above the Onkyo/Sony/Denon/Panasonic offerings at the same price.

Regards,

Rich
blachoff42d3 OP
1 posts
 
Thanks Rich ...

Also, if anybody could chime in on experience with factory refurbished products ...

both the NAD and Marantz can be purchased refurbished with 1 year warranty for a discounted price, is this a bad or good idea?

-Ben
newbie13
242 posts
 
I have a reburb Marantz 7200 that I picked up for $500. It is eight months old with no problems. I look at reburbs as products that have already had what ever is going to fail fail and less likely to spend time in the shop. Of course, I may just be rationizing my cheapness.
rar1's avatar
rar1
1,769 posts
 
I just stay away from refurbished products, but this probably has more to with my dad's experience with rebuilt audio & video parts in the 1970's when he could not obtain original parts in a timely fashion (he owned a TV & Radio Repair Shop). I know that this has to do with the nature of the product return, but I would just have those nagging concerns (rightly or wrongly) about the competence of the repair technician in diagnosing the problem. I am just not reassured by a warranty (since I would classify the item as a lemon). Accordingly, my purchase decisions have as much to do with product longevity/excellent repair record as with performance. In general, I prefer new stock.
More to discover