PICK ONE... ONKYO 805 or MARANTZ 8001

Right off the top, and this is just my opinion, Marantz products are sold in the higher end audiophile type stores where Onkyo is sold in the Circuit Cities and other mass market stores. When it comes to high end audio, I would be skeptical of any products sold in mass market store chains. If a higher end audio store is selling Marantz, there has to be a good reason for it. I'm sure Onkyo is a fine product and many folks love it. Just keep where they are sold in mind. On the Marantz website, there is an SR8002 and SR7002. I don't see an 8001. Are you purchasing this brand new? I believe the 8001 was replaced when their new line of A-V receivers hit the market back in Sep '07.

Another consideration is power. Is the Onkyo unit providing 130 watts RMS all channels driven into 8 ohms 20hz to 20khz? I looked at the specs of the Onkyo 805 and they seem to be somewhat ambiguous. I know for a fact that Marantz derates their power when in surround sound. They guarantee 70% of the rated power into 8 ohms 20hz-20khz when driving more than 2 channels (5.1, 7.1, etc). I spoke with them directly over the phone recently. I just wish they would state that in writing in their literature. Power output is an entire topic unto itself. You shouldn't purchase one reveiver over another simply because it puts out more wattage/channel. You may not need it depending on your room size, speakers being driven, how loud you listen, etc.

Features and functions of course are important too but it looks like you did your homework on that and they are comparable. It really then comes down to which manufacturer do YOU believe uses superior parts and internal components and simply manufactures a better product? It also comes down to listening to each one and going with the one that turns you on the most. It's all about the SOUND !!

Personally, I'd stick with Marantz. They also offer a 3 year warranty. Hope this helps.

Pdn
Thanks for the timely and thoughtful reply.

yes, both receivers are previous models. Accordingly both are quite well discounted. The Marantz is the more costly of the two.

the power thing I don't suspect as an issue being as both are over 100wpc. The Marantz statement of 70% power being driven into more than two ch is surprising to me and a bit unsettleing.

I'm inclined to think in terms of HT application first, and musical performance secondarily... as I have a fair to middling 2 ch system for those audio only ocassions.

Perhaps my querry here wasn't too clear... I should have asked perhaps, is the Marantz 8001 solidly a better performer all around than the Onkyo choice?

but that premise is too, too, subjective I think.

In the HT areana I'm far easier to please as well. My rusty, dusty Sony 444 es AV unit has served me very, very well indeed and now is in it's eighth year of trouble free operation... but is far behind the pack in current technological gains. hence My desire for a more up to date unit supportive of the higher res video and audio formats now available.

My understanding just now is the Marantz falls short of the Onkyo in the video area, but likely surpasses the Onkyo in pure musical benefit...

...and there's the rub. Video is not my real pursuit... only the technology for it's implementation.

I guess the real deal here for me is IF the marantz was hands down, way ahead, no contest, better flat out in the audio area, I'd pay the extra and buy it.

If the Marantz is only slightly better there, or subjectively better there, I'd opt for the Onkyo and be done and done.

the only other worrisome thought is the Marantz uses negative feedback in it's amplification.... a methodology I'm not thrilled with personally.

Ergonomics and support are also big considerations for me.

Actually, selling/buying AV receivers is a lot like it is with cars - each model has it's own qualities, features, and options. You chose according to your needs, likes, and wants.
I would qualify you as to your speakers you have chosen - and you should chose speakers before the power source, yes! If you do it the other way around, it's really backwards.
So, since I don't know your speakers, room, lifestyle, acoustics, listening habits, etc, it's hard to recommend the best choice for you.
Also, how are you connecting your source(s) to your receiver? Do you need direct analog inputs? Or are you only needing digital connection for your sources? This all matters, and some choices will be better than others, depending.
In many cases, I would often chose a lesser priced receiver, and then use the extra money I saved to add an EXPONENTIALLY BETTER MULTI-CHANNEL AMPLIFIER TO THE MIX!!! - as long at the receiver level offered the features I wanted. And now, you can get HDMI 1.3, Dolby HD/DTS Master, video upscaling,
and, advanced EQ circuits (YES, CRITICAL FOR SMALL ROOM ACOUSTICS, IF YOU DESIRE FLAT, ACCURATE, WELL BALANCED SOUND!)
If it were me (and I don't totally know your connection/ source needs), I KNOW FOR A FACT, that you'd get much better overall sound from your digital sources (likely DVD, HD-DVD, Satalite box, music server/Ipod, etc), if you bought a more modestly price receiver, at $1k or under, and then used the other money left over to invest in a better outboard amp!! The amps in ANY RECEIVER are usually compromised pretty well in terms of quality and current delivery!
Basically, sound quality differential between (all things equal and considered) a $3k receiver by itself, and a $1k receiver (or less, often) with a good 3, 5, or 7 channel amplifier connected to the system (instead of using the amps in the receiver) is HUGE!!!!! Basically, the dynamic potential, and overall sonic refinement of a better outboard amp in the system, FAR OVERCOMES any fancy features benefits a larger receiver has! So consider.
I personally WOULD NOT buy a $2k receiver, EVER!!! If I had to use a receiver in my system (and I would rather use a pre/pro if possible), I would use a lower price point, but otherwise good sounding unit (considering digital connections, likely), add an amp, and be WAY AHEAD OF THE GAME!
You see, in the end, it's ALL ABOUT SOUND quality and picture quality for your AV experience! (at least in terms of gear as a factor). Anything else is down on the totem pole, IMO.
That all said, I would say a receiver is good enough in mid-fi applications, by themselves, when you drive very efficient speakers (like horns), or speakers with active woofers, at the least). There are few exceptions, depending on variables, IMO. Still, receivers are on the weak side in terms of power delivery, dynamics, overall sound quality, refinement, etc. So consider your variables. If you rock, play loud, run speakers as "full range", etc, you'll need more power. And even if you run small monitors as "small/80hz", you'll find that dynamics are far superior from a dedicated amp.
If however you deem a receiver is all you want or need, I would keep speaker choices limited, run them as "small", regardless, and look to connect things digitally! If you need direct analog inputs for pure sources, you will find you have no EQ in the circuit, which is very helpful for making the system/room balance!
To answer your question, I would lean toward the more expensive Marantz's over any Onkyo personally. Don't care for Onkyo's sound, myself.