Marantz or NAD

Hi Bonger:

Thanks very much for the reply. That is an excellent response. I don't think anyone could have stated it better. I too had two NAD receivers in the past plus some CD players. Now I went with a Marantz A/V receiver just like you and am very pleased. Just got it two months ago. And yes, you seem to get more with Marantz for less price. That's why I was asking about the differences in the two companies. Thanks again. Anyone else?

PDN

I had a Marantz SR-19 in my home theater. My wife and I truly loved the sound. The ONLY reason I currently use a B&K is because I wanted 7.1 with bass mgmnt amd Marantz didn't offer it at the time. Don't get me wrong, the B&K is terrific and Lexicon is the only upgrade I'd even consider (but can't possibly afford). When my mom's Sony ES HT reciever went out, I bought her a new Marantz SR 4400 to replace it. She's 82 years old and enjoys HT. If anything ever happens to my B&K, I'll be looking to Marantz.

I can't comment on NAD, but I am very pleased with Marantz receivers. I own from the Reference Series two SM-17 amps bridged for 200w/c with a PM-17 integreted receiver as a preamp. The sound is slightly warm but very crisp and would rival more expensive units.
I also own a PM-74D integrated quarter-A amp with 100 w/c for a bedroom system and a SR-7000 100w/c A/V receiver for surround. All great sound and great value.
john

I thought the NAD leaned more towards the middle as for as sound goes. Marantz was a touch warmer. But in the same price range I found the NAD to be more detailed in the presentation. If I recall the Marantz PM-7200 has a nice feature. You can switch it to class a @ 30 watts.

I do however like the apperance of the NAD much better. The Marantz looks like a blakc blob to me.

88