Marantz SR7015 AV Amplifier Review & Comments

I'm under the impression that the topology of the SR8015 is different to that associated with the Marantz models below it? For instance, it has a centrally mounted toroidal transformer. Some of its components are specific to that model and the chassis is copper plated to better isolate the internal components. Whether this really makes a difference is subjective though. If there are any audible differences then they will be marginal, but isn't that the case will all things hifi and don't people spend inordinate amounts to attain these marginal gains?

My present AV amp (Denon AVC A11XV) has the same arrangement with regards to having its transformer centrally located as with its (physically) much bigger brother at the time, the AVC A1XV. This gives you two separate heat sinks as opposed to one as with the latest SR8015 and the out going (gone) SR8012. This is not the case with the lesser expensive Marantz models as well as with the Denon range. Interestingly these latest beasts do not have what I have at the moment, which is optical "outs" as well as "ins", but only inputs for some inexplicable reason, go figure!!! o_O 🤔

The Denon 8500 and the 110 anniversary model, which is based on the 8500's design, also has the same centrally positioned transformer arrangement. This gives you (as with my present AV amp) mono block power amp construction, i.e left and right separated. I am looking forward to our very own "Count" Withers review on the Denon 110 to see if it really is worth its premium over and above both the Marantz SR8015 as well as its 8500 stable mate which it's based on.
 
I'm under the impression that the topology of the SR8015 is different to that associated with the Marantz models below it? For instance, it has a centrally mounted toroidal transformer. Some of its components are specific to that model and the chassis is copper plated to better isolate the internal components. Whether this really makes a difference is subjective though. If there are any audible differences then they will be marginal, but isn't that the case will all things hifi and don't people spend inordinate amounts to attain these marginal gains?
You are correct. I've just moved from an Sr7011 to the sr8015 and there is a noticeable difference. Has the same signature sound, but there is definitely more lower down depth and control. The toroidal transformer is enormous - it looks to be the same one as is in the mm8077, which I also have. I've also owned the slimline models, and you'll notice a difference even if you went up to the sr7015.
 
After looking at our classifieds, I have lost interest in buying brand new AV products at full price mainly AVR, Speakers etc. The price drops these are going through is shocking.
 
ASR have review the latest batch of Denon and Marantz, and put the Denon systems as "cleaner" with less noise and distortion on the DAC end.
 
The approach taken by ASR is to base an apraisal pirely upon bench test results. THe issue with this is that it totally disregards the way amp or an AV receiver actually sounds. Matants have a long reputation associated with how their audio components sound and Marantz purposefully tune their products in alignment with that signature sound. The fact of the matter is that Marantz AV receivers invariable sound better when portraying musical sources than the comparative Denon models. They are purposefully tuned differently. It is pointless suggesting anyone buy a hifi or AV product purely based upon bench test results. The AV receiver has to appease a listener and not someone looking at graphs.

Maybe amirm would do well to actually start listening to the products he claims to be reviewing as opposed to trying to churn out bench test results on a production line basis? The test should be ancillary anf not the primary objective.
 
Last edited:
Im not sure quite what it says about Marantz receivers when reviewers can apparently copy/paste reviews from several generations ago, and still get by;

The SR7011 comes with the standard Marantz remote control, which uses a black brushed metal effect and a silver trim. It's sensibly laid out, with well spaced and large buttons that make it quite ergonomic to operate, comfortable to hold and easy to use with one thumb,

(ref here for the original)

Not much evolution or innovation? Solidly built to stand the test of time?
 
Last edited:
The approach taken by ASR is to base an apraisal pirely upon bench test results. THe issue with this is that it totally disregards the way amp or an AV receiver actually sounds. Matants have a long reputation associated with how their audio components sound and Marantz purposefully tune their products in alignment with that signature sound. The fact of the matter is that Marantz AV receivers invariable sound better when portraying musical sources than the comparative Denon models. They are purposefully tuned differently. It is pointless suggesting anyone buy a hifi or AV product purely based upon bench test results. The AV receiver has to appease a listener and not someone looking at graphs.

Maybe amirm would do well to actually start listening to the products he claims to be reviewing as opposed to trying to churn out bench test results on a production line basis? The test should be ancillary anf not the primary objective.
If the amount of noise in the DAC is so high that it cannot tell what is noise and what is CD bit data, anything from there onwards is amplified noise.
 
If the amount of noise in the DAC is so high that it cannot tell what is noise and what is CD bit data, anything from there onwards is amplified noise.

Sorry, but you heard what and when? Please post some graphs so people can see what you experienced.


and by the way, its the exact same DAC as used onboard the Denon products.
 
Last edited:
Im not sure quite what it says about Marantz receivers when reviewers can apparently copy/paste reviews from several generations ago, and still get by;

Not much evolution or innovation? Solidly built to stand the test of time?
When you are solidly built to stand the test of time you don't need evolution or innovation....:smashin:
A maratz remote is equivalent to the crocodile which is pretty much unchanged for 55 million years.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it...;)
 
When you are solidly built to stand the test of time you don't need evolution or innovation....:smashin:
A maratz remote is equivalent to the crocodile which is pretty much unchanged for 55 million years.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it...;)

I used to use a crocodile to change channels on my Virgin Media STB.



Have I ever told anyone here the story of how I lost my right leg?
 
When you are solidly built to stand the test of time you don't need evolution or innovation....:smashin:
A maratz remote is equivalent to the crocodile which is pretty much unchanged for 55 million years.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it...;)

Well, I've had this model Marantz remote since the pre-cambrian, and I'd really like to see MUCH better backlighting on it.I now have two, and the backlight could only be charitably referred to as insipid on both.
 
Sorry, but you heard what and when? Please post some graphs so people can see what you experienced.


and by the way, its the exact same DAC as used onboard the Denon products.




Just because they use the same DAC doesn't mean the performance is the same, if the rest of the circuit is noisy.

People should hold receivers to higher scrutiny, when people review a TV we comment on how the picture looks, and turn off all the "special features" noise etc etc, how is wanting a receiver to play music cleanly any different?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't heard either, but objectively if you want to hear your music etc, the Denon is closer to as the artist intended.
 
I haven't heard either, but objectively if you want to hear your music etc, the Denon is closer to as the artist intended.
Do you think an artist has a particular measurement in mind when recording ?
 
I haven't heard either, but objectively if you want to hear your music etc, the Denon is closer to as the artist intended.

According to who? You'll never hear it as the artist or the recording engineer did when it was recorded, not unless you were sat next to them during the recording session. Have you ever been in a recording studio?

You appear to be either implying that the review by Steve Withers is a lie or that he has no ability to quantify the quality of the sound he heard in relation to the products he reviews?

He scored the SR7015 9 for its sound quality.

The review in question and on which this thread and topic is based was done on behalf of this site by an employee of this site. Why are people posting about graphs posted to another site relative to products they've never heard?

I can only assume you are criticising the review posted here or implying the reviews posted here have no validity? Maybe Steve hasn't seen the graphs and is therefore unable to quantity what he heard correctly?
 
Last edited:
There are a couple of good videos on YouTube by Sound United, explaining the differences between the 2020 Marantz and Denon products. Worth a watch if you've not already seen them.
 
According to who? You'll never hear it as the artist or the recording engineer did when it was recorded, not unless you were sat next to them?

You appear to be either implying that the review by Steve Withers is a lie or that he has no ability to quantify the quality of the sound he heard in relation to the products he reviews?

He scored the SR7015 9 for its sound quality.

The review in question and on which this thread and topic is based was done on behalf of this site by an employee of this site. Why are peop[ple posting about graphs posted to another site relative to products they've never heard?

I can only assume you are criticising the review posted here or implying the reviews posted here have no valifity? Maybe Steve hasn't seen the graphs and is therefore unable to hear what he hears correctly?
If you look at what I haven't said anywhere that Steve has lied, and where in another thread someone asked if it was possible to have more objective testing pointed out that to do it properly requires equipment in the region of ÂŁ30,000.

I also value Steve's review very highly, and if he points out a something I take note.

What the ASR review highlights is that there are a lot of receivers out there that sound no better when using Spotify (320mbps 16bit) compared to CD or Tidal. The circuit isn't clean enough to distinguish noise from music.
 
ASR is best taken with a metric **** ton of salt in my experience, having been a little suckered by it in the past. The example being that the Bluesound Node 2i DAC is apparently dire, and the Schiit Modius DAC is one of the highest performing they have tested. But the actual differences in reality are very little, yes the Schiit is better but there is not remotely the gulf in performance that you would expect given they both prop up either end of the ASR performance chart.

So it stands to reason that their measurements of the DAC's in the Denon and Marantz are a waste of time, as they are even closer in measurement performance than the delta seen in the example above.

I believe equipment likely needs to measure well and therefore be capable of returning a strong base result on some of the basic key metrics like SNR, THD, equal channel balancing etc. But I also understand that measurements can not alone tell you if it will sound good or not, and nor does it imply that equipment will sound the same because of their measurements.
 
If you look at what I haven't said anywhere that Steve has lied, and where in another thread someone asked if it was possible to have more objective testing pointed out that to do it properly requires equipment in the region of ÂŁ30,000.

I also value Steve's review very highly, and if he points out a something I take note.

What the ASR review highlights is that there are a lot of receivers out there that sound no better when using Spotify (320mbps 16bit) compared to CD or Tidal. The circuit isn't clean enough to distinguish noise from music.



Regardless, you've implied that the review here has no consequence based upon graphs posted on another site.

Steve Withers scored the SR7015 9 for its sound quality based upon what he heard and experienced.

You cannot discount that or form an opinion of your own without you listening to the SR7015 yourself. A graph is all well and good if taken as an ancillary factor, but the person testing the products associated with those graphs is not actually listening to the products he is testing and doesn't have those products in his possession long enough to do much more than run the tests and output the associated graphs.. He appears to be churning out graphs as fast as he can so people subsequently praise him for doing something any electrical engineer can do. ASR isn't a review site and the so called reviews appear to be simply a series of graphs and or test results.

The fact he keeps implying that he is working in conjunction with many of the manufacturers baffles me. Where on earth is he getting the time to do this? He is continually sat churning out new graphs relating to different devices so how can he be devoting any time to collaboration? I'm surprised Denon didn't persue him for loss of earnings after his incorrect tests relating to one of their products.
 
Last edited:
ASR is best taken with a metric **** ton of salt in my experience, having been a little suckered by it in the past. The example being that the Bluesound Node 2i DAC is apparently dire, and the Schiit Modius DAC is one of the highest performing they have tested. But the actual differences in reality are very little, yes the Schiit is better but there is not remotely the gulf in performance that you would expect given they both prop up either end of the ASR performance chart.

So it stands to reason that their measurements of the DAC's in the Denon and Marantz are a waste of time, as they are even closer in measurement performance than the delta seen in the example above.

I believe equipment likely needs to measure well and therefore be capable of returning a strong base result on some of the basic key metrics like SNR, THD, equal channel balancing etc. But I also understand that measurements can not alone tell you if it will sound good or not, and nor does it imply that equipment will sound the same because of their measurements.
I think you are right in that its at what level is the difference no longer noticeable, 88 db vs 96 vs 107.

My point I am trying to make is if you are paying for high fidelity material, eg a 4k UHD blue-ray, (2x the cost) but only ever saw it at 1080p because of a hardware issue, would you be annoyed?

Regardless, you've implied that the review here has no consequence based upon graphs posted on another site.

Steve Withers scored the SR7015 9 for its sound quality based upon what he heard and experienced.

You cannot discount that or form an opinion of your own without you listening to the SR7015 yourself. A graph is all well and good if taken as an ancillary factor, but the person testing the products associated with those graphs is not actually listening to the products he is testing and doesn't have those products in his possession long enough to do much more than run the tests and output the associated graphs.. He appears to be churning out graphs as fast as he can so people subsequently praise him for doing something any electrical engineer can do. ASR isn't a review site and the so called reviews appear to be simply a series of graphs and or test results.

The fact he keeps implying that he is working in conjunction with many of the manufacturers baffles me. Where on earth is he getting the time to do this? He is continually sat churning out new graphs relating to different devices so how can he be devoting any time to collaboration? I'm surprised Denon didn't persue him for loss of earnings after his incorrect tests relating to one of their products.

I haven't implied anything, I haven't said the review is rubbish, or a waste of time, I said that the Denon might be cleaner. You asked for evidence, so I posted the graphs, which are evidence that there is more noise in the Marantz than the Denon.

ASR does the same testing for all the equipment that comes in, so it is just as valid for a comparison. With regards to working with people, he worked with Denon on a previous article, where there was an issue that if you connected HDMI from a pc and told the PC the amp was multichannel but only played stereo, the amp would merge all the channels into 2.0 and degraded the performance.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the review Steve. I have an order in for a 6015 myself, although I foolishly ordered it from Richer Sounds so who knows when it will arrive.

I'm intrigued to try the Dolby Height Virtualisation, as I don't have any Atmos speakers. If it works I'll be genuinely shocked, but I'll certainly give it a go.
 
Thanks for the review Steve. I have an order in for a 6015 myself, although I foolishly ordered it from Richer Sounds so who knows when it will arrive.

I'm intrigued to try the Dolby Height Virtualisation, as I don't have any Atmos speakers. If it works I'll be genuinely shocked, but I'll certainly give it a go.
It's surprisingly effective at creating a greater sense of space (as is DTS Virtual:X), but don't go in expecting miracles because it never really sounds like there are actual channels overhead.
 
I would agree that the internal DAC used within the Marantz AVR’s can be bettered.
Feed in a better quality signal from an external source or a decent turntable set up and the results can be very pleasing.
signal to noise graphs can not determine how a component sounds.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom