1 of 6 pictures

Hover to zoom

Marantz SR7005 AV receiver
Marantz SR7005 AV receiver

6 Pictures - Marantz SR7005 AV receiver

  • Marantz SR7005 AV receiver
  • Marantz SR7005 AV receiver
  • Marantz SR7005 AV receiver
  • Marantz SR7005 AV receiver
  • Marantz SR7005 AV receiver
  • Marantz SR7005 AV receiver


January 7, 2011, 5:27 pm

Reviews such as this serve only to induce further buyers remorse in whatever capable receiver you already have. Still that blue LED ring on the fascia will irritate me of somewhat.


January 7, 2011, 5:59 pm

I'm a bit puzzled by this sentence in the verdict - especially in regard to effects placement:

"The combination of insightful detail, awesome power and precise, expansive effects placement makes the Marantz a master of its craft and for that reason it&#8217s worth every penny of its price tag".

Can you explain what you mean by "precise, expansive effects placement"? Does that mean cheaper/inferior AV receivers place sound effects less accurately or in the wrong place?!

Jim 7

January 7, 2011, 10:56 pm

Also, why does every AV receiver review here seem to use different source material? How can you accurately compare one receiver playing Iron Man 2 against another playing Inception? Much of this review sounds like frothy, audiophiliac nonsense (to my ears, at least).

Mike B

January 8, 2011, 1:17 am

The problem is once you move up to receivers that cost above about £600 the differences become far more subtle and the the preferences are in the ear of the beholder! I have the Yamaha RX-V2067 and am very happy with its performance. This unit tends to get 4 star reviews over the Pioneer LX53 but in fact it all depends heavily on the other components, in particular the speakers. For my Monitor Audio RS package the Yamaha produces a better overall, more balanced and natural sound than the Pioneer produces with the same speakers. Some may prefer the Pioneer sound over the Yamaha but this ends up as personal preference.

As Jim pointed out unless the listening room, other equipment and source material are the same it is hard to make a totally critical evaluation. It would also require a panel of listeners to ensure all tastes were catered for in the trial.

In other words reviews like this can only point you towards a range of devices to look at but in your own home and with your own equipment it may sound different to what any reviewer says!

dan pugh

January 8, 2011, 2:09 pm

I have older version (7002) for many years in several rooms. Its great for both surround and music (which is a rare event), but also looks much nicer than most. Its worth noting that marantz phone (not email) support is brilliant, and warranty for mine is 5 years. Definately demo before buying as subjective issue. The majority (my brother) go for onkyo on price. I'm glad I didn't


January 8, 2011, 4:10 pm

Little confused, if it's worth every penny for it's price tag, how come you only gave it 8/10 for value ?


January 10, 2011, 7:33 pm

Any chance of a response to our questions, Danny?

Danny P

January 11, 2011, 8:35 pm

@Jim 7: I like to use a range of Blu-ray discs to test home cinema products. I play my staple discs like Hellboy II, The Dark Knight etc on everything but when decent new discs like Iron Man 2 or Inception come along I check them out too &#8211 saying the same things about the same scenes can get monotonous so using more recent films is my attempt to inject a bit of freshness into the reviews. It&#8217s good to hear how products cope with lots of different scenes, after all you don&#8217t just watch one film at home do you?

And I&#8217d be interested to hear any advice you have on how to write 1,000 words on an AV receiver and its sonic characteristics so I can avoid making it sounding like &#8216frothy, audiophiliac nonsense&#8217 in the future.

@Metalex: Some receivers are better than others at separating, steering and projecting sound than others and therefore give you a better sense of your place within the soundstage. I&#8217m not saying that inferior receivers don&#8217t place effects accurately but there are subtle differences in how widely effects are dispersed and how clearly they emerge from the speakers. Mike B has nailed it with his comment &#8211 it&#8217s not an exact science, I&#8217m just describing my thoughts on its sound quality as a prompt for you to check it out yourself and see if you agree.

@Super: Yeah, tricky one. It&#8217s still quite expensive, had it been a bit cheaper I might have given it more. Getting this level of performance and this many features from, say, a £700 receiver may have earned a higher value mark.

Jim 7

January 12, 2011, 2:35 am

@Danny P: So how do you know (and by extension, how do we know) that you can attribute those characteristics to the receiver, and not the source material, or the speakers, or the gauge of speaker cable, or the room, or the temperature, or any of countless other variables if you don't use the same set up every time? It might make for a dry review, but at least it would be something quantifiable. Could you at least do A/B testing alongside a baseline receiver to compare? Anyway, thanks for the response.

Danny P

January 12, 2011, 6:52 pm

@Jim 7: I do use the same setup everytime - speakers, Blu-ray player, films - and compare it to my reference receiver every time, the Onkyo TX-NR906. I just don't talk about the same film every time.


January 26, 2012, 2:27 am

Danny in the process of buying a new receiver read both your reviews on the onkyo txnr1009 and the marantz sr7005 love action movies do not listen to much music any thoughts thanks dow

comments powered by Disqus