¿Cual mejor?

no he escuchado el Maranzt. Lo siento Demy, lo que si que te digo es que como creo conocer,jejeje, las cajas que mas o menos vas a elegir, si te aseguro na sinergia,compatibilidad,buen funcionamiento,como quieras llamarlo,da igual, con el NAD que citas. Tambien te digo que dudo mucho que el Marazt vaya mal tambien, puesto que dan gusto los productos de Maranzt. Pero te digo, no he escuchado ese Maranzt.

Yo creo que el NAD es una muy buena opcion para las Focal. Te lo digo por experiencia.

¿Teneis mas opiniones al respecto?

Jolin, es que sois "mu" listos,Capitan seguro que seras por lo menos "detestive privao" , sí, creo que me ves venir y esta vez definitivamente, ya no voy a darle mas vueltas al asunto, os voy a seguir dando mas pistas:¿Que tal Marantz SR5500 + PM7200, suena bien eh!!!!!!
A proposito, es verdad lo que dice Pink, no sé si estas llorando o es que se te ha metio algo en un ojo....¡señor!¡si señor!!!¿Que diferencias hay entre el SR7400 y el nuevo SR5500? Abrazos.

Hola,

Solo quiero comentaros que el marantz PM 7200KI (o sea la versión firmada por el gurú Ken Ishiwata) ha sido seleccionado entre los mejores componenentes del año por la sección de audio de la prestigiosa revista inglesa de música clásica Gramophone. La sección de audio de esa revista, aparte de no incluir publicidad sobre Marantz, tiene fama de elitista y de centrarse en componentes "raros", y sin embargo ya véis, ha elegido el PM7200.

Saludos

Y si tuvieseis que elegir entre el Marantz PM7200KI y el Primare I20 ¿Cual ?Pregunta de examen....

Demy,

Según HiFi Choice las diferencias entre el modelo básico del PM7200 y el KI son más bien pequeñas. Asimismo no encuentran diferencias al cambiar entre modo A y modo AB. Te transcribo la crítica completa:

Given the way we (and plenty of you, evidently) reacted to the basic, non-signature, PM7200, why on earth would Marantz want to upgrade it? Let's see: we accused it of having "bags of power... remarkable refinement... bass goes down for miles...". Okay, you get the idea. But we also pointed out that, bargain though it may be, it's not part of the real high-end pantheon.

So has Ken Ishiwata's signature on the front changed that? What, in fact, has he changed apart from the badge? Most obvious is the chassis, now entirely copper-plated inside and out. It's pretty and it's also functional, improving the conductivity of the metalwork and hence making it more effective at keeping interference out. Internally there are some component changes and a new toroidal mains transformer, entirely wrapped in copper foil to reduce electrostatic interference. Keeping with the theme, power transistors are also now covered with a copper-plated shield, and some internal wiring has been changed from stranded to solid core.

The biggest practical difference all these changes seem to make is to reduce the output power. Continuous output is just a little under 100 watts and peak output is around 110 watts, the former less than 1dB below the standard amp but the latter more like 2dB down. Put in those terms, it's not a big problem, and frankly you're still looking at a pretty powerful lump: it's also a little more assured into lower impedances so there is a quid pro quo. What may prove to be an issue is that hum is slightly increased compared with the standard model, at least on the review sample. This is almost certainly due to magnetic interference from the new transformer - copper foil doesn't do much about that, unfortunately. It's a buzzy,
high-frequency sort of hum on the left channel and with sensitive speakers it may just become audible at typical listening distances: however, the way toroidal transformers are made is inherently slightly inconsistent and levels of hum may vary between units.

In case you missed the original PM7200 review, here's a quick recap. This is an integrated amp with a fairly typical set of features - bypassable tone and balance controls, twin speaker outputs, plenty of inputs including phono and a remote control. But it also has unusually high power around the 100-watts mark plus the distinguishing feature of a choice of operating modes - high power Class AB or medium power (around 30 watts) Class A. In both original and KI units, Class A holds up to ten watts or a little under, so strictly speaking it's really highly enhanced Class AB. You can switch between the modes on the fly, which makes for fascinating comparisons, though in practice, at power levels within the Class A envelope, both we and at least one HFC correspondent found that differences are often so small as to make one wonder whether anything has changed.

Apart from the KI changes, construction is good inside and out but the casework is prone to resonance and a little damping wouldn't go amiss. This is easy for the user to experiment with of course, but if you're going to use Class A mode don't block up the ventilation slots! There's quite a lot of heat to get rid of and watching your hi-fi catch fire can seriously spoil a listening session...

SOUND QUALITY
It's been a while since the basic 7200 left HFC but luckily one such unit (not the one we reviewed) was also on hand for part of the listening tests, which reduced reliance on memory. At least one recollection proved correct: it's a very capable amp. Probably the toughest test of any true audiophile amp - high-power ones, anyway - is the extent to which it can fully take charge of any given speaker and show it who's the boss. That's also the area where budget amps have come on most obviously over the past decade or so, and while the 7200 isn't going to displace many Krells from their owners' affections it shows a lot more aptitude in that area than previous sub-£500 amps. Give it some high-energy programme in any musical genre and it will keep a tighter rein, with correspondingly tauter definition especially across the bottom couple of octaves, than one might expect from it.

It's probably in that department where the KI shows the most marked improvement over the basic 7200. And it's an interesting comparison too, not quite as simple as just being tauter or more extended. In fact it sometimes sounds less extended but that's not the actual case. What is actually happening, as becomes much clearer on extended listening and comparison with high-end references, is that the limits of the non-KI are being reached with some very tough basslines and its grip is relaxing just sufficiently to allow just a little bass bloat.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *... CONTINUA

CONTINUACIÓN ...

The KI, on the other hand, is less easily rattled and holds on just that little bit longer, keeping the sound together and under better control, with less immediate impact but noticeably more detail and definition. There's also no feeling that the sound is being restricted in any way, and perhaps the best way to describe the overall effect is that the KI sounds somehow smoother in the way it handles the bass. For an intuitive analogy of sorts, think of two stones of equal size, a rough piece of sandstone and a polished piece of granite. Despite its sophisticated finish, the granite clearly is the tougher and harder - and frankly more interesting - of the two. The KI feels a little like that.

Pseudo-poetic bass apart, what of higher frequencies? The difference seems less marked here. The midrange of both amps is very detailed, highly neutral and very well defined spatially, leading to excellent stereo imaging. Just occasionally, listeners felt that the basic amp had the edge in image specificity over the KI, but if there was a difference it was so small as to be barely repeatable. The KI did seem to offer slightly more depth though, in most cases. As for the treble, again the KI had a slight advantage in cleanliness, though in a couple of tracks the basic appeared to be slightly ahead on extension and 'air'.

And as we found the first time round, switching from Class A to Class AB mode can often be a complete non-event. Obviously if you drive the amp flat out in Class AB and switch to Class A the resulting distortion will be blindingly obvious and very horrible, but short of extreme cases like that there's very little to hear. Maybe, just maybe, Class A is a little sweeter and more clearly defined tonally with well-recorded acoustic material, but then Class AB seems more detailed in quiet passages. Experiment by all means - it can't do any harm and however you look at things you'll be in little doubt that you're listening to a very fine amp.

So to the crunch: does the 50 per cent price hike justify itself? It's hard to say. If the 7200 didn't exist we'd recommend the 7200 KI at £500 like a shot anyway. Probably the fairest way to deal with this is to say that the law of diminishing returns very slightly favours the basic model, but the KI is a damn fine £500 amp in its own right. If you can afford the difference, audition it, but if you can't, then don't bother gnashing your teeth over it. It is, after all, just a matter of taste.

Hola a todos.

La cuestion que plantea DEMY es comprar un AV como el 5500 para cine y un integrado el 7200 para escuchar musica en stereo.

Ambos aparatos tienen una potencia similar, de lo que se deduce que la diferencia entre ambos aparatos estaria en la calidad de sonido.

Yo me pregunto ¿realmente es apreciable la diferencia en la calidad de sonido stereo entre el AV y el integrado citados?

Eso tambien quiero saberlo yo,aunque mi intencion es la dedicar un ampli integrado solo para musica y el receptor(modesto y de entrada de gama) para el cine y demas, , esta buscado a proposito para que sea así y que la timbrica sea la misma ,al ser de la misma marca,en resumen, timbrica igual y potencia igual (o parecida)por lo que no habria diferencias al oir sonido de peliculas.Mas opiniones?
Saludos.
Edito: AMG,has cogido la idea perfectamente,los expertos nos diran lo de la calidad ,pero creo que si que la habrá.

Hola DEMY

pues parece logico que un amplificador dedicado estereo sera mejor para este cometido que uno multicanal, pero como en este foro es han hecho tan buenas criticas sobre el 5500 en el apartado estereo musical me preguntaba si realmente seria apreciable la diferencia entre el AV 5500 y el integrado 7200.

Permiteme que aproveche yo tambien para realizar la siguiente consulta:

¿Cual de estas dos combinaciones os parece mas acertada?

amplificador integrado NAD 352 unos 453 euros
reproductor de CD NAD C542 unos 375 euros
TOTAL=828 euros aproximadamente.

amplificador integrado MARANTZ PM7200 unos 360 euros
reproductor de CD MARANTZ 7300 unos 410 euros
TOTAL=770 euros.

lo dicho ¿cual de ellas os parece mejor? y si es posible indicarme el por que, muchas gracias.

Iniciado por DEMY

Y si tuvieseis que elegir entre el Marantz PM7200KI y el Primare I20 ¿Cual ?Pregunta de examen....

Según las críticas de revistas y foreros el PM7200 desafía a cualquier ampli estereo de la horquilla de precios en la que se sitúa el Primare, del cual hay también estupendas referencias. Pero la única forma de averiguarlo es probando. Si no puedes probar, y ante la duda, yo entonces me iría por la opción más barata, que es la combinación Marantz 7200+5500. Pero aun así me hago la misma pregunta que vosotros. ¿Es tanto lo que puede aportar el 7200 a la escucha estéreo que no se pueda conseguir con un receptor A/V? ¿Se notará la diferencia? Me temo que la única forma de salir de dudas es probando. Te has planteado también la posibilidad de comprarte solo un receptor A/V pero de más nivel, como el Denon 3805?

Saludos

Iniciado por amg72

Hola DEMY

pues parece logico que un amplificador dedicado estereo sera mejor para este cometido que uno multicanal, pero como en este foro es han hecho tan buenas criticas sobre el 5500 en el apartado estereo musical me preguntaba si realmente seria apreciable la diferencia entre el AV 5500 y el integrado 7200.

Permiteme que aproveche yo tambien para realizar la siguiente consulta:

¿Cual de estas dos combinaciones os parece mas acertada?

amplificador integrado NAD 352 unos 453 euros
reproductor de CD NAD C542 unos 375 euros
TOTAL=828 euros aproximadamente.

amplificador integrado MARANTZ PM7200 unos 360 euros
reproductor de CD MARANTZ 7300 unos 410 euros
TOTAL=770 euros.

lo dicho ¿cual de ellas os parece mejor? y si es posible indicarme el por que, muchas gracias.

No he escuchado la segunda combinación, pero sí la primera y me ha gustado. Lo que sí me han dicho es que mucho mejor el NAD 352 CT que el modelo básico 352; la principal modificación está en los circuitos de alimentación y en ciertos transistores, lo que se ha traducido en graves más controlados.

Como siempre, la única forma de salir de dudas entre dos opciones es mediante una audición comparada, preferiblemente en la misma sala y, por supuesto, con la misma música.

Saludos

gracias mozart por las respuestas.

te haria otra pregunta, si el receptor A/V es un yamaha 640 ¿mereceria la pena la inversion en un integrado como el marantz 7200 o el nad 352 CT para escuchar musica en stereo?

gracias.

Hola, estoy en el mismo dilema ,Nad ,marantz o rotel, posiblemente me decante por el nad, pero donde conseguir el nad 352 ct? esta version del nad no la encuentro en la pagina de Nad ni en tiendas de internet. Se vende en España?

Saludos y Feliz 2005