Just bought a Marantz PM6006, and it it disappointing
My vintage NAD7020 has been acting up, so I decided to get a Marantz PM6006 on sale. Figured if I decide to upgrade later it could become part of the AV system. I had no problems hooking up my Linn Axis turntable and ELAC Debut 6.2s. But when I started playing music, I noticed the music was muddy and high pitched. I tested on some jazz (Don Shirley “Tonal Expressions”), classical (Villa-Lobos “Bachianas Brasileiras, Nos. 4, 7”), Rock (The Grateful Dead “The Grateful Dead”) and P-Funk (Funkadelic “One Nation Under A Groove”). The only song that sounded as good as I wanted was Laurie Anderson’s “O, Superman”, with its heavy synthesizer work. Throughout each selection I noticed pronounced sibilance, and violin and harmonica were actually painful to listen to. Needless to say, I am extremely disappointed.
Granted, I am used to vintage (used) electronics, and I very much prefer the warm sound of the NAD. So, is my ear just attuned to warmer sounds? Or does the Marantz PM6006 need a burn-In period?
Anyone with any listening skills whatsoever can hear the difference. I am going through that now with my Rogue m180 darks, just got them back a week ago from getting upgraded. They sounded kind of grainy and incoherent at first but after a week of constant playing they are smoothing out and sound way bigger and more open, and the bass has also gotten better. And it's not that I am getting used to the sound, it is absolutely changing for the better.
Just came home from leaving it on all day. I am noticing a slight improvement after 10 hours. Deeper bass and less harsh treble. The snare and bass of Mikes Davis’ “Seven Steps To Heaven” coming out. Much deeper and wider sound stage. The experiment continues.
You may end up not liking the Marantz house sound in the end. Years ago I really wanted to fall in love with a PM15 S1 but it just didn’t do it for me. I took home both a Cambridge 840A and the Marantz but much preferred the 840A. On my Apogee Centuars the Marantz was too laid back for me. The Marantz didn’t do anything wrong but the Apogee’s were very revealing and the Cambridge made them dance, whereas the Marantz they didn’t. I did a project for my local Marantz/Cambridge dealer and in exchange I could pick whichever one I wanted for my services; even though the 840A was less money, that’s still the one I kept.
Marantz makes very good equipment for the money and today probably king of home theatre receivers. Their reference SACD players are great but I find their midline players do a good job but think one can do better. I don’t mind the Marantz house sound and own a few prices and know many with. For my friends looking to get into audio or video, Marantz is a safe brand to recommend. One of my employees recently bought a PM8006 and loves it.
is there much better than the PM6006 for the money? That I don’t know. If I was looking for an integrated under $2K new I’d look at the Cambridge 851A. I’ve listened to the 851A at the dealership and it seems to be a unit they use more often than Marantz and even the Parasound on Magnepan 1.7i.
Well, I have been listening to the Marantz for over a week and am just not happy with it. Maybe I’m impatient, or maybe I just don’t like the Marantz Sound. I really liked my old NAD 7020, and to me the difference between the NAD and Marantz is not to the Marantzs favor. I want a line out to digitize my records, so that really limits the number of integrated amps I can consider. I think I am just going to order a Cambridge Audio Topaz SR20 and cross my fingers.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
