Agreed, I noticed that too.

I'm sticking with 'em, as they are not for sale on the internet, have good specs, great sound and have a good reputation with my 'older' clients for audiophile sound.

since when is the denon 2807 thx ultra II

It's not. Did somebody say it was?

You did :)

CJ

I see references in here indicating the 4001 is not a TRUE zone 2 box. I also remember reading somewhere that the 4001 doesnt have discrete ir commands for Z2. Yet when I check the Marantz site, it doesnt indicate anything confirming this. AM I missing something on the site?

Also, according to the site, the 7001 does NOT have external i/r jacks, while the 4001 and 5001 DO. that doenst make sense, to skip it on the uper end models. Typo maybe?

I have a client who has an existing distributed audio system using a Russound speaker selector and volume controls in all rooms (except MB). He wants to keep the volume controls, and not add kp's. I will be using RTI for 2 media rooms, and would like to add WWA functionality to the those remote. (He also specidifed wanting THX certified, hence the reason for the 7001)


So,
Can anyone confrim:

Does the 7001 have an i/r jack?
Does the 4001 have independent/dedicated source z2 speaker outputs?
Does the 4001 and/or 5001 have discrete z2 i/r commands?

Thanks

Hey Frank, look at the website. The 4001 has a "same source" Z2. No independent source.

OK, now I see it. I was looking in the "comparison chart", but now I see its right onthe main page.

Thanks

I must have had a brain misfire. The Denon 2807 is not THX Certified at all.

I may have been thinking that the 8500 was Select Certified while the new 8500 is Select2 certified.

The thing about the new Marantz's is that the older models can't be directly compared to the new models as "replacements" since the feature set is so much different.

For example, the 8500 and the 8001 have the same wattage, toroidal transformer, copper chassis, etc. but is much pricier due to more features, while the 70001 is $100 more than the old 8500, but has less wattage, no toroidal, more features than the 8500.

Kind of a completely different line, which I believe is indicative of the change in numbering schemes.

Question: Since the 7001 is $100 more than the older 8500, and has lower wattage and no toroidal transformer, I am wondering if the toroidal transformer and the copper chasssis really makes much of a difference?

For me to "upgrade" to get the new features and not spend much more than I did for my 8500, I would go to the 7001, which has the less wattage, EI instead of toroidal, and no copper chassis.

For the $$$, I no longer have the choice of the toroidal and copper with the 125 watts without a huge price increase.

So, again, is toroidal that much better, if any better, than EI?

Does the copper chassis make any difference in real life?

Does the 125 watts make a huge difference, or is that related to also having the toroidal transformer?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

The term you are looking for is "brain fart"

Need dymaic range... real power... toroidal transformer.

All the best amps I have ever delt with were built on these.

I had that in mind, but chose not to use it......... ;-)

-----

Springs: Thanks for the info on the toroidal transformer.

I've installed two 5001s' and the subtle improvements are quite nice. The fidelity seemed to be the same but this was hardly a high end system so it's hard to say what this means for Marantz fidelity.

Assuming the power is measured the same way the difference between 110w and 125w is meaninless, however I don't see much reason to upgrade.