Marantz are good AV receivers. They share a common base platform with the equivalent Denon receivers, but the Marantz units are further tweaked for musical performance.
There's a lot of commonality between the SR6013 and 7013 models. The obvious main difference is that the 7013 is an 11 channel amp compared to 9 channels on the 6013. However, the 6013 has pre-outs for the two extra channels, so with a suitable stereo power amp, it can equal the ATMOS capabilities of the 7013.
While both models you've been quoted on with handle basic 5.1, they really are suited to running larger systems with more speakers. Simple question then: Do you need all the features that these amps provide, or could you step down a model and use the saved cash in some other more beneficial area?
The SR5013 is a 7.2 amp. Compared to the 6013, it gives away 10W/ch (see #1), you don't have eARC (see #2), or dual independent sub control (see #3), and there's a different version of Audyssey EQ (see #4).
What difference do these features make?
#1 100W vs 110W - honest answer, not a lot. AV receiver power figures are largely a work of fiction based on some unrealistic scenarios to get "good" numbers
# 2 eARC - We've had Audio Return Channel on HDMI for a few years now. It pumps audio from the TV down the HDMI cable, so when you're watching the TVs Netflix app then you got to hear the sound via an external sound system without the need to hook up another cable; this was the Optical connection.
Personally, I never had a problem with an additional connection. One extra 'wire' trunked in to a wall or hidden behind the TV stand wasn't ever a big issue to me. Since TVs largely limited their audio pass-thru to Dolby Digital then it wasn't as if anything was being lost. Both standard ARC and Optical max out at DD/DTS 5.1. Things are changing though. Apps for Netflix and other streaming services are starting to add ATMOS-enabled sound in the format of Dolby Digital Plus.
There are a lot of ducks to get in a row before the full benefit of eARC is realised. You have to have a TV with eARC, and be playing that TV's built-in apps, and the streaming apps must carry audio that requires the extra bandwidth that eARC accommodates, and you have to have an audio system set up to take advantage of ATMOS sound. If one or more of those elements are missing, then the benefit of eARC evaporates. Conclusion: if eARC comes included in the price of an AV receiver, then great. However, I wouldn't pay extra for it as a standalone feature.
#3 Independent dual sub control - Where a set-up uses more than one sub either to provide more power or to smooth out the in-room bass response, having an amp that can measure and adjust for each independently is useful. Whenever a sub is moved to a new position, it changes the way that the bass interacts with the room. Bear in mind though that the basic mic/wizard speaker set-up routine for most AV receivers is quite crude, and that's because bass is the most difficult audio range to EQ electronically.
#4 Audyssey MultiEQ XT (SR5013) vs Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 (SR6013/7013)
Audyssey is a 3rd party EQ system. It works pretty well. 'XT' is much better than the basic Audyssey MultiEQ. The XT32 is a refinement on that with greater resolution for the processing points. All electronic Room EQ systems try to fix problems by applying a sort of graphic equaliser function to problem frequencies. It's actually a bit more sophisticated than that, but you get it that's it's the sort of the principle. There are limits to what can be achieved, and also limits to where and how much should be applied.
Processing above 500Hz is relatively simple in effect because it's dealing with the nature of surfaces in the room - reflective, absorbative, scattering. As standard though, automatic room EQ above 500Hz tend to mess up the midrange frequencies by trying to kill to much reverberence. That's largely because the mic for the EQ system doesn't hear the room in the same way we do. We're able to focus on the sound from the speakers and give less weight to the sounds bouncing back from the room. The omnidirectional mics supplied with receivers just hear everything, and so they kill more of the reverb than is strictly necessary. XT32 throws a lot of processing power at the upper frequency range where, IMO, it's not really required.
Dealing with bass, and the tricky room transition frequencies from 200Hz to 300Hz where bass problems such as standing waves give way to room reflection issues is something that most built-in EQ struggles with. XT and XT32 are equal in this regard. They both have the same sampling resolution.
Where the Audyssey systems come in to their own is when you move away from the one-size-fits-all approach of generic room EQ curves and start to use custom settings. There are two levels of this. The first is access to the Audyssey processing engine via a simple smart phone / table app for Android or iOS. This allows the EQ to be limited in the range it is applied to; so you could have it working below 300Hz only. That's a good thing. Secondly, you can move (some of?) the unused filter points down in to this lower frequency range to improve controllability. Last time I checked, the Audyssey MultiEQ app was around £20 sterling. That's worth it in my book for the extra control it gives if you're interested in tweaking.
There's an Audyssey Pro kit for dealers/installers only. It's a more expensive bit of kit with better mics, a special pre-amp and access to create custom filters that better suit an individual room. Have a chat about this service with your dealer.
Bottom line - XT32 is less invasive than the simpler XT system in the upper frequency range if you just want to press the auto button. XT and XT32 are equal if you get the app and put in a bit of time to tweak. XT32 doesn't offer any advantages I can see if you go for a pro-install set-up and the dealer knows their stuff.
- I get the keys on the 25th so I don't have long to wait until I can get in with a measuring tape and figure out my layout.