• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

I admit it looks are everything...

legalalien

legalalien

Well-Known Member
I have finally caved in to the fact that the look of certain equipment has become the overriding factor for my recent and future audio acquisitions. I recently parted ways with a museum grade Marantz 2275 that sounded exquisite with my NLA's. NOT because I disliked its looks, it's plenty pretty to look at. I simply feel that the Yamaha CR1020 is the most elegant, refined and classy looking piece of audio equipment I've ever seen, so I want one.

I recently found a mint pair of Yamaha NS690's that I scooped up from CL. I loved the looks of them and really hoped they sounded good and thankfully they delivered. In fact I preferred them over my beloved NLA'S, so I thought why not pair them up with a 1020 and have the all Yamaha system I've always wanted. So out went the Marantz (and maybe the NLA'S) and now I've got to find a pristine 1020 and I'll be in audio heaven.

I admit that it was the looks of the Yammy stuff that lead me there but it still had to bring the goods sonically (which it did). I wonder how many of us put the looks of their equipment into the equation of their audio purchases?
 
Register to hide this ad
I never really thought the Marantz was that great looking. I mean, they looked good, but definitely not among the best. To me, the Sansui G series was the most magnificent looking receiver I have ever seen. But as far as aesthetics go, I have always chosen the better sounding receiver in the end. I debated between a Pioneer SX-680 and a Sansui 2000A, I went with the 2000A even though the Pioneer was so damn shiny and cool.
 
I agree that aesthetics are really important, but sound quality is important as well. To me, if the looks are there, but the sound quality is lacking, I will go with sound quality.

I really like the looks of the Marantz series of receivers from the late '70's, and luckily for me they sound great as well. I have a 2252B which is my personal favorite in the aesthetics department. I also have a 2238B which is in the same series and looks much the same. I have a slightly earlier '70's 2250B as well (which I happen to be listening to right now), and while it sounds great, it just doesn't quite do it for me in the looks department quite like the 2252B does. I guess it just boils down to personal taste. The Yamaha gear is really nice too, but for me Marantz is where it's at. But as they say, opinions are like belly buttons. Everyone has one.

Here is my favorite pic of my 2252B. The looks of this thing just sets my heart pounding. It is just so sweet to look at, as well as to listen to.

IMG_2058_zps7dc7cbac.jpg
 
So , you have cloth surround woofer 690s. The first version of that speaker. I'd pull the crossover and recap with good quality caps.
I've owned a pair of 690s since the late '70s, back when most of the guys were buying the buncha drivers in a box speakers.
I love my Yamaha 3 ways. In most ways, a properly designed speaker.
 
I want to be clear sound quality still matters, but all alse being equal (or close) I go for the stuff thats pleasing to the eyes as well, namely vintage Yamaha.
 
Agree with Treker. Marantz "B" receivers are among the best looking with the 2252B leading the way. Yamaha CR1020 is very close to the top. I too, am a sucker for a pretty face, but I won't marry it unless she can do other things equally well.
 
legalalien said:
...I admit it looks are everything...
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.

If you are comparing competitive, popular consumer gear from the 70's and 80's, the simple fact is they all sounded decent. (OK, someone will come up with some glaring exception) But for the most part, they had to, or they'd get lousy 'reviews' in the rags of the day, and not be successful in the marketplace. The different gear was primarily distinguished on the basis of little features, and cosmetics.

I pick gear that's still in good condition, and has pleasing design aesthetics, with no regrets so far as far as 'sound' goes. (speakers being the exception)
 
Luxman L-3
DSCF0586.jpg
I love how this entire front panel only has one tiny red lamp glowing when it's powered on.

One thing that really bugs me about Marantz is that font. They can write "marantz" in that font, fine, but when they use that same font on the bass/treble and balance controls it just makes me want to grind them off and screen some Helvetica back on.
 
+1 couldn't agree more

Treker said:
I agree that aesthetics are really important, but sound quality is important as well. To me, if the looks are there, but the sound quality is lacking, I will go with sound quality.

I really like the looks of the Marantz series of receivers from the late '70's, and luckily for me they sound great as well. I have a 2252B which is my personal favorite in the aesthetics department. I also have a 2238B which is in the same series and looks much the same. I have a slightly earlier '70's 2250B as well (which I happen to be listening to right now), and while it sounds great, it just doesn't quite do it for me in the looks department quite like the 2252B does. I guess it just boils down to personal taste. The Yamaha gear is really nice too, but for me Marantz is where it's at. But as they say, opinions are like belly buttons. Everyone has one.

Here is my favorite pic of my 2252B. The looks of this thing just sets my heart pounding. It is just so sweet to look at, as well as to listen to.

IMG_2058_zps7dc7cbac.jpg
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom